Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-02-26

-
was that they reasoned from right prem
ises to wrong conclusions. 1t was true
that they were at the mercy of the As
SCISSOR, and that the city men were not (;
but it was mistake to suppose that this
state of things could be amended by ex-
tending the sphere of personal property
taxation, and by including within 1t mat
tiers which could not with any seriousness
be regarded as tangible property. The
farmers complained that the city men had
escaped taxation on their personal prop
erty; and to remedy this they proposed to
levy double tax upon what it had been
found impossible to tax once. 1t did not
occur to them that if it is easy, from the
nature of certain classes of property, to
conceal it, this attribute of the property
will not be affected by nominally taxing it
twice or more. The initial difficulty was
that the property was incapable of being
reached it did not make it any easier to
reach, to tax its shadow.
The proof of the futility of the new sys-
TEN consists in the fact that with nom.
inal assessment twenty-one per cent larger
than that under the old Constitution, 1t
has been found impossible to increase the
revenue appreciably. The meaning of this
is that the more vigorous attempts to reach
personal property have failed, and that the
same cause of complaint exists as previ-
ously. But this is not the worst. The
new system has been largely abortive, no
doubt but whenever it has been success
full it has produced serious injury to the
State Thus it has probably been evaded
by the majority of heavy taxpayers but
when it has not been evaded it has had
the effect of driving capital out of the
State. Thus also it has caught the poorest
class OF urban taxpayers, namely, the de-
positors in savings banks, and has inflicted
upon them all the tyranny and injustice of
double taxation which they are as i'm
potent to escape as the farmers themselves.
| L L6 A6N ca ptIllISub, consequently has
proved complete and disastrous failure.
| 1t has not caught the wealthy class save
here and there and it has caught one of
the poorer classes whose burdens it was
specially intended to tighten. And this
experience ought to have convinced the
| farmers that in drafting the new revenue
system they set out wrong. The failure of
the personal property taxes under the old
| Constitution did not carry to their minds
the correct deductions, in fact. They
thought that the remedy lay in making the
revenue law more stringent and compre-
hensive. They ought to have realized that
the experience of the past proved the fu-
tility Of all personal property toreS. For
this is the truth. Whenever it is found
| that from the nature of certain property it
is difficult to reach and list it, it is cheaper
and better for the Government to let it
alone. In democracies, where the popular
spirit will not tolerate inquisitorial revenue
| laws, and where there is no resort in the
case of intangible property but the state
ment of the taxpayer, it must always be
impossible to collect any tax the equity of
which is doubted by any considerable por-
ton of the people. And when, as under
the new Constitution, an effort is made to
impose double taxation upon this intangi-
| BILE property, the only result is to confirm
taxpayers in their resolution to evade the
UNJUST impost
This is what has happened, and what
ought to have been expected. The farmers
indeed had every phase of the situa-
ton clearly explained to them by this
| journal while the new revenue law was
under discussion, and all that has occurred
was then foretold by the RECORD UNION.
But they got an idea into their heads that
nothing but bitter experience could re-
move, and so they went on and tested their
theory for themselves. Their education
in political economy is, however, only
begun. They have seen that the pursuit
of personal property is not the more sue
cessful the fiercer it becomes, but we do
not know whether they have yet mastered
the truth that it is blunder to tax per-
sonal property at all. Yet this is what
must be recognized before we can have a
really sound and effective revenue system,
however difficult it may be to produce
conviction as to its wisdom and equity.
All taxes which cannot from the nature
of the case be collected, ought to be aban-
doned. A tax which can be evaded only
tends to demoralize the public by tamil
iarizing them with perjury. All personal
property taxes at present have this effect.
TIE truth is that no man either can be or
ought to be trusted to be his own assessor,
and that State which relies upon the
voluntary statements of the people in mat
tiers OF taxation has loose, haphazard,
unscientific and altogether ill-adiusted and
badly-working revenue system. These at
tempts to get at personal property, how
ever, injdre the State in several ways.
They fall with great severity upon such
property as cannot be concealed or trans
ferred; and they damage the reputation of
the State abroad, and deter enterprise at
home. This is what our revenue law has
done, and no results could be more mis-
chieyous than it has produced.
The best form of taxation is that which
bears equally and justly upon the whole
community. Now, taxes on personal prop