The sum exempted should not be large enough to tempt the beneficiary to give up work and settle down into a life of complacent idleness, but enough to be of decided assistance to him in bringing up a family: $50,000 might be a good maximum. Above this, the rate should advance rapidly, and should be progressive, not proportional. A 50% tax on inheritances above $250,000 seems to us desirable, since large inheritances tend to interfere with the correlation of wealth and social worth, which is so necessary from a eugenic point of view as well as from that of social justice.
The Federal estate law, passed in September, 1916, is a step in the right direction. It places the exemption at $50,000 net. The rate, however, is not rapid enough in its rise: e.g., estates exceeding $250,000 but less than $450,000 are taxed only 4%, while the maximum, for estates above $5,000,000, is only 10%. This, moreover, is on the total estate, while we favor the plan that taxes not the total amount bequeathed but the amount inherited by each individual. With the ever increasing need of revenue, it is certain that Congress will make a radical increase in progressive inheritance tax on large fortunes, which should be retained after the war.
Wisconsin and California have introduced an interesting innovation by providing a further graded tax on inheritances in accordance with the degree of consanguinity between the testator and the beneficiary. Thus a small bequest to a son or daughter might be taxed only 1%; a large bequest to a trained nurse or a spiritualistic medium might be taxed 15%. This is frank recognition of the fact that inheritance is to be particularly justified as it tends to endow a superior family. Eugenically it may be permissible to make moderate bequests to brothers, nephews and nieces, as well as one's own children; and to endow philanthropies; but the State might well take a large part of any inheritance which would otherwise go to remote heirs, or to persons not related to the testator.
At present there is, on the whole, a negative correlation between size of family and income. The big families are, in general in the part of the population which has the smallest income, and it is well established that the number of children tends to decrease as the income increases and as a family rises in the social scale—a fact to which we have devoted some attention in earlier chapters. If this condition were to be permanent, it would be somewhat difficult to suggest a eugenic form of income tax. We believe, however, that it is not likely to be permanent in its present extent. The spread of birth control seems likely to reduce the negative correlation and the spread of eugenic ideas may possibly convert it into a slight positive correlation, so that the number of children may be more nearly proportional to the means of the family. Perhaps it is Utopian to expect a positive correlation in the near future, yet a decrease in the number of children born to the class of casual laborers and unskilled workers is pretty certain to take place as rapidly as the knowledge of methods of birth control is extended; and at present it does not seem that this extension can be stopped by any of the agencies that are opposing it.
If the size of a family becomes more nearly proportional to the income, instead of being inversely proportional to it as at present, and if income is even roughly a measure of the value of a family to the community—an assumption that can hardly be denied altogether, however much one may qualify it in individual cases,—then the problem of taxing family incomes will be easier. The effect of income differences will be, on the whole, eugenic. It would then seem desirable to exempt from taxation all incomes of married people below a certain critical sum, this amount being the point at which change in income may be supposed to not affect size of family. This means exemption of all incomes under $2,000, an additional $2,000 for a wife and an additional $2,000 for each child, and a steeply-graded advance above that amount, as very large incomes act to reduce the size of family by introducing a multiplicity of competing cares and interests. There is also a eugenic advantage in heavy taxes on harmful commodities and unapprovable luxuries.
THE "BACK TO THE FARM" MOVEMENT
One of the striking accompaniments of the development of American civilization, as of all other civilizations, is the growth of the cities. If (following the practice of the U. S. Census) all places with 2,500 or more population be classed as urban, it appears that 36.1% of the population of the United States was urban in 1890, that the percentage had risen to 40.5 in 1900, and that by 1910 not less than 46.3% of the total population was urban.
There are four components of this growth of urban population: (1) excess of births over deaths, (2) immigration from rural districts, (3) immigration from other countries, and (4) the extension of area by incorporation of suburbs. It is not to be supposed that the growth of the cities is wholly at the expense of the country; J. M. Gillette calculates[173] that 29.8% of the actual urban gain of 11,826,000 between 1900 and 1910 was due to migration from the country, the remaining 70.2% being accounted for by the other three causes enumerated.
Thus it appears that the movement from country to city is of considerable proportions, even though it be much less than has sometimes been alleged. This movement has eugenic importance because it is generally believed, although more statistical evidence is needed, that families tend to "run out" in a few generations under city conditions; and it is generally agreed that among those who leave the rural districts to go to the cities, there are found many of the best representatives of the country families.
If superior people are going to the large cities, and if this removal leads to a smaller reproductive contribution than they would otherwise have made, then the growth of great cities is an important dysgenic factor.