The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, December 27, 1920, Page 6

+14.) Farm Bureau Federation in Bad Tangle “Double-Crossed” in Attempted ““Co-Operation” With Big Business - Organization, Bureau’s Own Report Shows %]N THE issue of No- vember 29, on page 14, the Nonpartisan Leader printed an article headed, “Shift . : Taxes From Rich to Poor.” cle told about a proposal to repeal the excess prof- its tax and to eliminate all income surtaxes above 20 per cent, thus relieving big business from a large share of its present taxes, and to replace these taxes with taxes upon tea, coffee, sugar and gaso- line, increased taxes upon tobacco, etc., all of which would be borne by the poor or mod- erately well-to-do. It was also stated that at the 'meeting at which these proposals were framed the American Farm Bu- reau federation was officially rep- resented. ;i Since this article was printed the Leader has received dozens of letters, of which the following is a sample: : “Editor Nonpartisan Leader: On December 3 the farm bureau held a meeting at 1. O. G. T. hall, Thompson, at which W. V. Long- ley, county agent, and Mr. Good- rich, organizer for the farm bu- reau, were present, speaking for the movement. = At the close of Mr. Goodrich’s address I asked permission to ask a question. This being granted I asked him who appointed the farm bureau rep- resentatives to. meet with the rep- resentatives of the manufacturers to ask congress to revise the in- come and excess profits tax laws and place the burden on the neces- sities of life? (See Nonpartisan Leader for November 29, page “Mr. Goodrich tried to avoid an answer, but when I insisted he an- swered the question. He said it was not true —the farm bureau | THE FINAL SHAKEDOWN l This arti-~ ¢ e ./ I & < g So TLpEZ 7 2 [ . = - L5 < the ‘annual surplus of revenue over expenses should be at least a billion dollars. s “To offset the loss of revenue from the repeal of the excess profits tax and the reductions referred to.in the income tax it recommends the following tax increases and new taxes: “1.. Increase in corporation tax to-16 per cent, $550,000,000. . “2. Quadruple stamp tax rates, $134,000,000. © “3. Increase first class postage rate to 3 cents, $72,000,000. 5 “4. Increase cigarette tax from $3 to $5 per thou- sand, $70,000,000. “5. Increase tobacco rates from 18 to 24 cents per pound, $8,000,- 000. “6. Increase to 10 per cent rates on musical instruments, candy, chewing gum and other so-called- luxuries, except automobiles, trucks and accessories, $70,000,~ 000. “7. Increase tax on perfumes, cosmetics, etc., $6,500,000. “8. Special license tax of b0 . cents per horsepower on all motor vehicles; $100,000,000. “9.. Gasoline, 1-cent per gallon, . - $45,000,000. “10. Sugar, 2 cents per pound, $200,000,000. "~ “11. Coffee, 2 cents per pound, $28,000,000. 2 “12. Tea, 10 cents per pound, $10,000.000. “Total, $1,293,500,000.” “FARMERS HAVE WON A GREAT VICTORY” “While this report is only ten- tative and will not be formally acted upon by the national indus- trial conference for several weeks, it shows the way the lines are be- ing laid for tax revision. Farm- ers have won a great victory in =3 < did not approve the program to tax the necessities of life as stated in the Nonpartisan Leader. “Was the article in the Leader Reduced prices on farin products within the last three months have cost the farmers of the United States. the enormous sum of 10 billion dollars. Big busigess apparently is not satisfied with this but must get the farmers’ small change besides, at the rate of 10 cents a pound for tea, 2 cents a pound for sugar, 2 cents a pound for coffee, a cent a' gallon for gasoline, etc. These new taxes in the course of a year, as is shown “securing the condemnation of the sales tax and the Nolan bill by the conference. They can no doubt indorse most of the proposed new true? Please let me know as the farm bureau is to hold another meeting one month from date of last meeting, De- cember 3, and I premised I would have evidence to prove the truth of the statement in the Leader. “Hallock, Minn. W. H. HAWKYARD.” LEADER ARTICLE BASED ON OFFICIAL REPORT OF FEDERATION Every word in the article of November 29 was true, unless the national headquarters of the Amer- ican Farm Bureau federation is sending out untrue reports, for the article in question was based en- tirely upon the official report sént out by the na- tional office of the American Farm Bureau federa- tion. This report, .2 somewhat lengthy one, may be found on file at the Minnesota state.headquarters of the American Farm Bureau federation, room 35, old capitol building, St. Paul, and presumably at the national and all other state offices. 