Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-07-16
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
FARMERS AND PERSONAL PROP
ERTY IAXES.

obvious to anyone who will really think
on the subject; and, though history
demonstrates the truth of the assertion,
historical proof is not needed to con-
vince men of a fact SO perfectly appar-
ent. 1t is useful, however. in showing
another fact, which is, that no tax on
personal property has ever been eqult-
ably assessed or collected. Neither in
genious oaths nor savage penalties have
been sufficient to compel men possessed
of concealable wealth to report its ex-
istence to the tax gatherer; while they
have promoted lying and perjury to an
extent that may some day, If the proc
ess be continued so debauch the popu-
lar conscience that courts of justice
will utterly fail in their primary pur-
pose. Putting aside, then, the chief
argument against the taxation OF per-
sonal property, the utter failure OF the
system to accomplish the objects sought
by its promoters and defenders IS OF 1T
self sufficient to condemn it. In fact,
this consideration is the one on which
opposition to the taxation of personal
property is usually based. 1t is unfor-
tunate that this should be SO, because 1T
necessitates an appeal to historical
knowledge, which few men possess, in
stead of to common sense, which most
men possess-using the phrase as de-
scribing that sense which is common to
all sane minds
The line of debate can not. however,
be suddenly changed, and hence, under
existing circumstances, the opponents
of taxing personal property run against
an unreasoning conviction that the tax
| alton of personal property is not only
| Just but practicable. The people hold
| ing this idea have never studied the
facts, but as Thomas G. Shearman puts
it, they base their belief upon the Sim
| pie assumption that sit must be So"
Many of them go further and swear by
| all that is good or bad that it shall be
so. This is notably true of farmers as
class They feel keenly the burdens
to which they are subjected by the ex-
| listing system. They see the wealth of
| the country concentrating itself IN
| cities, and they propose that those hold
ing such wealth shall pay more taxes,
| in order that the farmer may pay less.
The wealth held by these city men is
largely what is called personal prop
erty, and the farmers believe that,
| somehow, it can be discovered and
| taxed, UnuS relieving lduo Ii Jill ChO Jul
| den now laid upon it. They imagine
that they are the only land owners, and
they are utterly oblivious of the fact
| that the concentration of wealth in
cities necessarily increases city land
values, and that owing to this fact
| nearly the whole increase in land
values that has come about in the
older states during the past twenty
| years has been in city and town lots,
while the value of farm land has stood
still or fallen off. The assessors of
| New York state have demonstrated
this fact, and it is apparent everywhere
to those who will really consider the
matter Some of the illustrations of
the fact are startling. In Sullivan
county, in this state, unimproved, tim
berless land is to-day worth from 81 to
SIS per acre. Within year lot OF
practically bare land from which a
building had at considerable cost to be
removed) sold at the rate of fourteen
million dollars an acre. Yet we pre-
sumo that serious proposal to make
land values the sole basis of taxation
in New York state would be denounc-
ed by Sullivan county farmers as a pro
posal to increase their burden Of taxa
ton.
The utter folly of the views on this
subject commonly held by farmers was
demonstrated by the address of Thomas
G. Shearman before the joint commit
tee on taxation of the Ohio legislature,
in January, 1880. This address covers
the whole question, and appeals not
merely to conscience and common sense
but to the historical proof of the fail
ure of all attempts to tax personal prop
erty generally or equally. Mr.. Shear
man, as is his wont, studied the subject
thoroughly and presented figures that
produced profound impression. One
tai bic showed that in the Ohio counties
containing the cities of Cincinnati,
Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo per
sonal property value constituted but
26I per cent. of the whole assessment,
whereas in the rural counties of Geauga,
Noble, Carroll and Monroe such value
made up 321a per cent of the whole.
Comparing the city counties with the
remainder of the state, he found the
proportion substantially the same.
Comparing Hamilton county (Which
contains Cincinnati) with Medina a
typical rural county, he found that
in Hamilton county personal prop.
erty was valued at 2419 per cent
| of the total assessment, whereas in Me.
dina it was 81 1-2 per cent. Further
tables were given showing that the as.
sessment on moneys and credits, and
even on watches and pleasure carriages
Were proportionately higher in the ru-
raj counties; while the one thing in
which the cities were invariably assess
ed proportionately higher than the ru
raj districts, was real estate-that Is,
land and buildings He further showed
that if land alone were made the basis
of assessment, the farmer would be Still
further relieved, since a farm house
costing 81, 500 usually stands on lano
that exclusive of improvements woulc
! not sell for SIS, whereas in cities the
land is usually worth half as much az
the building, and frequently more. Mr.
/ Shearman could safely have made thi:
statement stronger if he had beer
: speaking of New York. We doubt i
; there are twenty buildings in lowe1
New York that are worth more thar
the land they actually cover, or fiv'
: | hundred that are worth half what thu
I bare land under them would sell for a
auction.
Mr.. Shearman explained the surpris
ing contrasts he found in Ohio yer.
simply. A farmers property is no
easily concealed, and his affairs ar
: pretty well known to his neighbors
| Hence his personal property is discov