Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1893-06-08
Report on Taxation.

ton Society,"" this once or r. o. Box g, Buf-
| falo, n "
Report on Taxation.
CINCINNATI, o., April 10, 1898.
To the Board of Trade and Trans
/ NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. matter o.
taxation is one of great interest to all
the people, for all pay taxes either
directly or indirectly, and all must
admit that in order to carry on govern.
ment, state, county or municipal
| affairs, means of revenue to meet the
| necessary expense must be provided.
How to do this, that all may alike pay
their just proportion, is the burning
| question.
| All sorts of ideas exist as to how best
make application of measures to accom-
| plish the procuring of funds neces-
| sary to carry on the work and ex-
| ecute the laws, requisite for the main
! tenance of these various governments.
The Henry George idea or single tax
| system, that of taxing land only, to
pay the cost of carrying on all govern
| ment, that of the nation itself, as well
as of all its minor departments, has
many advocates. The numbers, how
| ever, are so few comparatively, that
| it can hardly be considered as .
| measure likely to prevail for many
| years to come, if ever. The question
of abolishing the taxation of personal
| property is one that is becoming moro
and more prominent and popular as the
people learn by indisputablc facts that
| it is impossible to reach it in manner
| fair to all alike, and that from year to
year the returns of personal property
are rapidly falling off in proportion to
| that Of real estate. This is shown by
| the statistics of other states as well as
that of our own.
With all the efforts made to secure
full returns of personal property by the
| enactment of stringent laws, the en-
ployment of tax inquisitors. etc, the
result is that the returns show a fall
| ing off in twenty-seven years from
1865, when ike amount of personal was
$72, 296, 1874, to 1892, when it was s54,-
| FOG, 40, of s17, $4,000 or from A CLIO
per cent. of the whole duplicate to %
95-1OO per cent. Instead of a decrease
| of nea rly SIS, 900, 900 within that time,
there has been more likely an increase
of $40, 600, 900 in the personal wealth of
Hamilton county. but it don't make it's
perience of most if not all the states
show the same result; where the most in
quisitorial laws are enacted the personal
| duplicate shrin<s instead of expanding.
Wealth in personal property either
leaves the state, or the holder by the
many devious ways evades it's return.
There is no use taking time in moraliz-
| ing on this subject. This is report,
not a sermon.
The principal opposition to exempt
ing personal property from taxation
| comes from the rural districts of the
state. Now, it is well established
| fact, that the returns of personal prop
| erty in strictly farming counties are
| considerably larger in proportion to
| the whole duplicate than in counties
| containing large cities. The report of
| the auditor of state for 1892 shows that
the duplicate OF the counties of Hamil-
ton, Cuyahoga, Lucas and Franklin, the
four counties containing the four larg-
est and richest cities in Ohio, aggregates
s512. O13, 900, of which personal property
amounts to $124 ,456, 400, or over "a per
cent. of the whole. The other eighty
four counties of the state have total
duplicate of s1.219, a42 ,s67, of which
personal property represents S439, 1884,
42O, or SO per cent. of the whole. Thus
four counties containing the cities of
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo and CO.
lumbus, return only "a 3O-1OO per cent.
of their duplicate in personal property,
while the balance of the state returns
SO per cent, difference of so per cent.
in the proportion. Why is this? It is
largely due to the fact that the per-
sonal property of the farmer is in much
greater proportion visible, it is more
readily perceptible to the assessor, and
thus a larger proportion gets on the
duplicate, while in large cities wealth
is in something not so tangible.
Now, how would it effect the differ
ent counties if the state tax was col
1ected only on real estate. The eighty
eight counties in Ohio pay for state
purposes in all 81, 75g, 127 on total dup
1icate of 81, 731, :a56, 467, of which 81, 1G7,-
305, 647 represents real estate and $685.
go. $50 personal property. If this sum
of s4,759, -. was collected on the value
of realty alone, it would require a levy
of 4,O77.O1S mills instead of levy as
now made on the whole duplicate Of
2.75 mills.
Take the four city counties of Ham,
ilton, Cuyahoga, Lucas and Franklin,
on a real estate duplicate of 1887, $751;
200 a levy of 4,077, OILS mills would make
them pay 1850, 07s or 33 20-1O0 per cent,
whereas they now pay 81 ,40s, 0s7 or 30
60-10O per cent.
The other 81 counties on real estate
duplicate of s779,04s,447 at 4,07s,O 1s
mills would pay s8,179,0 49 or 6s so-1oO
per cent. whereas they now pay s3,351,-
900 or 20 40-1O0 per cent.
Thus if tax was levied on realty alone,
the "a counties outside the four above
named would pay s172,041 less than un-
der the present system, and If applied
to counties populated by strictly farm
ing communities the difference in their
favor would be much greater.
The New York legislative committee
prepared and recommended the passage
of law whereby mortgages on real
estate shall be taxed for state purposes
half of one per cent. and be exempt
from all local purposes. II such law
could be enacted in Ohio the result
would undoubtedly benefit the bor-
rover, and place the lender in posi-
ton to known exactly what net income
would be realized Farmers as class
are large borrowers on mortgage secur-