New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-16
ExrRAHAGANcE AND INDIRECT TAXES


Entire separation of State and local taxation
has its attractive features. 1t goes well with
the always popular rallying cry of home rule.
People have a notion that with equalization
abolished each county will be able with greater
freedom to adjust the burden of it's own
penditures. As a matter of fact, equalization is
concerned merely with the apportionment of
the S12,000,00O of direct State taxes among the
sixty-one counties, and the increase or decrease
of local assessment in any case does not work
any serious hardship. This adjustment does
not in any way affect the amount of local taxes
any individual pays. Relieved Of the State
tax, the counties We ud have no remedy in their
hands for the really gIaring injustice of our tax
laws, the inequality between individuals In the
matter Of assessment beside which the Unequal
sty between communities is most trifing The
local assessors would go on putting premium
on perjury concerning personal property or driv-
sng IL away, in the same bungling fashion they
now follow, and the only difference would be
shat their victims would pay about one-tenth less
than they do now, while the great body of those
at present escaping taxation would still bear no
share of the taxes levied for local purposes.
switch It is to be remembered make all but
small fraction of the tax burden. Nevertheless,
ii is believed by many careful students Of the
Subject that entire separation of State and
focal taxation would help the average voter TO
hold city and county officers to strict accounta-
bility
The entire abolition Of direct State taxation,
the other hand may free the State officials
from rigid reckoning with the citizens, par
ticularly n the rural districts, where the ex-
penses Of State Government are most felt and
where economical farmers keep keen watch on
the extravagances Of Senators and Assembly
snen which the latter might be glad to avoid.
Twenty years experience with indirect taxation
does not indicate the wisdom Of taking the
popular finger entirely from the pulse of State
Government. In that period we have been
gradually increasing our indirect revenue, so
that now ii is almost double the whole State
Income of 1880. Yet the State tax rate is higher
than ii was in 1881, when less than $1000OO0
was raised indirectly. An income which the
taxpayers did not trace from their own pockets
20 the State Treasury seems to have been an
Invitation TO extravaganza, and so long the
tax rate was kept within figures to which peo-
pie had been accustomed legislators went on
recklessly spending money The same tempta-
ton is likely TO meet local authorities. II they
see the State relieving property of from 10 to
20 per cent OF its direct tax they may conclude
that they can spend more money and stin leave
the individual taxpayer satisfied that he is not
paying any unusual amount
The Joint committee have planned for an in
direct revenue just sufficient for the present
expenses Of the State They say:
In fixing the rate 70 be paid on mortgage debts
we have been controlled mainly by the amount
OF revenue which the State needs, but we have
not been unrnindful of the fact that IL the rate
80 xnade too high the tax win operate as bur