Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1902-06-09

owners Some have paid taxes on portion
/ OF their holdings, some on none and some
few On all, resulting in great inequality and
| Injustice
As a rule those with small holdings have
| paid taxes IN much greater proportion to
/ their ownings than has the man of abun-
dant means who makes a business Of loans
We have known widow with, 1000 worth
| Of loans to pay q larger tax thereon than
| neighbor did with from ten to twenty times
that amount of security. One Of the fun
Ndamental principles OF taxation Is that al
lions shall be taxed alike" Now, II the
farmers. widow with $4,000 or $4,000 to
TIL the Tsy ISe sne only re-
I Is to. sell the farm and loan the proceeds
| unless there are sons to carry on the work.
has to compete with the rate liked by
cally untaxabie loans Of life insurance and
gros that sIp pay tax
result is apt to be that she has to pay from
30 to SO per cent Of her income in taxes.
You can readily see how such is the case.
| Ordinarily loans now command to per
| cent. interest. In many places taxes. are 2
to per cent. on full valuation. Qn Ste
yens Point last year the tax rate exceeded
| is that of a. widow with loans aggregating
$4,000 who paid over 500 taxes thereon.
the victims OF great injustice in this way.
County nS a aa0 taxes eaas se5S12 ' Ronas gs
cages and Of this amount na'f farmer friend
| OF mine in: an adjoining township listed
! $4,000 for taxation, which was over 1-27
OF the whole amount in the county; At the
deposits of over 100000.
- One of the prime objects of my bill No.
1a lender % On p the same se footing It would
| do this because every lender would be taxed
| on his mortgage, unless he bargafned with
h. g.. -
conscientious person would have the same
| opportunity to SO bargain with the mort
gagor, thus the payment of tax on the
mortgage would not depend on the fexibil
| ity of the lenders conscience Again, in
| taxing the mortgage like: tax was to. be
RENTED from the tax on the realty, thus
ture of the present practice, which was the
second prime object Of No 284A.
Il To tax the farm in full and also the
I mortgage thereon in full is double taxation
! to the: extent. Of the mortgage equity For
example, "A and B each have $4,000 farms.
On B's farm c holds a $4,000 mortgage:
BIS farm and that together they OWL. no
more property than A, YET under our law,
Of 500 tax to r sio on on this ,g gGoperty
| the tax, While the farm of equal value
owned. by A1pay VS. only 2-5 &c of it. Ny biz
IF B agreed to pay Cs- tax for him. all
right. He certainly would not do SO unless
c made concession in lower interest
the farm owned jointly by B and c $50, of
a 500 tag on said property we know
in his power, to compel B to pay C's por-
! tfonslof the tax They forget, however, if
that TIA I'll be true that has it IN his power to
raise, the, interest rate s,4 when taxing his
farm in full to B, as he would compel B to
pay his proportion Of. the tax In the one
rofc A In fhA 9TH
pays $40 tax, B $40 tax and $40 higher
interest to C, who can then turn it over in
taxes to complete the 500 tax money to be
the tax and under our present law, as
aforesaid, the holder of the mortgaged farm
pays more aan his share editor Of the
Outlook In the March Both, 1901, number,
covers the tground briefly and to the point:
Hs says sEhere is certainly no defensible
"gages when qthe property mortgaged is al
ready taxed to its full value. The exist
ence of the tnortgage does not increase the
shows that two, people own the property
instead of one. To tax both the property
tax is put upon property held BY debtors
than on property that is debt free. The
mortgage should be treated as a part in
terest in the estate mortgaged, and the tax
the CONTRACT j may provide That state.
Ill y
2S4A and the reason for itsr introduction.
1t was wholly corrective measure, not to
provide more revenue-It would raise less
but to take off tax where now two are
exacted from the same property, and Incl
dehtally to place all lenders on the same
footing.
The Massachusetts Law.
For twenty years Massachusetts has had
a law after which No 284A was patterned.
California likewise has had a provision
IinY1tI iIors 70 finTN
and to place lenders all on the same foot
ing, but as the parties to the contract were
barred from agreeing regarding as to who
should pay the taxes on the mortgage the
borrower there has been subjected to a rate
of interest margin higher, plus the tax,
than, he otherwise would have had to pay.
last fall Gov. Odell recommended that
mortgages be taxed p per cent. at time Of
filing, in lieu of all other tax on them. Such
arrangements would porvide uniformity
and be the next, move from exemption en-
tirely,. a course advocated by large ma
jority Of the authorities on economic law.
= All civilized states on earth, aside from
most of the states of the United States, do
not pretend to tax credits at all England,
Germany, France Canada and other of the
civilized nations, exempt them. Their laws
in regard to credits conform to the teach
ings of economists, the. scientific authority
s a6g br sister ahon be-
Rance with economic law? Trying to get
Sodl for nGthn Is poRghm - The he
the classification; The credit is listed the
same as real, material property. The credit
Is only evidence that some other party has
property rightfuIIIyy belonging to the holder
material property wherever found but not
utter an economic lie and try to tax the
man, too, who has parted with it, for that
makes double taxation on all property IN
the possession of the debtors. A has 800
horse, B has nothing The former is taxed
on 500 worth Of property and B pays no
tax. A sells the horse to and takes his
500 note Our populistic law says that
there is now 5000 worth of property and
would tax B on the horse and A on the
note. The note is not property, only evil
,dence in AS hand that he may show to the
world that has $1OOs worth of his (A's)
property, and demand for its return, or an
equivalent in value. By classifying the
note the same as property the State utters,
BY implication at least, an economic lie.
Property is property whoever possesses it.
Were A to trade the note back to B for
the horse no one will contend that the note
would remain property, yet were it prop