Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1841-02-04
From the Bridgeport Standard.

From the Bridgeport Standard
That taxes for defraying the public expen-
ses, should fall as nearly as possible upon
every individual, i'm proportion to his ability
to pay, is a proposition, the truth of which
none will deny. As joint tenants Of an es-
tate, we should contribute in proportion to-
our interest for whatever becomes necessary
for the good of the whole. This is perfectly
just. Ii called on to contribute by any other
rule, we complain of the exaction and seek
to avoid il. Human ingenuity perhaps will
never devise system of taxation so perfect,
as not in some cases to be charged with inc
quality, but as experience brings to light the
imperfections of a system and discovers its
prominent errors and unequal bearings on
different interests, corrections should be-
made, until we have brought the system as:
near to perfection as possible.
There appears to our mind many imper-
fections in the law of this State for the as
sessment and collection of taxes. and the
most prominent, is that which makes dis
tinction between real and personal estate,
setting the former in tho list at three per cent
of its value and the latter at six per cent
The reason usually Assigned for the differ
ence is that Real estate is less productive OF
income to the owner than Personal estate.
This to some extent may be true. Bank
stock, money ut interest, and perhaps some
other kinds Of personal estate may yield a
greater nett income than lands and build
ings, but if there is really the difference
which the law seems TO contemplate, why
does il happen that so great an amount If
the wealth Of our State Is in Real estate Or
how comes il 10 maintain ITS present value
Men as they acquire money lay il out in such
way rs in their judgment will bring them
the greatest ultimate benefit. They look at
the security and the hazard and generally
prefer security OF capital with a certain tho
smaller income, to the risk of losing the cap
ital with the chance Of greater income
We believe If q correct account Of the loss
and gain of investments in this State, for, the
last ten years, could be made, large bal
ance would be found in favor of Real estate
investments. Why then should SO great n
difference be made in imposing taxes r.
Why should man who has loaned his mon
ey at interest or bought Bank stock be com
PEELED TO pay not merely double but quadru-
pla ihe ::s .!.a! ! ....!.ar does who has paid
the same amount of mency for lands OR
buildings! But the practice under the law
shows a greater inequality than the law it.
self. The law makes it the duty of the A.
SCISSORS to value and assess all lands and
separate lots by the acre, ut such average
rate as each entire tract or lot is worth IN
nsOaeS' Dwelling houses with the build
ings and bts appurtennnt thereto. shall be-
valued ut the rate which each separapss
dwelling house and lot, with the appurtenan-
ces thereof are worth IN money Now what
is the practice under this law! Why for
fear that the inhabitants Of n particular town
may pay more than their proportion of-tha
State lax, lands and buildings arc not valued
and assessed Mt one half what they would
bring in cash under the hammer. There
is not "a town in this county, probably not hM
the State. that the buildings and lands would
not he appraised 10 creditors on Execution
ut more Than double what they arc valued
by the Assessors. What is the consequence
Plainly this {; tbs owners Of Real estate do
not pay more than one fourth the tax, which
those pay who have loaned their money al
interest or in any of our stocks. We vii!
state case in proof Of our position. A. and
B. have each $1,000 in nnouey A. Pru-
dent, cautious fellow, fearful OF every thing
not absolutely certain, believes his money
can he safe nowhere else but in land act
ing up 10 this belief he purchases ten acres
at 800 per acre. B. less cautious with per-
haps o larger development OF the organ
of acquisitivcness, thinks he can make tho
most from his money by looming it to some
thriving farmer or industrious mechanic at
six per cent interest, or by purchasing $1,000
worth of Bank or Rail road stock, and does
accordingly. The assessors call on A. and
B. for their respective lists of taxable prop
erty. A. hands in his list Of ten acres OF
land, which the Assessors rs high valuation
(and the valuation will be over an average)
put down al $50 per acre, which at three
per cent makes AS list $l5. d. gives in his
$1,000 ut interest, or ten shares of stock,
which the assessors take Mt the full amount
ut six per cent, making list for b. OF $50
The State, Town and highway taxes, ara
say six cents on the dollar, AS tax, Is 90. Cts
and BIS tax 80 60. An inequality which
we think all will say is wrong. II may be
said, however, that money at interest is not
all listed that men who have much money
do not give honest lists. This to some extent
may be the case. Men who feel that the
law does them injustice are not likely 10 be
very conscientious observers of the strict
provisions Of the law. Law makers should
I've careful not to make laws 10 tempt men to
their violation in order 10 have Justice done
to themselves. But here again the practice
under the law is oppressive. II the Asses
sOrs suspect that B. has more than 81 900 at
interest. they may put down whatever sum
they may think proper, leaving to h. this
remedy Gf he happens to- find out that his;
list has been increased) to go before the
Board of Relief and swear his list down to
the actual amount which he has. Now, Mr.,
Editor. without presuming TO be very know
ing in matters of this nature, we would soli-
cit the attention of your readers to the sub
iect and inquire Of them whether in their
opinion our system would not DO improved
by altering the law 50 that all taxable prop
erty should be set in the list at the sanse per
b 49, -