Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1881-02-09
The New Tax Law Again.

We publish in another column a commu-
nication from correspondent who dissents
from the Interpretation we placed in our
last issue upon the meaning of section third
Of the recent "Act to equalize taxation"
We did not, in the article referred to, dis
cuss the merits or dement's of the provisions
Of that act. II was our purpose to construe
the meaning Of the act in its reference to
the matter of deductions in the list of any
person by reason of debts owing by him.
We see no reason to change the construc-
ton we placed upon the language Of the
act. As our correspondent says, "nothing
is said" in the new law] "of any kind of
property the deduction is made from" It
was not necessary to say anything. The
law was already explicit on that point, and
the legislature was strongly opposed to
changing that law. When an already exist
ing law clearly prescribes, as section fifty,
chapter eighty-three, of the general statutes
does, what deductions shall be made from a
persons list, it is certainly the only reason
able inference that when new act speaks
Of deductions" without defining them, it
can only mean such deductions as the law
already specifies and recognizes.
Our correspondent enquiries if any act
that requires both MORTGAGE and mortgagor
to pay taxes on the same property" is not
Inconsistent with this act in both letter
and spirit2" There is no law in this state
which expressly says that mortgage and
mortagor shall both pay taxes on the same
property. Real estate and certain personal
property is taxable property under the laws
of this state. Mortgages are taxable per-
sonal property the same as money or bank
stocks or debts due. The new law puts all
taxable property into the list at one per cent
of its value in money, so that the new law is
in fact the law which provides for the taxa
tion Of both the mortgages on real estate and
real estate itself. 1t is not probable that the
legislature intended in section nineteen of
the new law to repeal or nullify any portion
of the act of which that section forms
part. That would be gross "inconsis-
tency.' Section one of the " Act to equal,
ize taxation speaks of taxable property"
but it does not specify that property. Sec
ton three speaks Of deductions" but does
not describe those deductions. The reason
is the same in both cases,-the laws were al
ready specific in each case and the legisla-
ture did not mean to change those laws.
That "the act is not a sweeping one,"
ETC., Mr.. Poor kindly proves in the midst of
his denial The separate laws defining tax
axable property, limiting deductions, taxing
savings banks, express, telegraph, insurance
and railroad companies, providing for ap-
praisals, defining the duties of listers, etc.
are links in system to which this new act
is supplemental link, adding to the system
certain new requirements and mandatory
provisions that had become necessary by
reason of gross abuses and Irregularities
which had long been practiced. 1t aims to
bring into the list taxable property that has
hitherto been wrongfully withheld, and the
act defines and provides the means for car
rying out this aim. If it succeeds in this
object the mountain will have brought
forth "mouse of elephantine proportions.
That a persons actual interest in a piece
of mortgaged real estate should be the ex-
tent of his liability to taxation ON that real
estate, may be correct in theory. In many
towns in the state real estate is heavily
mortgaged to that thrifty class of individ-
uals in the Weather towns who make
business of loaning money on mortgages
This theory of the non-taxation of real estate
to the extent of the mortgages on it would
have the effect in practice to withdraw a
large amount, and in some towns nearly all
the real estate, from the list, and throw the
burden of taxation almost wholly on per-
sonal property. A certain amount of taxes
must be raised what the taxpayer would
save by the deduction of debts due on real
estate, personal property would have to
pay. Real estate as a basis of taxation
would largely disappear. In another view
OF the case both the mortgage and mort.
gagor have the benefit of the laws of the
state for the protection of their separate
rights and interest in piece of prop
erty, and the state is often put to expense in |
defining and enforcing those rights. Viewed |
in this light, the double taxation of the |
mortgaged interest in real estate would |
seem to be not entirely without justice and
reason, and there is room for question if the
inequalities resulting from what is called
double taxation of real estate are as great
as they seem to be, or if they would, as a
whole, be lessened by deducting from the list
the mortgagors debts on his real estate. 1t
might "change the place." but would likely
"keep the pain" Aperfect equalization of
taxation is practically an impossibility. If
the state makes any substantial progress
towards it during this decade, it will do well.