Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1893-06-22
Taxing Personal Property.

esseo the opinion that personal prop
eftg on all kinds should be exempt from
xafaon, and that taxes should be
.evied upon real estate only, meaning
merely land and buildings.
IL would help my comprehension of
tne equity of such a rule of taxation if
you VIII kindly analyze the following
hypothetical case, which would, in the
event of the law being so changed as to
tax real estate only. be matter of
daily occurrence, and give the equitable
reasons for the facts as they would APP
pear:
A owns a farm worth 5000. b has
5000 cash in his pocket
Query first: Why should A be COM
PEELED to pay all the expenses of gov
eminent and b none of them?
Now steps up to A. and says to
him: You have a nice farm here. Mr..
a. and L would like to buy it What
VIII you sell it for?
A says he will take $1,000. and B says
he will give it, and 50 they trade.
Query second: Why should the ex-
penses of government be shifted from
A to b by this trade transaction?
To be a little more explicit, why
should B, who before the trade paid
none of the expenses of government, be
compelled afterYard to pay them alle
and why should A, who before the
trade. paid all the expenses of govern
ment, be exempt afterward from pay
ing any of them? 1t Will. of course. be
apparent that any change in the law
which Will work such radical transfer
OF the responsibility for governmental
expenses must have some commensur-
ate reason for it VIII You kindly
state it,
1t seems to me that this is matter
of more than personal interest. and
that your readers may be interested in
your replr.-W. III. J., in Boston Herald.
ANSWER TO W H. J.
The principles upon which a system
OF taxation are founded require that a
tax shall be as well distributed as pos
sible, that it shall apply as nearly as
possible in proportion to ability to pay.
that il shall be definitely collecta BILE,
and that it shall interfere as little as
possible with industrial and social pro-
gress. Now the advocates o: real es-
tate max base their advocacy OF this
change on the ground that tax upon
real estate will more nearly accomplish
these various desired results than any
other system
''A-owns farm worth $1,000 This
Is a tangible piece of wealth. consisting
OF land. buildings and improvements,
and Is clearly taxable as an evidence of
the possession by its possessor of SC
much wealth-an evidence that can not
by. any means be escaped. ana that can
be-easily valued
''B has 5000 cash IN his pocket
What does that consist of? If he has II
in what is termed money the chances
are that it consists of pieces of paper,
each stating that the bearer will be
paid. on demand. either at the treasury
of the United States at Washington or
at some of the national banks, one On
more dollars
There Is no actual wealth inherent IN
these paper promises to pay They
might all be accidentally burned up
and the world would be none the poor
er. Il would be poorer because he could
not collect the dollar promised, bHt '.i,e
one owing the debt then made uncof
lectable would be made just SO much the
richer. Now. why should an evidence
Of debt be taxed upon the same basis as
an evidence of wealth? If all tangible
wealth in the United States Uas as
sessed and taxed. then it is evident that
everything that was taxed and assessed
more than that would be simply double
taxation, that is taxation paid by those
who borrowed credit on the security OF
taxed property. If actual wealth is &c
paw taxes it is clearly no more than fai,
that they should be assessed upon what
Is actually wealth, and not upon the IN
dividuaL
Smay be said that the 81. 600 nigh,
be in GOLD or silver coin. and IN thi:
way quite tangible as any other ma
terial substance But the entire
amount of this form of wealth. as com
cared to the taxable wealth of the
country. is so exceedingly small that il
is hardly necessary to take 1t into &C
count. and. indeed. If justice demanded
that this should be taxed on account, o.
its tangibility. it could be excluded fol
another reason which we shall present
1y refer to.
The answer to the second q1ery
which comes after the farm ha:
l,een purchased by b from A.: why
should. the expenses of government b
shifted from A to by this transae
fione'' Is really explained by what we
have lust said. for it is not question
of shifting the burden from one person
to the other. If b had NO money Nd
one would think of taxing him and L
he has merely. evidences that represent
the possibility of obtaining wealth
wealth that is or may be taxed where~e,
II is located. but that do not repre
cent wealth in themselves, there Is NJ
reason why he should pay a tax any
more than if ne had no wealth at all
His contribution in that case. and IN
6eed. the contribution of all persons
D<,t possessed of tangible wealth. to the
expenses of government would then b<
indirect contributions
The man having NO tangible wealth
must eat. sleep, clothe himself, and II
other ways-occupy and use the wealth
,,r.,n which the taxes are levied and II
sr,en use and occupation would DE com
n.l,ed to contribute his shire to VIVA,
e Maid in taxes A man having moth
mo hit what he could daily earn b,
r,snual labor would contribute hi:
sb.ne te this general tax fund. but ths
one vino possessed money or stocks OIL
1onds and WI hose scale of living wa:
b;~ber. would contribute in rent ant
IN every purchase that he made OF fooe
or other materials a necessarily Larger
nroportion to the general tax fund or
the ground of his presumably larger
expenses