5 It is entitled, “Report of National Industrial Con- ference at New York City, October 22-23, by C. V. Gregory, Special Representative for the American Farm Bureau Federation.” It states that besides Mr. Gregory, the Americafi Farm Bureau federation was represented at the : ~onference by its president, J. R. Howard, and by H. C. McKenzie of New York, chairman of the tax- ation: " .mittee. At some length the report goes ‘ato tue Nolan bill, which the American Farm Bu- reau federation officials were opposing, though it is a question upon which farmers are divided. The re- port states that the federation officials succeeded in ' getting the representatives of big business to op- oose the Nolan bill (which is somewhat of a joke 15 99 per cent of big business is against the Nolan nill amyhow) and then goes on to discuss the pro- -ram of taxes that were proposed. - by the schedule on this page, will total more than a billion dollars. The Leader made no reference to the Nolan bill, because it is a matter on which farmers are di- . vided. - However, now that the Nolan bill has been brought forward, we are printing on page 11 of this issue a short statement of the purposes of the No- lan bill and the arguments for it and against it. The portion of the American Farm Bureau fed- eration report which deals directly with the article in the Leader of November 29 is herewith printed verbatim: : i “The comrhittee recommends the repeal of the ex- cess profits tax, which will reduce estimated reve-. nues for 1921 by.$900,000,000. It also recommends that surtax on reinvested incomes be limited to 20 per cent, and that losses in business income in one year be deducted from the tax for the succeeding year. The loss from these sources will be $280,- 000,000, or a total loss of $1,180,000,000. This will be partially offset -by an increase in freight and passenger taxes of $148,000,000, leaving a net loss of $1,032,000,000. TAXES ON CONSUMERS /TO RELIEVE BIG BUSINESS “Government expenses for 1920 are estimated at $4,859,890,327. While the committee feels that ma- terial decreases can be made in the cost of running the government it does not believe that there should be any decrease in-the total amount of taxes col- lected. The government has a floating debt, con- sisting of short-time loan and tax certificates, of $2,347,790,000. This should be paid as soon as pos- sible. There are outstanding $600,000,000 worth of war savings stamps which mature January 1, 1923, and $4,241,128,295 worth of victory notes which mature May 20, 1923. In order to. meet these obli- gations, at least partially, the committee feels that PAGE SIX ‘taxes, although the wisdom of a federal tax on automobiles and gasoline is very doubtful. The farmer uses his automobile and burns gasoline main- ly for business purposes, and the proposed tax will be a tax on two necessary factors in food produc- tion.” It ‘will be noticed that the only taxes to which the American Farm Bureau federation representa- tives object at all are the proposed taxes on gaso- line and automobiles.: They make no objection whatever to the taxes of 10 cents a pound on tea, 2 cents on coffee, 2 cents on sugar, 1-cent extra on letter postage, increases of 6 cents per pound on tobacco, increases on toilet articles, etc. "The Amer- ican Farm Bureau federation officials claim that they have “won a great victory” in defeating the sales tax proposal, but if these are not sales taxes, what are they? When we boil down what happened when big busi- ness and the American Farm Bureau federation of- ficials got together, we find these net results: The American Farm Bureau federation officials got the representatives of big business to agree to oppose the Nolan bill (which 99 per cent of them opposed already). The Nolan bill would cost farm- ers owning less than $10,000 worth of land, exclu- sive of improvements, nothing, and would cost a farmer with a $11,000 farm only $10 a year. In exchange for opposition to the Nolan bill the American Farm Bureau federation officials have approved the entire tax program of big business, which calls for relieving the profiteers from all ex- cess profits taxes, cutting down the taxes on large incomes and making up this difference by forcing the common people of America to pay 3 cents on every letter they mail, 10 cents extra on every pound of tea, 2 cents extra on every pound of sugar and coffee, and thus right down the list. The new (Continued on page 12) »