The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1891-07-22
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
FARMERS AND PERSONAL PROP
ERTY TAXES.

Taxes on personal property tend to
discourage industry and enterprise, and
thereby to restrict production. This is
obvious to anyone who will really thinl.
on the subject; and, though history
demonstrates the truth of the assertion,
historical proof is not needed to con-
vince men Of fact so perfectly appar-
ent. 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 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 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
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
a 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, thus relieving land from the bur-
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
So per acre. Within a 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 a 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, 1889. This address covers
the whole question, and appeals no;
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 won't, studied the subject
thoroughly and presented figures tina:
produced a profound impression. One
table showed that in the Ohio counties
containing the cities of Cincinnati
Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo per.
sonal property value constituted but
1854 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, &
typical rural county, he found thai
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, ant
even on watches and pleasure carriages
were proportionately higher in the RI
raj counties: while the one thing il
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 basi
of assessment the farmer would be still
further relieved, since farm hous
costing $1,000 usually stands on LAM
that exclusive of improvements woul'
not sell for SIS, whereas in cities tn
| land ;c ,,Snnllu ,unrfh half nc r1aunh a