Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-11-24


bued with an ardent emulation to treat these
and all other matters in business-like man.
ner and with business-like dispatch.
Taxation by Population.
Some Of the bills now before the legisla-
ture for equalizing the burdens of taxation
contemplate change in the basis on which
the amount of state taxes that each town
shall pay shall be determined. At present
the basis is property. The difficulty with
this plan is that in many towns the grand
list is made out on sliding scale of valu-
alton. Many towns designedly make their
list low for the purpose of escaping their
fair share of taxation. In consequence of
this differentiation some towns will pay less,
while those towns with honest and conscien-
tious listers will pay more, than their fair
share of state taxation in spite of all the eff
forts of equalizing boards to secure prac-
teal uniformity in the matter of valuation
or appraisal. The fact that many taxpayers
whose avarice is stronger than their con-
many items of personal property, legally
subject to taxation, adds TO the inequalities
to which the present system gives rise To
remedy these inequalities it is proposed to
distribute the burdens of taxation on the
basis of population, each town paying that
fraction of the entire state tax that its pop
ulation is of the entire population Of the
state. When the tax that each town shall
pay has been determined in this manner, it
is levied upon the individual taxpayers on
the basis Of their grand list the same as at
present. The state treasurer has prepared
tables for each county in the state, showing
by towns and cities the amount of state tax
of thirty cents on the dollar of the list of
1873, and showing also the amount which
would have been the proportion of each
town and city to raise the same amount for
the whole state based on population, taking
the census Of 1880 as the basis. Examining
these tables by counties it appears that the
counties of Addison, Caledonia, Rutland,
Windham and Windsor, would in the aggre-
gate pay somewhat more than $4,000 less
than they pay on the grand list, which sum
would be made up by the counties of Ben
nington, Chittenden Essex, Franklin, Grand
Isle, Lamoille, Orange, Orleans and Wash
ington. The aggregate of the grand list of
the five counties whose taxes would be re-
duced is $1,000 larger than the grand list of
| the nine counties whose taxes would be in
creased, while the population of the former
| 10 vv,vvv
county tax would be diminished 1888,
Windsor, 7S,--the average diminution for
the five counties being 81, S46 Essex county
tax would be increased sl,6i5; Lamoille,
sl,049; Orleans, s2,759; Bennington, 49,
$40; Orange, Sl,5OS; Franklin, 5000;
Washington, slS7; Chittenden, $685.;
Grand Isle, $3.50.
Examining these tables with reference to
towns the fact disclosed by the above
figures relative to counties appears in de-
| tail, namely, that the poorer counties and
the poorer towns, notably the mountain
GUS regions whose taxes are already over
burdensome and disproportioned to those
of their richer neighbors, will suffer
large increase of taxation if population
instead of property is made the basis of
apportioning taxes. Take, for example,
Washington county. Duxbury's tax would
be increased thirty per cent; Faystons
ffty-five per cent; Moretown's twenty per
cent; Northfeld's fourteen per cent Rox-
bury's twelve per cent; Warrens twenty per
cent; Woodbury's forty per cent Worces-
ters sixty per cent, and other similar towns
in smaller percentages, making in all eleven
towns out of nineteen whose taxes would
be disastrously increased. The richer farm
ing towns in the county, having no large
villages, with extensive farms and small
population, would enjoy corresponding
tightening of the burdens of taxation.
Such a town is East Montpelier, whose
state tax would undergo reduction of
nearly one-third Montpeliers one-eighth;
Barrels ndWaterbury's somewhat more than
one-tenth, and other towns in smaller frac-
tons. Now, Washington county is the
least affected by the proposed change of
any of the nine whose taxes will be in
creased. In Franklin county the town of
Montgomery, whose tax on the list is
S9il would be $3.50, and Richford, with
a tax of sl,029 on the list, would be re-
quired to raise Sl.67l on the basis of pop
ulation. Colchester, in Chittenden, whose
tax by the list is s2,7Si, would pay Si,064
by population, an increase of $3.50, which
the property holders of the town would
have to pay as the penalty for having
mills at Winooski which employ large
number Of operatives. This is manfestly
unjust. Similar examinations in other
localities will disclose similar results. II
would seem that taxation on the basis of
population, in Vermont at least, though
plausible in theory and at first blush a
panacea for the inequalities that exist
under the old system, in point Of fact only
! exchanges the old inequalities for new
/ set, and shifts the new burdens upon local
= tiles already sore under the old. The
, inherent injustice Of the proposed new
3 basis OF taxation will prevent its adoption
Q in this state 1t would be system unde
which the rich would be growing richer
and the poor poorer. The Weather com
i munities are not 80 selfish as to desire o
y insist upon that kind of equalization.
8 The national census being made the basi
y of the apportionment of taxes under thi
IS system, new appointments can therefor
h be made only once in ten years. Durin
It this time great changes in the relative poi
IS ulation Of the towns aud cities may tax
d place, from obvious causes. These change
N would be the fruitful source of new inequa
y tiles in the distribution Of taxation, as eac
le decade draws towards its close.
N, The Kansas liquor dealers raised $4,000
n outside Of the state to defeat the prohibition
IT. constitutional amendment carried at the la
lis election pettinp subscriptions from "a 4,