The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-02-05
sOR HOME RULE IN TAXATION.
Address Read by Hon. H. r. Ring of Houston.
Proposed Tax Bill Criticised

improved lot just as much as the value
OF the adjoining one on which hand
some residence may stand Why should I !.
because my lot Is improved. pay twice as
much toward the cost OF paving as my
neighbor does who owns the adjoining
vacant lot. which is probably adorned with
TIN cans, dead cats and rubbish heaps?
His property is directly enhanced in value
Just as much as mine. Why should the
tax for this street improvement assessed
against me amount to twice as much as
that assessed against him? In the city
OF indianapolis so am Informed. ad valo-
rem taxes for sewerage, sidewalks and
street paving are levied on land alone
without reference TO improvements, on the
theory, which is a correct one, that since
the effect of such improvements is direct
ly to enhance the value of land the reve-
nue. for same should be raised by taxing
land values alone. In this way the bur
den OF tax for street improvements--and
immense sums must be raised for this
purpose in any progressive community
does not fall with crushing weight on
those who own improvements. nor does
1t deter the building of houses and facto-
ries and the location OF commercial enter
prises. Therefore, why not permit us in
Houston to improve our streets on the In
dianapolis plan, should a majority OF our
taxpaying citizens desire to do so? Why
arbitrarily compel us to levy taxes for
street improvement work upon enterprise
and thrift, and in such a manner as to
deter people from putting up improvements
and establishing industries in our midst,
which will give employment to labor in
crease our population and enhance the
value of our lands?
1t is not my purpose, in this address,
TO attack the tax commission bill recently
recommended TO our legislature, but II is
impossible to do justice to the subject
in hand without reference, by way of il
lustration, to some of its features. for
the purpose OF showing the great impor
lance of allowing towns, cities and coun
ties. in any event. to collect the revenue
necessary for their own local purposes
otherwise than in the manner provided III
that bill for the collection OF taxes levied
by the State. Thus firm in Houston
carries. we will say, stock of goods
worth 5000 900. Its customers owe 1t $780,
600; 1t owes its creditors 100000; its net
assets are therefore 5000, 900. Nevertheless,
IT is proposed In the tax commission bill
10 assess such firm on the valuation OF
Its goods with its gross credits added,
making no deduction for its debts, and
thus to tax it upon a valuation of $500, 900
although it is worth only 100000 State,
city and county taxes amount TO about 3
per cent, making a total tax OF $4,000 a
year. This firm. therefore, worth but
$500 900, must pay taxes on $500, 900 TO
the tune of $4,000 year, or 5 per cent
on its net capital, for the bare privilege
of doing business in Houston. Now. tell
me. If the payment of this tax Is to be
enforced. and the tax commissioners seem
to think they have framed a law by which
it can be done why will not this firm
be driven out of business in Houston and
out OF the State? How can it do bust
ness in any city in Texas and compete
with outside establishments? II Houston
desires at least to raise the revenue neces-
imposition of such outrageous fines on
business enterprises giving employment to
her labor. why not permit her to do SO?
Again, in the city OF Houston, money is
now usually loaned on good security at
from per cent to per cent per annum,
sometimes as low as per cent, and there
has been a steady decrease in the rates
of interest during the past few years.
Much of this money comes from abroad
and is held by those who can promptly
call in their loans and lend their money
in other States. The people of Houston
who give employment to labor are anxious
! 20 get money at A low rate of interest,
nor can they employ labor to the largest
extent unless interest rates are low. The
proposed tax bill provides an efficient
method for ferreting out the existence
and ownership of credits and mortgages
based on property in Texas and compelling
the owners to render them for taxation.
thus subiecting creditors to the payment
of "a tax in most cities of about per cent
per annum on every dollar owing to them,
including debts secured by mortgages,
without permitting any Offset for debts
which creditors themselves may own. II
this provision of the bill is adopted, II
necessarily follows that money lenders will
either refuse TO loan money in Texas at
all, or charge the highest legal and often
an usurious rate of interest for II. II
+ is absurd to suppose that any man VIII be
so foolish as to loan money at per cent
/ or per cent or even S per cent when
1 laws are so enforced as to give the tax
collector a rake-off of per cent or per
4 cent. Therefore, why not permit majori-
! ty of the taxpaying citizens OF Houston
TO decide whether they will tax mortgages
and credits or not, for local purposes II
/ majority think it right and expedient TO
make The debtor pay tax on the full
value OF his mortgaged home, and then on
/ the money which he has borrowed to build
1t in an increased rate OF interest, let
7 it go that way. Another community might
try the other plan. and both systems
j would thus be tested by experiments car
ried on. not in far off New Zealand. but
/ in our very midst So also tax on O
stock of goods increases the expenses OF
doing business just as clerk hire does.
I All expenses. including taxes, are added
TO the price, and in the long run the con-
sumner. including the farmer and working
man buying the goods, will pay the tax
as well as expense of clerk hire, for this
is what It amounts to--a tax upon the
products OF industry is always In the
/ long run shifted upon the consumer. Why
not then let the taxpaying voters OF ans
city or town decide for themselves whether
or not they will compel their wholesale
merchants to go out Of business, or force
them 10 sell goods at higher prices, and
thus in effect make farmers who con-
sumo these goods pay portion of the ex-
penses of city government? Is IL the
intention of those who would lessen the
tax on the millions of acres OF vacant
and unused land In this State to do 50 a
the expense of farmers who will thereby
be compelled TO pay more for everything
they buy and a higher rate OF interest
on everything they owe, and who will also
be harassed by foreclosure proceedings or
the part of creditors calling in loans, since
the bill provides that any agreement mad
by a helpless debtor TO pay the tax is L
he treated as usurious? II II be sin
] cerely desired TO relieve the farmer from
a portion of the burden OF taxation, VIII
not exempt his improvements from taxa
/ l. -