Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-02-23

sulyNNN tuAaNAuhs "hN hASs anu
marine insurance companies and trust compa-
MES can also, in the opinion of the commission
ers, be taxed moderately, in proportion to their
capital and business. tax laid upon corpora
tions of the class first mentioned falls apparent
ly upon their stockholders. but in fact upon the
consumers of their products, increasing in some
degree the cost of living, but more equally and
with less burden than any other method except
tax upon mere luXuries. From these sources
the commissioners think revenue may be de-
rived, at a fair rate of taxation, nearly or quite
equal TO that now obtained from all the person
alproperty of the state.
The second principle of the new plan is to tax
land, exclusive of buildings, at a uniform valu-
alton of one half its true marketable value. As
the third provision of their new system, the COM
missioners propose choice between two plans
for equitably taxing personal property. The
first of these is TO tax the house or building
separately, at the same rate of valuation as the
land, that is, half its marketable value and
then tax the house or building again at the same
rate as the sign or index, which the owner or
occupant puts out, of his personal property.
Or, in other words, the land having been taxed
separately at fifty per cent of its fair valu-
alton, tax the building apart from the land, as
representing the owners or occupants personal
property, on full valuation as indicated by the
rent actually paid or its fair rental value. This
is the first method proposed for equitably taxing
personal property; the alternative is to tax
buildings conformity, with the land, as real es-
tate, at uniform valuation, and then, as the
p0uiValpnt oil faN atin m ppreOOo1
tax the occupier whether owner or tenant, of
any building, or portion Of building, on a
valuation of three times the rent or rental value
of the premises occupied. All property not
embraced under one of these three provisions
should be made free ofall taxation.
In some European countries this system, in
some of features prevails, and is said to work
well. Mr. Wells, in the report and in his letter,
explains the working of this system in 4 va
riety of suppositious cases, and undertakes to
answer some of the objections that may be made
TO it. But there are other objections that he
does not refer to, which seem be quite serious.
II would not give satisfaction, because it would
appear TO be more unequal in its operation than
it would in fact be. There are in every commu-
nifty, men OF considerable means so invested
that their direct taxes under this system would
be insignificant. You might say and prove that
indirectly his income was diminished for the
benefit of the public treasury, but his neighbor
who could say, CHS taxes are less than mine,
although he is worth ten times as much,' would
not be persuaded that this man was bearing his
share of the general burden. Besides this, in
some cases, only apparent il equality, the sys-
TEN claiming to provide for equitable taxation
of personal property is manifestly inGquitable in
pri nciple, and it seems to us mistaken in policy.
The value of a mans house is very far from be-
ing a fair test of the amount OF his personal
property Or of his ability to pay taxes.
1t is true that the largest and most expensive
dwellings and buildings for business purposes
| are owned and occupied by rich men, bur it is
not true, as almost every ones observation will
prove, that the most costly buildings are owned
by the richest men, or that the cxpensiveness OF
their respective dwellings or places of business
| is any safe criterion of the relative wealth of
the occupants. A small, mean house is general
| ly supposed TO be occupied by a poor man,
moderately spacious and elegant one by person
of comfortable fortune or comfortable income,
aud a splendid mansion by rich owner but
there are exceptions even to these general pre-
sumptions, and they are themselves too vague
| and indefinite to be made the basis of taxation.
| The adoption of this system, moreover, would
| tend to discourage young men from investing
| their savings in home 1t is universally agreed
| that every encouragement should be given
to induce each family to have house of its
own. The arguments in favor of such an in
| vestment in the interest of the household and
of society are too familiar to be repeated here
| Mr.. Wells system would hold out inducements
| TO invest earnings in any other way where they
would escape taxation. 1t would also provide
tax on comfort, convenience and healthfulness,
by taxing dwellings at double rates, and tend to
keep all but those to whom the tax is matter
of Indifference, in small, unsghtly and I'M
wholesome tenements. Of two families of pre-
cisely equal property and income, it would tax
the larger occupying necessarily a larger dwell
ing more than the other in a smaller one though
the latter could better afford to pay the larger
tax.
One cause of the growing extravaganza in
municipal expenditure is generally conceded to
be the large class of persons who pay no taxes
directly, and have therefore no motive, which
they appreciate, TO insist upon economy but
rather the reve Sc, as the expenditure benefits
them, while Others pay the cost. 1t is not easy
to see how this inconvenience can be avoided;
it ought not certainly to be increased without
good reason. Mr.. Wells system would not in
any case add to the number of tax payers, while
itwould exempt some who now are compelled to
pay, and thus reduce the present ratio of tax
payers to voters.
These are some of the most obvious objections
to the proposed system. We have referred to it
because, though made by u New York board, it
is discussed by the press in this state, and COM
mended in some papers as desirable substitute
for our present system. This has worked, on
the whole, pretty well, though, of course, much
property escapes taxation. The complaints
that make themselves heard are mostly caused
by alleged inequality in valuation, difficulty
which Mr., Wells proposed method, with all its
boosted simplicity, docs not remove. Whatever
may be the defects of the present New York
system as administered the e, and there is some
reason to believe they are serious, there is no
such urgent demand for change here as would
encourage the adoption of a system promising
such doubtful benefits, with so many probable
disadvantages, as that contrived by Mr.. Wells.
The Temperance Convention.
The convention for forming state temper
ance society met in fremont Temple yesterday,
and was called to order by Mr.. J. NJ. Usher.
After some preliminaries, Mr.. VIM. H. Baldwin
of Boston, having been called to the chair as