The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1893-08-12
Dairymen Discuss Taxation.

A recent issue of the American Dairy
man contained an editorial criticising
the platform of the New York Tax Re.
form association, which favors the exc
emption of capital from taxation, and
declaring that the adoption OF such a
change in the tax laws would ruin the
farmers by placing the main burden OK
taxation on them.
The following reply was published iii
the next issue of the paper:
To THE EDITOR OF THE AMERICAN
DAIRYMAN-Dear Sir:-"Your argu-
ments in favor Of attempting to tax
personal property are probably the best
that can be made for that side of the
taxation problem, but as they are
founded on an entirely erroneous idea
of the practical workings of the system
which we advocate. we beg to reply to
some of the statements in your edi-
torial
The first objection to our proposal to
exempt personal property from taxa
ton is that under its operations the
farmer would be reformed off of the
earth" Since it is the increase in his
personal property (such as stock, i'm
plements, carriages, furniture or
money! that marks the growing wealth
of the farmer, it is hard for us to see
the logic of your claim that he would
be injured by freeing all these from
taxation Why should he cease to pro-
duce or save wealth, simply because he
has not to pay fine on every 500
worth of new property?
Your protest against adding to the
mortgaged farmers burdens is one with
which this association agrees There
Is nothing in our platform of principles
to warrant your assertion that we wish
the farmer to pay the ''main burden of
tafation." We desire nothing of the
kind. Your mistake arises from the
popular belief that because the farmers
bwn the greater part of the area of the
land, they also own the same proper.
tion of its value. Nothing could be
further from the facts The assessment
returns for this state prove that the
real estate of the purely farming dis
tricts is not worth one-fifth of that OF
the cities, towns and villages, SO that ii
taxes were levied on real estate alone,
not one-fifth would be paid by the
farmers Single lots in New York city,
Brooklyn or Buffalo often sell for more
than the value of an entire township in
the rural sections of the state.
With reference to the taxation OF
mortgages it must be evident to you
that this would be double taxation. As
the farmer has both farm and money,
while the mortgage mas only the paper
evidence of the loan, it you'd be de-
cidedly unjust to tax him On something
be does not possess.
If mortgages were taxed, since money
will bring an equally high rate OF inter
est in other investments, the result
would be either one of two things. Nc
capital would be loaned to farmers, who
would be bankrupted by mortgages
calling in their loans; or the tax woult
be charged over to the borrower in the
| shape of higher interest. bonus fol
getting the money, etc Very true is it
that something can not be had fol
nothing.
Your sentiments in favor of the toll
ing masses are also Endorsed by us. VIZ
do not propose to exempt the ''owner
ship of wealth that is aggregated out
side of real estate" for the simple rea
son that there is no such wealth. Wha
is generally called personal property
stocks, bonds and mortgages-are mere
| ~ titles to real estate, in the form O
railroads, coal or oil lands, etc. Beal
in mind that personal property can no
earn one dollar of income without in
volving the use of real estate, and yo,
will see that the money aristocracy'
must directly or indirectly pay thei
share of taxation.
| New YORK TAX REFORM ASSOCIATION,
| Bolton Hall, Secretary.