Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-12-10
.erAx-RATE, PROBLEM.
IN the course Of a recent editorial the
inoh.stsr 'rimea has the following:

Winchester Times has the following:
The Richmond Dispatch. In discussing
n special tax for disabled Confederate
veterans. thinks that the next assess-
rncnt OF lands I'm Virginia will show a
uecrra.e ~ values. and that the people
| of me gate will he utterly opposed 10
J increase of taxation for even so iaudaDls ,
an object We do not believe the people
| stil vote down such n proposition III AZ
rsc;ly submitted 10 them, but we WISH
the Dispatch would give US its views on
| these questions:
| + II there is "A decrease In the assessed
/ values ~ the land at the next ASSESS
! ,,cnt. would I'M increase or me thN rate
| so az 10 produce present revenue de-
| ryed tbererrom be an increase OF taxa
] lion?
| ? W0nld not decrease in assessed
values without n corresponding increase
! OF the tax rate be. In fact. reducuoh
II taxation. which the people little ex-
| poet IN the present financial SITUATION OF
| the State?
Our experience with the dear people Is
| that they do not know very much about
| tax rates" or assessments either. III
a mans state taxes be s25 one year and
1923 the next. he knows that so far as he
Is concerned taxes have been reduced.
Or. If a mans State taxes be $25 this year
and s27 the next, he knows that his taxes
have been increased. In each case we
presuppose that the taxpayer has not
added in the slightest to the quantity OF
his real or personal estate.
Our answer TO question l is that, fairy
speaking, it would not be an increase OF
taxation-that is to say, the whole sum
drawn by Virginia from the taxpayers
en- masse would be no more than before
But we have TO remember that upon
new assessment being made, values
might be increased in Norfolk and New
port News and left at the present figures
in Richmond and Manchester while in
other cities and I'm nearly all of the coun-
ties they might be largely curtailed.
Again, here I'm Richmond, AS house
might have higher value put upon II
than formerly, while BIS house might
have a lower value put upon 1t than Tor
merly. And so we say That in our be-
lief the average taxpayer would disre-
gard tax rates" and assessments and
only consider whether his own taX-bill
had been made larger or smaller. III the
great majority Of the people found that
their bills were 10 larger than before
they would hardly hold that they had
been made the victims of an increase of
taxation. However, the opposite view
would be held by the exceptional men. /
who were compelled to pay higher bills
than formerly upon the same properties
To question we answer eyes, from the |
standpoint of a plain, practical, horny |
listed taxpayer" Yet, the theorist
would disagree with us, and contend that !
inasmuch as the original levy was made |
upon 1.-THE true value" of the land, his |
burden of taxation could not be said TO |
have been lightened because part OF the |
value, as at first ascertained, had depart |
ed
Now as TO a special tax for caring for |
our veterans: What we said was that the |
people would not consent to such tax |
now. but we trusted they would do so II,
after every reasonable effort at retrench-
ment had been made, it was found that
there would be no choice but TO let the
veterans suffer or levy special tax.