Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1882-09-01
Agricultural.


The property of the majority Of farmers is
mostly in real estate. II the effect Of the
new tax law has been to increase the appraisal
of real estate above that of personal prop
erty, It is opposed to the interests Of farmers
as a class il, on the contrary, personal prop
erty, which is mainly held by those best able
to pay taxes, has been made to bear more
equitable share of taxation, it is favorable to
our interests. What are the facts? Though
our individual lists may have been somewhat
increased, they have been proportionally di-
minished. Other property than that held by
the farmers of this state has never before ap-
peared in the list in anything near the pro-
portion that is seen under the operation Of
the new law. Under the old law only about
S15, 900, 600 of personal property was ASSESS
ed By the first years appraisal under the
new law the amount of personal property
assessed was increased nearly $50, 000, 900,
tho increase alone being more than double
the whole amount of personal property assess
ed the year previous. In all about S47, OOO,-
600 of this kind of property exclusive of that
in savings banks, has been made to bear its
share of the burden of taxation. More than
two. thirds of ii was never before taxed. The
increase of personal property paying taxes is
above 800 per cent.
BY the lax system of appraisals under the
old law real estate was sometimes assessed
at half its value or even less but, in many
towns, farms were frequently appraised as
high or higher than they could be sold. TAX
ing the whole state, they were no doubt ap.
| - 81
| estate under the new tax law has been ASSESS
ed little less than 80 per cent higher, the
per cent. of increase being only about one
sixth of the per cent of increase on personal
property. We commend these figures TO the
attention of our correspondent Up" in last
weeks PHOENIX. We, rs farmers, never came
nearer having to bear only fair share of tax
alton than since the new law went into effect
Let us sustain it, 1t is SO much gained tow
ards a More perfect equality Of taxation.
If we can never have law that in practice
will compel all property, according to its val
ne, to bear an equal share Of taxation. we
can have one designed for that purpose Our
present tax law goes far in that direction. 1t
has, however, to our mind, an obvious defect,
but one sanctioned so long by venerable usage
that it is hard to get rid of it. We have al
ways maintained that person should be tax.
ed for just what property he possesses-nev.
err for more. By the law as it has been, and
as it still is, person is liable to be taxed on
more property than be is worth after deduct
ing his debts. 1t is manifestly unjust that
any one should be compelled to pay taxes OIL
more than the entire value of his property
clear of debts, yet if an individual is badly in.
volved in debt-the debts exceeding the val
ne of his personal property-he becomes la.
BILE to pay taxes for what he has not that is
he can deduct nothing for debts except from
his personal property. One may be so cir
cumstanced that he can deduct the whole o
his debts, another part and a third person
none. Why should they not all be equally
exempt from assessment for debts? TIT
MORTGAGE pays taxes on the money invested
in real estate, and the mOrtgagor pays agaii
on the property for which he owes the mort
gagee. All the real value that exists woult
still be liable to taxation if the debtor wa
exempt to the full amount of his debts