Professors Decry Truman's Tax-Cut Plan

Four University economists yesterday branded President Truman's new tax-reduction proposal as an inflationary measure that will weigh heaviest on low income groups.

In his State of the Union message yesterday, Truman asked Congress to cut income taxes of both rich and poor by $40 per person, with an additional $40 reduction for each dependent. The estimated revenue loss of three billion dollars would be offset by increased levies on corporations.

"If President Truman would like to raise the cost of living still more, he has picked out a good way to do it." Sumner H. Slichter, Lamont University Professor, told the Boston Traveler.

Slichter Suggests Plan

As a better alternative, the economist suggested giving taxpayers rebates on that part of their income which they saved. "This kind of tax reduction," he said, "would stimulate saving and thus help hold down the cost of living."

Explaining his objections to the Truman proposal, Professor Slichter said, "The $40 cost of living tax credit would give people more money to spend. Industry is already producing at capacity. Consequently, if people spend their money for goods, they would simply bid up the cost of living. They would lose in higher prices what they would save in taxes."

Haberler Agrees

Slichter's view was echoed by Gottfried Haberler, professor of Economics, who said the proposal "was not a very good idea." People who are too poor to pay taxes would suffer most, he explained, since they would not receive the benefits of the $40 cut, while still suffering from the higher cost of living.

Distructors reached by the CRIMSON agreed that the program was mainly occasioned by the suppressing elections. If is calculated to do "the least economic damage without losing too much politically, Wassily W. Leontleff, professor of Economics, pointed out.

Matched against the Republican proposals, however, Truman's suggestions may be beneficial, admitted Professor of Economics Seymour E. Harris '20. "It achieves its good objectives of not reducing the tax too much," he commented. "It is certainly less inflationary than Kuntson's 20 percent slash.