The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1900-11-08

ana cities. anu talked 10 what is eStl1nat-
ed 1000, coo people.
Tie question of taxation which has
beeI kept down and out of public dis
crlsslon for so many years is sure to
come up for hearing i'll the next Legis-
lature. and already all sorts of theories
are being advanced as to the probable
result. The remarkable fact about the
whole matter is the unanimity with
which all parties interested agree that
the present method of assessing taxes
is unjust and should be amended But
when they have agreed up to that point
they at once begin to diverge, and the
separation is very, very wide as they
progress with the discussion. Turf,
Farm and Home.
This divergence is to be expected.
There are very few disinterested per-
sons. When you get at the gist of
most of the arguments Oh this ques-
ton it is that they want the other fell
low taxed. Taxation is, and we fear
always will be, unequal. The small
property owners bear the largest pro-
portionate share of the burden, and are
the least benefited by low tax rate.
The poll tax is the same and a few
mills less i'll taxing a small house or
farm makes no material difference; but
with large property owners the case is
different. There are cases, too, where a
low tax rate is not an unmiXed good
People are taxed that they may have
good roads, good schools and protection
for life and property. If they can have
all these things under a low tax rate, it
is a good thing, and a cause for con-
graduation. If they do not have good
roads, if the schools are not properly
maintained, then the great majority of
the citizens are not receiving their due,
the large property owners only are
benefited and the low tax rate is a
delusion and snare
The Turf, Farm and Home says
further:
Some one suggests that while the
average farmer is heavily taxed, the up
to-date agriculturiSt who has a fine
farm and well kept buildings, with all
the comforts of the resident of the
larger village or city, is not bearing his
share of the burdens, and he would
have farm Improvements taxed more
heavily. But here is trouble, sure. If
you tax a man for painting his house
and elapboarding his barn he will do
neither, but will improve his land and
live in an old house and let mis- barn go
looking shabby, just to escape what
seems to him to be persecution. There
could be no greater mistake made than
to increase the burdens of man who
was disposed to add to the attractive
ness of his surroundings, especially in
the rural districts. Such inclinations
should always be encouraged, rather
that the reverse.
We have personal knowledge of a
case that illustrates this point. A
small story and-a-half house, with nc
L OF out-buildings, on a half-acr lot
was taxed three times as much as {
quarter acre lot. The excuse given b,
the assessors for this action was tina
the former place Cooked NICE A
the work of setting out trees, etc., an,
caring for the grounds, was done by tn
owner, working mainly after bushes
hours, he naturally did not agree wit
this reasoning, and suggested that thos
who neglected their places should pa
the penalty in increased taxes. Tha
Of course, is not feasible, but here ce
tainly was an illustration of the yer
many cases of unequal taxation c
which there is just complaint.