Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-03-20
FARMERS AND THE SINGLE TAX.
By THOMAS G. SHEARMAS.

Continued from last soeek.
These counties respectively represent |
the extreme contrasts between the cities /
and the farms Of the State. Thus, in !
Hamilton and Cuyahoga, the assessed /
value of town lots is about seven times !
the assessed value of the farms. whereas
in the five rural counties the assessed
value of farms is nowhere less than ten
times that of town lots. while in Geauga
county the farm lots are worth twenty
seven times as much as the town lots.
Hamilton county. which includes Gin
cinnati, is the typical city county of
Ohio. while Geauga, which includes no
large town, is the typical rural county.
FARMER> PAY LARGEST SHARE OF TANEs
ON PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Now. the first thing which strikes the
eve. on looking over the statistics of
these counties, IS the following compar-
ison:
Assessed value Assessed value
of Reai Estate. OF Chattels.
CITY counties ssh. 1865 SllS.5+o,1s.
Rural counties 9,155, 400 j 3'.,:'6s
Any one can see that, in the counties
which include all the large cities, the
assessed value of personal property Is
only about one-fourth of the whole as
sessment. while in the rural counties
personal property constitutes nearly one
third of their whole assessed value. In
more exact figures, the value Of assessed
personal property in the city counties
is 1928 (say 2614) per cent of the whole.
while in the rural counties it is 81. 40
tsay 321z) per cent. If. therefore, all
personal property should be exempted
from taxation. the farmers of these five
exclusively rural counties would pay
per cent less taxes than they do now.
That this result is not a mere acct
dent. owing to some peculiar condition
of thesesparticular counties, is easily
proved by testing the same question IN
other ways. Thus. if we set apart the
four great city counties and compare
them with all the rest of the State. in
Guiding farming districts and smaller
towns Unfortunately we find sub
stantially the same result, as follows:
r Rsai f ks5sen9!
City counties. -. m s3I7, s54655 sll&5460>
Remainder of State. s6., l55,960 ! 40e, oji
Here. in the counties which include
all the great cities, personal property
amounts to 2614 per cent of the whole
valuation. while in tn e.remainder of the
State it amounts to 81 per cent.
But if we compare single counties.
such as Hamilton, in which town lots
compose about 50 per cent of all the real
estate. with Medina. in which town lots
compose only 10 per cent of the real es-
s. ~ ~
f Eeai P Ps5pe2sI.
Hamilton. s 63. .;is $50 SIS, ia. lS2
Medina.-.-....-......... s.304,740 5,ol2,204
Here we find that the real estate of
Hamilton county is assessed at twenty
times the value of Medina county. while
the personal property of Hamilton is
assessed at less than eleven times that
of Medina. More exactly, personal
property constitutes 2415 per cent of the
valuation of Hamilton. and ST. per
cent of the valuation of Medina. The
total exemption of personal property
from taxation. therefore, would. if taxes
were divided only between the counties
of Hamilton and Medina, relieve the
farmers of Medina from 1875 per cent, or
exactly one-sixth of their present bur-
dens. This is probably an extreme
case; but not single instance has been
yet found in which a rural county would
not find its burdens diminished. in COM
parison with those borne by Cincinnati,
if personal property were exempted
from taxation.
TAXATION OF MONEY HEAVIEST ON
FARMERS.
But let US test this question in still
other ways. The chief clamor in favor
of taxing personal property has been di-
rected toward the taxation of moneys
and credits: and the money lender, who
is supposed to have vast sums on deposit
in bank. and the merchant. who is sup
posed to have vast outstanding credits
due from the poor farmers, are the
special objects against whom this
method of taxation is aimed-all for the
relief of the farmers. Let US see how
this works. by comparison of the same
typical counties. The auditors report
for 1887 shows that their relative assess
ments were as follows:
Real Estate. Moneys. Credits etc
Civ counties SSH S54 665 So ~. $50 SI3 POI
Rural counties 70. -7S;53 40 9O,. s29 4,3S4.3sl
Roughly stated, it thus appears that,
if taxation were confined to real estate
.lone. the city counties would pay
eleven times as much as the rural coun-
ties: whereas. if taxation were levied
on money alone. they would pay less
than six times as much. and, if levied
on credits alone. little more than three
times as much. while if taxation were
levied on both money and credits, they
would pay about times as much. Con-
sequcntly the burden of taxation in rural
counties. as compared with the large
cities. is nearly twice as heavy on
money as it is on real estate. and nearly
three times as heavy on money, loans
and credits of all kinds taken together
The only result, therefore, Of taxing
moneys. credits and similar Investments,
as to reEiere the burden of the cities and in
crease the burden IF the farmers.
Let US test this particular illustration
by comparing the county of Hamilton.
in which the town lots are worth seven
times as much as the farming lands.
with Geauga, in which the farm lands
are worth twenty-seven times as much
as the town lots:
Real Estate. Moneys Credits
Hamilton Sl62. 1880 So S,2.9 1918, 945
Roughly stated. Hamilton county is
assessed for nearly thirty times as much
real estate. less than seven times as much
money and less than eleven times as much
credits as Gpaura COUNTY If taxa+ion