Feliciana sentinel. [volume] (St. Francisville, La.) 1877-1892, 1891-07-25
SlNGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
FARMERS AND PERSONAL PROP
ERTY TAKES.

ERTY TAKES.
Taxes on personal property tend to
discourage industry and enterprise, and
thereby to restrict production. This is
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 fact so perfectly appar-
eut. 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 nave
been sufficient to compel men possessed
of coucealable 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 dcbauch the popu-
lar conscience that courts of justice
will utterly fail in their primary pur-
psse. Putting aside, then, the chief
argument against the taxation OF per
sonal properly, the utter failure of the
system to accomplish the objects sought
bv 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
neccssitates 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
-, l,., ~ S
of taxing personal property run against
an unreasoniug 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 rs Thomas q. Shcarman puts
il, they base their belief upon the sim
pie assumption that lit must be So y
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 kecnly the burdens
to which they are subjected by the eN-
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
crty, and the farmers believe that,
somehow. it can he 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 ohlivious 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
wears 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
hcrless land is to-day worth from 81 to
81 per acre. Within year lot of
practically bare land from which a
building had at considerable cost to be
rcmoveth sold at the rate of fourteen
| million dollars an acre. Yet we pre-
sumo that Il serious proposal to make
| land values the sole basis of taxation
! in New York state would be dcnounc-
| ed by Sullivan county farmers as a pro
| posal to increase their burden o. taxa
! ton.
| The utter folly of the views on this
subject commonly held by farmers was
demonstrated by the address of Thomas
G. Shcarman before the joint commit
tee on taxation of the Ohio legislature,
| in January, 1850. This address covers
| the whole question. and appeals not
| merely to conscience and common sense
but to the historical proof of the fail
| urc 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
| Ia bic showed that in the Ohio counties
| containing the cities of Cincinnati,
/ Cleveland Columbus and Toledo per
| sonal property value constituted but
| 26L per cent. of the whole assessment,
| whereas in the rural counties of Gcauga.
n oble. Carroll and Monroe such value
made up 81 4 per cent of the whole.
| Comparing the city counties with the
remainder of the state, he found the
| proportion substantially tho same.
| Compar Hamilton county (Which
contains Cinc:nnatD with Medina, q
typ ical rural county, he found that
in Hamilton county personal prop.
erty was valued at "a per cent.
of the tota! assessment, whereas IN Me-
dina it was 81 IL per cent Further
tables were given showing that the as.
sessmcnt on moneys and credits. and
even on watches and pleasure carriages,
were proportionately higher in the ru.
raj counties: while the one thing il
which the cities were invariably assess
oil r,-oro,-+iopataly higher than the ru
raj districts, was real cstatc-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, 800 usually stands on lanc
that exclusive of improvements would
. | not soil fnr S15 whereas in cities thu