The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1891-09-19
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
FARMERS AND PERSONAL PROP
ERTY TAKES.

| ran "6uS AMI F660ONA6 2 nOV
ERTY TAKES.
Taxes on personal property tend b
discourage industry and enterprise, and
thereby to restrict production. This i
obvious to anyone who will really thinl
on the subject; and, though histor.
demonstrates the truth of the assertion
historical proof is not needed to con
vince men of fact so perfectly appar
emit. 1t is useful, however, in showing
another fact. which is, that no tax on
personal property has ever been equit
ably assessed or collected. Neither in.
genious oaths nor savage penalties have
been sufficient to compel men possessed
of conceivable 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 it,
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 it
neoessitates 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
1t, they base their belief upon the SIM
pie assumption that 1T must be SO. "
Many of them go further and swear by
all that is good or bad that it shall be
30. This is notably true of farmers as
a class They feel keenly the burdens |
to which they are subjected by the ex-
isting 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, |
it can be discovered and |
taxed, thus relieving land from the bur |
len now laid upon it They imagine
that they are the only land owners, and |
hey are utterly oblivious of the fact
hat the concentration of wealth in
;ities necessarily increases city land
'alues, and that owing to this fact
nearly the whole increase in land
'alues that has come about in the
'lder states during the past twenty
'ears has been in city and town lots,
While the value of farm land has stood
till or fallen of. The assessors of
Jew York state have demonstrated
his fact, and it is apparent everywhere
o those who will really consider the
natter. Some of the illustrations of
he fact are startling. In Sullivan
ounty, in this state, unimproved, tim
erless land is to-day worth from 81 to
8 per acre. Within q year = lot of
Practically bare land (from which .
uilding had at considerable cost to be
sold at the rate of fourteen
,illion dollars an acre Yet we pre- 1
ume that serious proposal to make
and values the sole basis of taxation j
l New York state would be denounc-
! by Sullivan county farmers as a pro- !
osal to increase their burden of taxa
on. /,
The utter folly of the views on this
1bject commonly held by farmers was
by the address of Thomas;fy
Shearman before the joint commit
e on taxation of the Ohio legislature,
January, 1889. This address covers h
le whole question, and appeals MOI I
erely to conscience and common sense 8
1T to the historical proof of the fall c
e OF all attempts to tax personal prop f
ty generally or equally. Mr.. Shear o
an, as is his wont, studied the subject O
oroughly and presented figures that n
oduced profound impression. One G
BILE showed that in the Ohio counties {,
the cities of Cincinnati. il
eveland. Columbus and Toledo per Il
nal property value constituted but c,
4 per cent of the whole assessment Il
hereas In the rural counties of Geaura "
oble, Carroll and Monroe such value ii
ade up S9H per cent of the whole. d,
mparing the city counties with the a,
of the state, he found the u
oportion substantially the same.
mparing Hamilton county (which
ntains CincinnatD with Medina, q
pical rural county, he found that
Hamilton county personal prop
y was valued at 241< per cent al
the total assessment, whereas in Me- L.,
Ia it was 81 1-2 per cent. Further q
'les were given showing that the as tn
sment on moneys and credits, and w
IN on watches and pleasure carriages, Ii
re proportionately higher in the ru- co