The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-08
BY 7.
MCANTS STEWART

that we should strike from our statute
the tax on household furniture and jew
ielry. Objection lies to this tax on the
ground that no proper valuation is made,
Tor can be made; that proper returns are
seldom, II ever, made by the taxpayer,
and that the tax collector practically ac-
cepts anything that the taxpayer chooses
to pay.
The well-known publicist, David A.
Wells, says: TT would seem that no
intelligent person could escape arriving
at the fullest conviction, that the valua-
tion OF personal property for the purposes
OF taxation is mere semblance and IL
bel upon the Intelligence and honesty Of
both those who enact and those who adj
minister the laws"
A Massachusetts commission. In 1897,
says: The taxation of personal proper
ty is a failure. 1t is incomplete, uncer-
tain, not proportional to means as be-
tween individuals, grossly unequal in it's
effects in different parts of the State.
The experience of Massachusetts in this
regard is the same as that of the other
States in the Union. Everywhere, with
out exception, the testimony is that it is
unequal
Other States could be cited New
Jersey commission, in 1897 says: 1T is
now literally true in New Jersey, as in
other States, that the only ones who now
,
are the estates of decedents, widows and
orphans, idiots and lunaucs.''
Tax Commissioner Andrews of New
York City in suggesting a remedy to Sc
cure an honest assessment of personal
property, says: First, to amend the
constitutions of the States; second to
amend the Constitution of the United
States; third, to amend the constitution
on human nature; fourth, to amend the
constitution of things"
Everywhere men are thinking along
the lines of these citations. 1t readjust-
Ing our taxes, We must avoid radical ac-
ton. We must go slow. /, therefore,
for the present confine myself to the
suggestion that we should remove house
hold furniture and jewelry from our tax
list 1 do not have the figures; but as
few persons return jewelry, and as most
persons return household furniture on
the basis of a nominal valuation, I do
not believe that we shall lose a very
large amount of taxes. The objection
that there is a $500 exemption in our
law, whereby all workingmen benefit, is
not good. The exemption does not go
far enough. think that there should
be a homestead exemption in $1,OOO, or
thereabouts as well as a sufficient ex-
ernption to keep furniture in the home,
and tools in the hands of the toiling
bread winner.
I Burdens OF taxation should be borne
equally; but they should be so adjusted
as not to be oppressive to the weak.
Those best able to bear them should take
up the cross. /, therefore, favor the en-
actment of law by the next Legislature
taxing incomes beyond $1,000 to $1,000. Our
last income tax law was declared uncon-
stitutional by our Hawaiian Supreme
Court; but no constitutional objection
now lies to an income tax, as we have
constitutions; and no objection would
likely lie because of the decision of the
United States Supreme Court, as that de-
cision was to the effect that Congress
could not pass such legislation; that such
legislation is exclusively within the prov
ince of the several States. An income
tax, if constitutional within this Terri
tory, would yield very large revenue,
and would more than counterbalance any
loss resulting from the abolition of the
personal taxes and the tax on household
goods and jewelry, and the extension of
the tax exemption to cover a homestead
in $1,000 or whereabouts, the necessary
furniture, and a mans tools of whatso-
ever nature, used in earning living.
Speaking under a time limit, 1 can not
; argue the proposition. Others may do so.
To me, the justice of an income tax
seems self-evident, and the results would
increase the prosperity and promote the
tax, and with some amendment of and
a faithful execution ofs the law relating
to the taxation of franchises, we shall
have abundant revenue. We have not
lost as much as we sometimes think
through the transfer of the postoffice
and the custom house to the Federal
Government as we are relieved from the
entire expense of those departments.
Finally as students of taxation, we
should not ignore those of our fellow
citizens who advocate reform in our
method of taxing real estate, and urge
that we place the tax on land values,
irrespective of improvements. There are
some weighty arguments in favor OF
this system, and while I do not now
commit myself to it, / am free to admit
that it seems to work well In States
where it has been tried. 1t does seem
that our present system is not uniform
~ fair and just. In New York City, In
1896 certain Investigations showed, that
the property of the small householder
and of the HORSEPOWER are assessed at
a larger percentage of it's true value
than are the holdings of the large es-
tates and corporations; that improved
property is generally assessed at go per
cent of its value, while unimproved
property escapes with an average as
sessment of about 80 per cent. A COM
mittee of Congress reported in 1892 that
small homes In the DlStTlct OF Column
bia were assessed at from 20 to so per
cent of their true value, while land held
for speculation was assessed at less
than 10 per cent. If our Legislature
were to appoint commission to inves-
tigate, similar results would doubtless
appear here. 1t does make a taxpayer
think a great many hard thoughts,
when the assessor puts an extra $1,000
in one jump on his inside lot, and leaves
a corner lot next door at the same val
uation it has carried for years. The on
ly reason for doing this is that one tax
payer puts up a house and paints it and
his neighbor does not. There can be no
denial of the statement that such sys-
tenn is a tax on industry. A sentiment
against such system is growing in the
States. and we shall find it strongly
represented at the coming session Of ouI
Legislature.
AS intelligent men, we can not dispose
of these questions by calling people diff
fering from us Socialists ''fire-eat-
ers,'' anarchists We must argue
them down, If we have the weight OF
, argument on our side; or, depend upon
it, they will argue us down If they have
the weight of argument on their side.
The principles of taxation are con-
staptly neutrality-suspicious. I should say
enlarging. So little understood until the
i time of Adam Smith, the subject of tax
III H.