Idaho semi-weekly world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1875-1908, 1891-04-07

EXEMPTION OF MORTGAGES.

Tn, late famous Legislature of Ida
no abolish ID the tax on mortgages,
and it Is very hard for the average
citizen to co npre,,and the wisdom of
their action. 1t is no easy matter for
the man OF small wealth to compre-
hend the justice of exempting the
bloated money lenders from taxation,
and taxing him for all he is worth,
and more too. The argument that
tax on mortgages is double taxation,
is too thin, when the poor man will
now have to pay double taxes. They
have not done away with the principle
of double taxation, by any means.
So much taxes have to be raised,
and the efficiency now, that mort
cages are not taxed, must come out
Of other forms of property. a mort |
gage calling for, say $50, 900, is wealth
Just as much as house, or farm, or !
other form of property that $4,000
may be put into. The man who lends
his $4,000 does SO because it is bet
ter investment, or he considers it
better, than in business enterprises
of any kind, or in lands, houses
or stock Whether he invests his
wealth in real estate or other property,
or loans it on any kind of security,
his aim is to make the most out Of it,
and it is wealth and there is no rea-
son why it should escape taxation.
We will illustrate how, in many in
stances, one escapes taxation On a
gwen amount OF what be has, while
another pays on given amount of
what he has not. Suppose one man
has 100000, all of which is loaned
on good security, and be holds
mortgage and note drawing interest.
He is worth 100000 but does not
paw one cent of taxes. The man who
owns the property that secures the
mortgage, say the property is worth
100000, pays taxes on sl0O,00o.
But his property is mortgaged for
that amount; what is he actually
worth? nothing; yet be pays taxes
on 100000, while the man who is
actually worth 100000 and draw
ing interest on it, pays nothing. If
both are taxed, it is double taxation.
But why not tax the man who is ac-
tuallv worth the 100000, and ex-
empt the man who is not actually
worth one cent? Deduct from what
taxpayers property is worth, the
amount the taxpayer owes, and you
have his exact wealth Then ta1
L mortgages and all other forms O
wealth, and you have equal and jus
: taxation. The old argument that t.
S exempt mortgages from taxation
{ makes interest less for the borrower
u is thin argument, too utterly thin
;" Suppose it does; the difference
o yerv little. Take again the case 0
y the man who has property valued a
100000 and who owes that amount
m He pays taxes on 100000, and b
ii is not actually worth a neckel, bu
Is in return he pays a few dollars less
= interest. An inestimable blessin
that, sure! And here is another cor
es sideration. Suppose half the wealt
IS of the county is in mortgages. Ths
as is now exempt. The assessed valus
OF ton of this county last year was some
Sc thing over 100000; we will call
ot 100000. Now it would be halt {
III much. This 100000 must be rsise'
ne so we must double the assessed valu
10 of all forms of property, and the ma
e. who owns property worth $4,000
u has it mortgaged for 100000, and
IN worth nothing, will pay taxes, n
IT, on 100000, but on 100000. Ar
Isl vet we are told that mortgages we
'm exempted for the sole benefit OF Il
IN poor borrower. But it will take
q great logician-one whose logic ca
outweigh stubborn facts and hard
w alities-to make him see it that wa
cn We do not know the proportion
'u mortgages to other forms of veal
ns' of this county, but for the purpos
~ of this argument do not need
al know. Whether it is half, third,
'iI tenth. the amount that was heret
iV' fore realized on the taxation of MOI
cages will have to be made up on OF
er forms of property. And it max
= no difference whether he who has
or property mortgaged for the whole
,ed one tenth of its vatue, he pays tax
NJ on the whole assessed value, and
lrn worth nothing, or pays on the whc
ars value when he is worth only mir
aan tenths of that value. The law he