The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1846-05-02
THE MoNARCHICAL TAX Law.

THE MONARCHICAL TAX LAW.
The condemnations Of the press and
1.-The people continue to be poured out
upon this odious and unequal law.--
Since the alien and sedition era, no law
ihas aroused popular Indignation 10 so
high pitch. This feeling is not con-
fined TO the democratic ranks. The
editor Of the Cincinnati Times, quasi
whig paper, has heretofore taken oc-
casion to condemn the law, and pub
fishes in recent number, the following
communication:
Mr.. EDlToR: The late axlaw, pas
sed by the Legislature of Ohio, con-
tains some pecullarities which, | think,
deserve commentary. 1t is entitled
tan act for levying taxes on all proper
ty in this state. according 10 its true
value" But there is a great discre-
pancy between the title Of the act and
the act itself. The act not only taxes
all the property in the state, but it also
taxes credit, and upon this credit ve-
ry unequal tax is levied. There is, !
am aware, sect of politicians in the
country, who hold, and pretend to be-
lieve that credit IS money, and, if it be
money, it ought, OF course, to be taxed,
and iftaxed, it ought TO be equally tax
ed; but | very much doubt whether a
majority of the people Of Ohio are pre-
pared to assent to the proposition that
credit is money; and this is, ! believe,
the first legislative act in which the
doctrine, that credit is money, has been
assumed and made the subject of taxa
tion. This mode Of duplicating and
duplicating the taxes upon any given
piece of property, is curious one--it
is new discovery in finance. A. sells
B. piece of property on credit OF
six and twelve months, and the proper
ty is taxed for its full value in the hands
Of B., and A. is also taxed the full AMOUNT
of the credit which he has given to B.
B. gets the credit and A. pays the tax.
If the doctrine be true that credit is
money, | should think that he who OBJ
tanned the credit should pay the tax,
and not he who gave it. If credit is
valuable to any body, it certainly must
be valuable to him who obtains it. But
this idea of taxing intangible things
mere imaginations-is altogether too
refined aud sublimated for my dull com.
prehenson, and will, therefore, say
no more about it.
But ifcredit is to be taxed as sub
stantive tangible thing, then, ! say, it
ought to be equally taxed in the hands
of corporations, as well as in the hands
individuals. Now this act taxes cred
it to its full amount, in the hands Of in
dividuals, while it exempts the banks
and other corporations, whose profits
arise mostly from these credits.
A. sells his farm or flock OF cattle
for $1,000. on twelve months credit,
and he is taxed for the $1,000 credit.
A bank sells its own manufactured
notes for $1,000 to b., for his note pay
able in twelve months, and the bank is
not taxed for this credit.--Let him..
who can, answer.
But it will. perhaps, be said that the
capital stock OF the bank has been tax
ed--so has the farm or the flock Of cat
tie sold by A. To my mind, the two
cases are precisely parallel; let him who
denies it, point out the difference, or ad-
nit that the banks are exempted, while
the citizen is taxed.
Again, it is well known that the bills
receivable held by banks, are always
three or four times the amount of their
capital stock. 1t is by these that they
pay eirexpenses and losses, and make
their profits. and yet they are only
taxed the amount of their capital stock,
whereas, if an individual holds bills re-
ceivabIe to two or three times the
amount ofhis capital stock, he must pay
taxes both on his capital stock and his
bills receivable. Finally, this taxing
credit is, to all all who do not believe
that credit is money, an absurdity, and
this excmpting banks from burdens
which the citizen is obliged to bear,
| ;p;ucfice