El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1900-01-27
WHY NOT EXEMPT REAL PROP
ERTY FROM STATE TAXA
TON?

IION!
The tax commission in it's report
repeatedly refers to the existing In
equality in the taxation of land values
with . statement showing the assessed
value of land in various sections OF the
state, the commissio remarks: ut is
believed that the lands in the north.
middle, and south Texas counties were
rendered at from twenty to fifty
cents on the dollar of their true value;
east Texas lands, we believe, are
rendered on an average of fifty to
seventy-five cents on the dollar OF their
value, while IN southwest, west and
northwest Texas lands are valued for
taxation at probably from fifty to one
hundred cents on the dollar. In some
counties in east, west, northwest,
and southwest Texas there are many
individual instances where land is val
ued by the commissioners
court at more than it can
be sold for.'' This last OBJ
servation is especially true in
the largely barren and mountainous or
principally grazing districts of the
state, and Ell Paso county Ia one of the
worst sufferers in this respect. The
general average assessment of land
throughout the state is at the rate of
S3,l1 per acre. Ell Psso county is as
sessed at 81 &c per acre. To anyone
familiar with land conditions through
out the state this fact-that Ell Paso
county pays nearly half the average
rate-is sufficient to show where the
inequality lies.
Under the present law there is no
the tax burden each county shall bear.
The assessment rate upon property OF
every kind is determined by each coun
ty board of equalization for itself, and
of course there is constant attempt on
the part of the counties to lessen their
own tax burdens at the expense of the
rest of the state.
"We believe" says the commission,
shat the state can and ought to de-
rive it's revenues mainly from sources
not taxed by the counties, cities, and
towns"-a sound proposition, and one
worthy of much thought. The report
goes on to say: "By an amendment to
the constitution which would permit
the separ alton of the state and county
tax in their assessment and collection,
the state could levy certain forms of
taxes on particular interests which |
could not be taxable by the counties,
requiring the tax to be paid to the |
comptroller or treasurer"
1t is certainly true that when the
valuation of property for state taxation
liz left in the hands of the c0mmis-
sioners' courts of two hundred and
twenty-three organized counties, with
out state supervision or control. any
The commission recommends state
board of equalization. But the ex-
perience of other states with such
boards has been nything but satisfac-
tory. Their work is at best nothing
but the merest guess work, and with a
state-an empire-as large as Texas no
man or board of three or a hundred
men could be found who would be suffi
ciently familiar with conditions all over
the state to make their guess work
acceptable.
The commission comments upon the
fact that real estate in this state ia
bearing q greater proportion of the
burden of taxation than it ought. st
ought to be the purpose to relieve it,"
says the report, "from this inequality.
II light taxes be conducive to the ac-
quirement of any particular kind of
property, then Texas. above ell other
things, should by this policy encourage
every citizen to own q home. With
this end in view, we have formulated
provisions which it is believed will
compel other property in the state to l
ontri butte its fair proportion Of taxes" I
The whole course of reasoning fol-
Owed by the commission tends strong
y, although the report does not hint at {
{, toward the total exemption of real
estate from state taxation. And why Il
rot? For such exemption there are {
many good reasons. The inequality of
is one of the strongest. I
such inequalities exist in every state