The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1873-01-27
An Unjust Tax.


s.real and personal property in this
estate
sshall be subject to taxation" There is no
warrant, either ir the organic law or the
statutes, for taxing the same property
twice; nor is there any shadow of authority
for taxing what does not exist. One OF
these Thugs the State contrives to do.
AS the law stands, real estate in South
Carolina is taxed at it's full value, whether
it is encountered or not. This is the grlev-
ance. The nominal owner OF mortgaged
real estate pays taxes upon the full value OF
the property, and the holder OF the BOND
and mortgage pays taxes upon the amount
which the mortgage covers. In this way
the same property is taxed twice; first, as
real estate, and second as personal property.
There is, in practice, greater wrong than
this. A person who buys piece OF real
estate for $40, 900, paying one fourth in cash
and securing the balance by bond and
mortgage, is not, in law or in fact, the
owner OF that property, until the last cent
OF the sum for which it was mortgaged is
paid. The nominal owner can sell the
property subject to the mortgage; in the
case given he sells an interest OF $4,000 in
property worth $40, 900, and mortgaged for
SIS, 900. The debt OF $4,000 due by the
mortgagor is not taxable property. 1t is a
liability, not thing in possession. Yet the
State compels the purchaser of the real es-
tate to pay taxes upon what he has not
paid for and does not own.
When the time for making the tax returns
comes round, the purchaser OF the piece OF
real estate, costing $4,000, is assessed
upon it's entire value. Having paid $4,000,
he is taxed as though he had paid $4,000.
In other words, he is taxed, by the State, upon
SIS, 900 which are not lis, except in name.
The State and city taxes are about 81 per
cent. In the case cited, the tax is levied
upon $4,000, and amounts to $500. This
is actually the tax upon the $4,000 in cash
paid on account when the property was
bought. Upon what the purchaser really
owns, the tax is just fourteen per cent
This grossly unjust plan is not adopted to
prevent the mortgaged property from avoid
ing taxation. The holder OF the mortgage
is compelled to return the accompanying
bonds as personal property, end pays taxes
upon them. AS before shown the mortgage
pays taxes upon the identical property upon
which, in the form Of real estate, the mort
gagor has already paid the tax.
The equitable plan clearly is to exempt
the real estate from taxation to the extent
OF the mortgages upon it; or else to exempt
the bonds and mortgage from taxation.
Which is the better course? 1t is fairest
that the real estate should go free. The
mortgage is tangible possession, bearing
interest. But the mortgaged property, nom
inally owned by the morgagor, is the prop,
erty Of the mortgage, and it is a great
wrong to compel the mortgagor to pay taxes
upon what is not his.
The enactment OF law providing that, in
returning real estate for taxation, the
amount of the mortgages may be deducted
from the gross value would be measure OF
public justice and practical reform, and we
trust that the members OF the Legislature
will give the matter their immediate atten-
ton. The whole State is interested in it,
and there is no danger that the bonds and
mortgages would escape taxation, as the
mortgagor might be required to report, in
making his return, the names OF the holders
OF the mortgages upon his property. These
would pay no more than they now pay, and
the mortgagor OF real estate would cease to
be taxed upon what he does not possess.