Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3207

Carbon of a typed page for a prospective press release for Wednesday morning, March 13, with typed memorandum: “Copy for Mr. Heath: I gave this to Mr. Street, Secy Retail Dry Goods Assn at 130 West 42, with your address and phone; so you may expect to hear from his office regarding further arrangements. Bouton  March 8”

 

 

 

(Entirely tentative, of course)

 

New York. March 12 – Speaking over a radio network last night, Spencer Heath of New York City, real estate investor and vice-president of the National Tax Relief Association, charged that sales tax advocates support their scheme with flimsy arguments. He asserted that the proposed 2% levy would injure real estate owners instead of relieving their burdens as its sponsors have claimed.

 

“Our first duty in these times,” said Mr. Heath, “is to back up national and state authorities in their efforts to restore prosperity through increasing the buying-power of the consuming public. If the sales tax is retained or increased, it is bound to diminish employment because those who formerly bought 100 pieces of goods can now buy only 98.

 

“There are two classes of people who favor the sales tax: (l) those who have not thought it through and grasped the fact that it is a forced contribution to public expenses by the class least able to bear this burden; (2) those who have thought it through and favor the sales tax for that very reason.

 

“The flimsy argument that a sales tax will reduce real estate taxes is not the result of much brainwork; it is mere juggling. The plea of realtors whose zeal outruns their discretion is being used as an excuse for loading the small-home owner and rent-payer with extra levies. Taking $120,000,000 from New York’s 12 million people means on the average $10 yearly from every man, woman and child; $40 less value in merchandise to supply the needs of three million families, most of them with incomes under $1500.

 

“Instead of advocating a tax scheme so destructive to all business, real estate owners should consider the advantage of assuming all government costs themselves and profiting through the medium of greatly increased rental income.”

                                                   END