CO-OPS AND MR. 6 MRS.
AvERAGF AMERICAN
Cor.t. from page 2
6. Is it true that co-o-'s are growing in
to monopolistic giants? ,
Ai'svrer: It is true that a good many have
grown into effective size regionally and i
that some are offeotiter-aomnctitive influ
ences nationally. But tho nearest resem
blance to a national monopoly probably aro
the California citrus co-ops, whicn have
competition from Florida and Texas, or the
walnut growers. because tneir qemoers are
free to .come or go, the co-ops are natur
ally not monopolistic. Even the biggest
arc small business compared with tho real
giants of the American business world. Al
together, the co-ops are officially esti"**
r.at£d to do 7-J billions of dollars of an
nual business, or less than a twentieth
of the national total. They are a modern?
ate offset to wealth concentration that
has been going on at a fast pace. They
have begn built mostly by weople cf small
means as a defense against monopolies. To
knock them out wculd mean more ar.d not.
less danger of monopoly.
7. Is it true'that the co-ops don’t pay
tares? If.not, just what is meant by those
making the charge?'
Answer; The co-ops, being in esscnco nart
nerships, pay every tax that is levied by
federal, state or local governments on
other business partnerships. The farmers
like other partners have to pay individ
ual income taxes on all revenue fecoivod
through the co-op or partnership.Genuine
fan'1 cooperatives are not required to pay
he corporation income tax. Freedom from
that tax is the only basis there .is for
.the '■charge of nonpayment of taxes. And
zD-az rreeaom exxenas to a±_ businesses
that aro<‘ejiihpr;partnerships or proprio**' ■
torships. | lh.$se lyhich comprise the over
whelming majority of aiall businesses* are
taxed exactly as tha-'-qb.-ops -are-taxed.- -
The refusal of the.TJ.55. Chambbfc of Comn •
r.icrco and the National Association of LJan
ufacturers to become parties to the tax
assault on the co-ops shows that the as
sault does.not-represent the sober Judg-r
ment of the ■ tank and file of business. "
he nay feel'rather far removed from'this
argument over taxes—but since this deal s'
with a Federal tax, it does effect us too.
The outcome of this argument would not
only effect"the liatanuslia Faraiefs* Cooper
ating Ass’n, but also the Llatanusha Elec
tric Ass’n as well. The'latter is as much
of a Co-op as tho first. In fact a great
deal of the present argument is aimed at
the REA since it'*was started under Feder
al Loans, and is bitterly opposed'by many
big Power-Companies in the States. .
. • ' •; \.! . >
. e all too often speak of The C30-0P as if
tho re..were only one galley. There
are tiro, and both would be affected by
a decision in favor of a Corporation Tax
on Cooperatives.
OR. f. R. SIMS
CrEflT 1ST
PALMER ALASKA
DOUGLAS HEmSTJTCH SHOP
ANCHORAGE-ALASKA-130 STh AVE.
BUTTONS-BUTTON "OLBS-BELTS and HJGKL33
C0VHR3D-S3''UH'<S-’vTAIL HEADS-Hl CTEST0ITE3
BUO fl LI OR Ally CARD
AN 0 ENJOY GOOD BOOKS
. . THIS W INTER.
U.OMAL ORDER of mOOSE
LODGE no. 79 3
. MOOSE HALL
Meets 2nd and 4th "TUESDAYS at 8:00 n.ra.
VISITING MEMBERS VJELCG ME
PEARL WHITE L'fiUnORy
sena your ciornes-t.
to the Laundry. ' A
Cur drying methods ^
are easy on clothes.
IRENE LEPAK
. • • r.
1 i i ~;W
jEAUT'y O H OP;
PERmflllEDTS
MACHINE LESS
COLD W/\W
SHAMPOOS
&
ULiflVES
nilniEGGRRPH UUORK - - i
F O'i MS
. HANDBILLS ] < - j 1
- - ,j C!IICUlAI±S
VPLLEy SETTLER OFFICE