The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1893-02-04

ed IN savings banks very little of it is
and movable property like stocks in
trade is touched very lightly. So far
as the public revenues are concerned,
we might as well enact that money
loaned upon real estate security in New
Hampshire by individuals shall be ex-
empt from taxation. The attempt to
tax mortgaged real estate SO as to di.
vide the assessment between the mort.
gagor and mortgage in proportion to
their interest in the property has also
| proved a failure here and everywhere
else
We tax all savings bank deposits one
per cent, which is moro than they are
required to pay anywhere else. In sew
eral states they are not taxed at all,
and in others the rate Is one.fourth,
one-half and three.fourths of one per
cent The tax here is uniform, what
ever the nature of the investments by
the banks, and the result is double tax
alton. To illustrates: If a savings
bank invests its funds in railroad or
manufacturing or insurance stocks,
in real estate or in mortgages,
the property represented by its
securities is ali taxed directly, and the
one per cent. levied upon deposits is
a second tax. The reason given for not
reducing this tax is that money can
afford to pay" and the easiest way to
secure needed revenues is to get them
by taking them from money lenders
This may be so. We certainly get the
savings bank tax, which amounts to
nearly three-fourths of million annu-
ally rs easily as that amount was ever
secured anywhere, and it helps i'm
mensely; but by doing it we raise the
rate charged borrowers and reduce that
paid depositors. If the laws are to be
amended SO as to help these borrowers,
the one way to do it is by answer.
ing the farmers second question in the
affirmative and permitting people to
lend money without being taxed for it
A uniform state tax of one per cent
upon money at interest would amount
to little, because if the law imposing it
was enforced there would be next TO
no money on the assessors books. Bor-
rowers would be obliged to get what
they need from savings banks as they
DO now But we did not propose to en-
gage in this discussion to any extent,
and the above are merely suggestions
thrown out to help our farm friends
when they reach the subject
The New York Home Rule Taxation
bill allowing counties to decide for
themselves what kind of property shall
De listed for taxation, was defeated in
he assembly by vote of rs to 81; not
very promising showing in itself, but
is compared with the previous year
when the bill was refused even consid- |
ration. quite step in advance The
opposition to the bill came chiefly from
he farmer members, who still hold |
trongly the vain purpose of forcing the
axation of all kinds of personal prop
rty despite the fact that experience |
las abundantly demonstrated that in |
he great cities it is absolutely imprac-
icable to reach for taxation 1.-THE of |
ne vast aggregate of personal property
Vhlle in the country and smaller towns
Tar greater proportion of this kind of |
roperty is reached by the assessor. 1t
curious fact that in New York
lty, despite the great increase during
ne last ten years of property values of
Ii kinds, the assessed value of personal
is less to-day than it was in
this Notwithstanding all the
forts made to enforce its taxation.
S an illustration of how the attempt
enforce personal property Ia xation
New York state works-and the same
ling holds measurably good in all
ates-Commissioner Henry A. Robin
IN in the last Michigan labor bureau
port cites the case of two widows in
lie village of Batavia who were as
ssed for more personal property than
le whole neighboring city of Rochester
it'll its 10000 population.
In another New York town ga single
lction sale of cattle belonging to one
sident aggregated $4,000 while the
hole assessment of personal property
oted up less than $4,000" In Ohio
1882 money on hand was listed at
8, 600, 900 for the whole state, while
e years later this amount had fallen
$50, 900; or "a per cent in five
ars. The number of pleasure car.
lges listed in Ohio in 1882 was 255, 200
lille in 1874 had fallen to 224,5OO-a
op of IL per cent; in Hamilton coun.
(CincinnatD the number was 1910
1882, while in 1887 it had fallen to
S4-a decrease of 80 per cent. 1t is
facts like these-which hold good in
eater or less degree in all states ,
at the opponents of personal prop ,
" taxation base very strong argu- ]
mt to show that abolition of this {
< would relieve the farming COM {
nifty and small Taxpayers generally I:
d increase the taxes of the weather. !
sses.
Another reason why the large cities |
coming to look with favor on the '
olition of personal property taxation v
hat it discourages the location of b
" industries and drives away, it has K
endency to drive axvay fbosa alro,l i,