The Colfax chronicle., 1890-05-31
WARMERS AND THE SINGLE TAX.
ny THOMAS G. sHEARMAN

WARMERS AND THE slNoLETAx.
BY THOMAS G. SHEARMAN
Taper read before the Joint COMMITTEES an
1sxation or Ohio Legislature. Jan. Q, 1881
lConffaued from last reek.l
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
Onio, while Geauga, which includes no
large town, is the typical rural county.
FARME2s PAY LARGEST SHARE OF TAXES
ON PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Now, the first thing which strikes the
eye, on looking over the statistics of
these counties, is the following compar-
ison:
Assessed value Assessed value
of Real Estate. Of Chatteia
Rural counties ss.7as5o nsT,sss
Any one can see that, in the counties
which include all the large cities, the
nssessed 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 26.2s (say 261{) per cent Of the whole,
while In the rural counties it is SO. 40
tsay S21<) per cent. If, therefore, all
personal property should be exempted
from taxation, the farmers of these five
exciusively rural counties would pay
per cent less taxes than they do now.
: That this result is not mere acci-
dent, owing to some peculiar condition
OF these particular counties, Is easily
proved by testing the same question in
other ways. Thus, IL we set apart the
four great city counties and compare
them with all the rest of the State, in
clnding farming districts and smaller
towns indiscriminately, we find sub
staptially the same result, as follows:
Real Personal
CITY countless. $3I7,S54. 1855 Slla34p,0s7
Remainder of State. 81. .l55.96o 4O6.eSs.0 .0T
Here, in the counties which include
all the great cities, personal property
amounts to 26l4 per cent Of the whole
valuation, while in the remainder of the
State it amounts to 50 per cent.
But il we compare single counties,
such as Hamilton, in which town lots
compose about IS Per cent of all the real
estate, with Medina. in which town lots
compose only 10 per cent of the real es-
tate, we find the result as follows:
Es':.e. Es:! Ps5ssns1 Psosses1.
Hamilton. SIS. 10. $50 &53, IA, l5e
Aedtna.-...... a304.740 6,0i2.30f
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 241< per cent Of the
valuation OF Hamilton, ard 37K 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 16H 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 rural county would
not find its burdens diminished, in COM
parison with those borne by Cincinnati,
IL 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-sll 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
City counties. S317 S5f.665 IS 3x050 Sf3,29I, ,655
Rural counties 29.733.S0 s07.S29 l,Ss4.3sl
Roughly stated, it thus appears that,
II taxation were confined to real estate
alone, the city counties would pay
eleven times as much as the rural coun-
ties; whereas, II taxation were levied
on money alone, they would pay less
than six times as much, and, il levied
ON credits alone, little more than three
times as much, while IL taxation were
levied OF both money and credits, they
would nav about four times as much Con-