The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-06-05
AID vALoREm is NOT EQUALITY.

through mlsapprehension, the opposition party Of
North Carolina constantly confound system of
taxation bearing equally upon the various interests
and classes OF property within the State, with
their own proposed system of strict horizontal ad
valorem taxation upon property of every kind and
species. They would represent ad valorem and
equal taxation and the same thing. As
Stunning this, they go to assert that the clause in
the democratic platform, declaring eve deem it
the duty of the Legislature when passing acts for
the raising OF revenue, to adjust taxation as to
bear as equally practicable within the limits of
the constitution upon the various interests and
classes OF property in all sections of the State,
means nothing more nor less than that the Demo-
cratic party is in favor of taxing ad yalorem all
property, save and except slaves only. Further,
they say, still making the same assumption, "The
democratic party is opposed to ad valorem, conse-
quenty, the democratic party is opposed to equal
taxation"
will not stop to show that the false interpreted
ton of platform, and this conclusion, con-
Trajectory, the to the other; it is sufficient to
say that this mode of reasoning is mere petite
principii, taking for granted the very thing that
is to be proven. Let US not forget the true point
at issue in this question; let not suffer our OPP
ponents without contradiction to misrepresent our
position The democratic party is now, and ever
has been, in favor of equalizing the burdens of
taxation; and the democratic party is opposed to
the proposed ad valorem system tor the very rea-
that it aeW not equalize the burdens imposed
to raise State Revenue. Our opponents, not by
argument, but by re-iteration and many words,
would fan persuade the people that the contrary is
proposition too plain to need proof, but its falsty
is capable of ceing proven by illustration, mode
of reasoning none the less conclusive, because of
its simplicity. Take a man owning property
which brings him in his thousands every year, and
take on the other hand man whose little proper
ty will scarce yield him hundred or two; the
first, out of his wealth, easily supports his family
supplying it and himself not only with the neces-
sares and veniences but also the Injuries of fe
whilst the second, with his meagre income, Can
barely manage to procure for his wife and children
food and shelter, and those things which are abso-
lutely necessary to support existence. The pro-
posed plan of the oppositionsts imposes strict
ad valorem tax of the same per cent. on each of
these men. In order to pay his tax, the rich man
need only give up some few of the dainties which
tickle his palate, or portion of the ornaments
with which he decorates his comfortable apart
ments; the poor man, to pay his tax, must take
portion of their daily sustenance from the mouths
OF his children, must do without some article of
furniture not ornamental, but absolutely necessary.
To the words of the favorite quotation of the
Raleigh Register "Look on this picture and on
that, and then say if system of ad valorem
taxation will bear equally upon all classes both rich
and poor. Compare not the poor mans tax with
that Of the rich man; but compare the ease with
which the latter pay, with the difficulty of the
former. and the tax of the poor man imposed
according to this rule, will be more than equal,
will far exceed the tax of the rich.
The present revenue laws Of North Carolina are,
without doubt, defective, but assuredly we shall
not better the matter by accepting the system
which will tend to results like the above. These
advocates of ad valorem would tax luxuries,
conveniences and necessaries at the same rate;
looking only at the fact that they all property
and no further into the nature Of the property.
The advocates of equalization would, according to
their principles, tax Injuries highest conveuiences
next, necessaries not at all. Firstly because the
man who can afford to have property-not necessary
but luxurious, can, with least inconvenience, bear
the burdens of the tax imposed Secondly, because
a tax discriminating against Injuries, will be
perfectly voluntary, since man may may not
own property of this kind, as he sees fit, whilst
tax which falls either directly or Indirectly, upon
the necessaries Of life, will be compulsory. No
man, rich or poor, can exist without them; and to
say that tax Of the same per cent. upon luxuries
and necessaries be equal is to say that the gift
freely given from his abundance by the rich, is
one and the same with the tax unwillingly wrung
from the property of the poor.