Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1875-04-07
Che fireman.
MONTPELIER, VT.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL Z, 1879,


cGnSlcuoIIS in almost every state In
New York an elaborate report has recent
TX been made to the legislature. by Il com
mi,tre appointed last year for the purpose
of cxamin nc the laws of the state on that
subject. ana the workings OF those laws,
and :, complete revision Of the laws OF that
s.afc !. likely to result. Mr. David A
Wells. an able modern writer on political
economy. has published several articles
discussing the subject in all it. aspects. and
the conclusion he reaches is that the great
burden of taxation ought to be borne by
real estate.
The tendency of modern discussion
seems TO be rather toward simpler methods
Of taxation; and il is coming to be seen
more clearly that the equal distribution of
taxation i, very difficult to secure directly.
When IN attempt is made to tax personal
propertv except that which is visible ike
cattle. horses. stocks OF goods materials
EMPLOYED in manufactures, and similar ar
ticles whose value and ownership can he
a~certained rs we'll n that of real estate
everv one knows how difficult it is to Get
the true amount into Il list. Cash on hand
and debts due. especially when they may
he Offset by debts owing. are Il decidedly
indetcrmiu:ite quantity, and an elastic con-
science. or the absence of the principle
enables people % make strange returns Of
personal properly. Even when correctly
returned. the taxation of debts due may
work an Injustice. in fact tax property
twice. Take IN illustration 4 owns Il
farm worth 10000. 1t is ASSESSED to him
at three fourths its value, s. 300, this year
He sells it for $4,000 to Is, taking notes
and n mortgage for the whole sum. Ac-
cording to the practice of assessing Il per
son for debts due, A should next year be
assessed for $4,000 debts due, while b j.
assessed 81 800 for the farm which he has
bought but not paid for. The consequence
is, That although a and Is are worth no
more than they were the year before, they
will pay on list more than twice that OF
TIE preceding year; in fact a list of 81 ..JOu
cd, in actual property, the farm, assessed
at only $500, and worth only $4,000.
The bare statement of such Il case-and
many mortgage, are the result of similar
transactions--is sufficient to show its in
Justice. 1t is double taxation in any as
poet of it. Without any real increase OF
property, the list has been more than
doubled.
But wherein is this different from til,
condition of things in any case of debt 2
\ borr"w> $1,000 in bank bills of b. and
buys of { Il farm with these bills b. i
taxed upon debts due SO 900. A is taxed
for hi farm & is taxed for 5 {, zoe moncl
on hand In that case the value Of the
farm Is set in the lit three times: once.
in C's list. AS cash on hand; once in A.
list. X rca! estate. and ance in B's list
rs debts due. a list is the only one that
can be said to represent actual property.
to wi. real estate. The other lists reaIl Y
represent nothing-tlat is, no visible or
tangible proprrty-as Il bank bill, like :,
note, is cnly evidence of debit and is not
property. In fIct, debts are not property.
and only OF value AS tho>, who owe then,
have visible and tangible property with
which to pay them. and much the
simpler and easier WAY is to TAX that vi>i-
bic and tangible property, rather than to
tax the invisible and intangible thing called
Il, \ l.;
to borrow money to stock it. In that cast
there is the visible property, the stock.
which the listers can see and value To
be sure. under our law, it would be- oif>c
by the debt the Turner was owing: bul
the creditor might live in another state.
and. III that ca-e.the actual property woul
certainly escape taxation, i'll this state, anG
very likely everywhere; OF the crctlio.
might side in another town, and the frcl
that ne was Il creditor might not he know
to the local assessors, and there would then
be no tlXttion, although both the debtor
and creditor resided in the same state.
This is by no mean, an imaginary case
1t Is a very common one. Manv similar
illustrations might he employed, but they
would extend this discussion beyond tn,
limits of Il newspaper article. Oar pres
EN- purpose is answered, if we have caused
oar readers to consider the propriety OF
taxing visible property, whether real or
personal, and not taxing debts
We are not unaware Of the objection that
this method might enable what are called
capitalists, or money-lrnders. to escarc
some taxation; but has it never occurred
t money borrowers that taxation of debt
due keeps up the rate of interest? Gov
eminent bonds are desirable because they
table at q lower rate of interest on that
account. and individual notes, with lik,
exemptions, would have Il similar prefer
cnce Besides, an offset to this objection,
1t may be remarked that probably not on,
quarter of the debts due Get taxed
while visible personal property is reduced
certainly by the full amount of debts ow
ing; and if this estimate is not incorrect
three quarters of the visible personal prop
ertv exempted on account of debts owino
escapes taxation either rs property or as
debts due. And while we are upon this
subject, we would like to inquire why it i.
right 10 make farmer pay taxes upon the
farm, for which he is owing. and excuse
him from paying taxes upon his oxen ano
cows and horses because he h,nnnne T., | .
also owing for them?
In these recent discussions respecting
taNations. the proposition to tax church
property is frequently suggested; and in
til report to the New York legislature to
which reference has already been mad..
it is proposed 10 exempt churches only 10
value of $1,000. 1t is well known that in
many states. churches have very valuable
IL