The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-08-23
ARE DISSATISFIED.
III Of Equalization Does Not
Please All Taxpayers.
1racuANTs HAVE THEIR SAY.

large . share of haracn Of Tax
~esss-Perssaai Property Rated
- High and system Of Asse..-
neas Iaraaitahie, They Aiieae.
- ~srk e .hs beard CT equalization 81
ersned cosssiierab!@ dissatisfaction anaag
- II TIE heavier taxpayers in tie ciry.
aueansy tie merchants ard larger manu-
netsrsrz. wisa Claim that they have been
- n tas owners OF real estate. thy also
saar that tas smaller osnsgs of personal
Asssrfy were 40. raised IA the same pro-
u1rtlon a. we've the Larger But the pvia-
+ agAast tne pFeasat aystexn az assess-
ness. They say that tbs assesNor's office
- bsconse. ia a way. The fifth wheel TO
- county administration wagon TIE
aurssrs Of me late board ars content 10
staui Hpoa ths boards record. They say
MI II IL isapoass5le 20 blow hot and cold
IN tee sasse breath. and that ira fact
80 sas reA. estate owners. 40 wei! as IN.
ssners Of personal property. complain, ia
nos. that the board has been impair tiai In
ss,EcS personal property assessments. A
A4sher complaint ia that the boards OF
essA,ssatlon "a other counties OF the state
/
tssy ohanxe assessments az al. do so Only
ky rs5aclnx them. The consequences Of
shss Ia. Il IL alleged, that the taxpayers OF
Hax county are forced TO bear far more
Esan their proportionate share Of the
sass'e expenses. Hut for this state 0. az
hiss the board Of equalization Is no, held
pupsnsble.
j. y. 0oIdsnsith's Statement.
J. 8. Goldsmith. the vice president OF
ne corporation os SehwaSache- Bros. 4
ca. probably comes "a near yoicing the
sasssnssat OF The complaining snercha 70
= sny man In the city. Said he:
Not only does King county pay more
6xs than any other county Ia the state
~ the Seattle merchants IL ssenls, are
earsy taxes. TIE Seattle merchants pay
k4s<r taxes than the merchants ~ any
esAsr e!ty ia tee state AT all times. and
nA condition bids fair 80 be more sadly
nHe this year than ever before osing 10
~ coGrse q: the hoard OF equalization
n faissfls personal tax assessments to tie
kxhsst pase.ble figure. The merchants Of
Hs.iand anG San Francisco do not pay
xshan 70 per cent. as much in taxes as
| sss merchants or Seattle. Naturally. this
Nskes it just that much harder FOR the
hattie merchants - compete wish the
Esrckanis " ot.aer Giles. Once we could
~ xaa truth that taxes In Seattle were
tsiriy reasonable bat such. II seems, Is
& 40 long-r be the case
hHaulf not raatfef - much were the
ussayefs assstxei equally. Rut the board
q eggalixp 'iou, Il. appears 10 ME. has
singled OFT the big merchants nd uanu-
fassarars utd ssaaset isF.ofi Them an un-
| PSI proportion II The burden OF taxatton
Asd yetsa@ large business men were al
waiy heavily h,vssened. They are always
upeesed TO contribute literally for al. pub
enterprises. and few Of the,st shirk the
rsponsibtity, In our own case, Also there
| ne war tax 10 he considered This is
aavy burden upon Us ard with the
Esed COUNTY and city taxes. VIII gut down
81 profits Immensely
iEefe seems n Or s3ffefniE4g radically
srcnE WITH orr system of TAXATION First
~ arc called upor 20 hard in our valua-
tha % the assessor. Then the assessor
ssssss II 20 suis his pleasure. Then the
tard OF equalization raises the assessors
xsares. What IL The use 90 the assessor
ell II the board OF equalization Il 30
Hs - sole Judge IN the end In my opin-
r. !, wonli be we'll II the assesSor and
ps board OF equalization also would pay
Iafe attention % real estate and raise 30
Tasttoas nf that class % property This
sea'd make the rate os taxation iaWer al
Gsand and distribute the burden moro
Sasl'y Al We merchants ask Is equity.
y what Yaine would the real estate 81
&assle be we're II not for tie mssnufaetstr-
= aad the merchants? Thas have made
es ssty whst II rs.
Not Disposed to Criticize
fsnk ". Baker. treasurer % the Seattle
Hsrdssre Company. IS one 81 thu most
"ssrTs'ive business men in he city, and
Nc ere Q. TIE bess Informed on the sub
fes az property va,ses ard taxation. Tia
ssos disposed 40 crItt.ise he work II :he
sAia x equalization. nux that IL 10 I'm
4sss snd so reconsideration Is possible
.fa Z ras with considerable roiucfan -
go q eanse;iteel Ia make \ statement of
| = WISE ~ tiiF sea- 80 business ss2rsg as X
ysears3 IL him. Ha sad
az nutshell. our eAttcg:an il That IL
~ efsha1n. 3; east the assessment IL not
So or az sQaGehle basis We 10 uos
s.sS special priv iiekes, ausl sliA not ana
- seS ask thcna. We on,y DEERE that
sfs ssait n uo pavcIaiigy. IL waa Il
"a Sc fTv.enae 90 o0F firm. ror IN.
49, oGr sS@s ssnsst weFe sianssfes1
svse3se tha Assessment e every ofh-~
ISfer IN .Ae c,ty and ceuaty. LARGE ana
"a slse, MAS al,0 Doubted. an tae
'as Fesa.i woHiA ~ tae same. and
" 80 soGid cs Ca increase 81 faxss. Rut
y. hoiteee, SaS mot BEEN sse cs.se- trs
- iasi tae ]s.g.'ca NJ 5aSst%or ,b.< ye1~
~ zen aiaae g, tsN yea heavily uRoe
va &Sser b0s5r,ssa h1f3ses
ne i}iak E; avfasr to make n veIu4ts1r
iHsertsry st the sase - 1ts, cents
- az ee.}3r- Auy q s'n<%s nGan kao~s
- l. sscsk 81 soods MI l,rlas Il tarovs
eSoSo o aNea