New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-11-02

ton. the city of New-York would be called
upon to contribute 67 per cent Of the total cost
of the maintenance of the State. Anything;
therefore, that can be shown to have reduced
this amount. that is, TO have reduced the burden
below 90 per cent of the cost Of the state ad-
minlstration, is just so much gain TO the city oi
NewYork If 1t can be shown that the revenue
laws of tie State have taken nothing from the
municipalities which they have been able hereto
fore to enter upon their local assessment rolls,
and that these revenues comes from property
that has escape taxation or that has not oeen
reached by exist ng or previous laws, then What-
ever oenent has come which mas reouCeu Ile
burden upon the city of New-York may be at
tributed to this legislation which, as has been
stated. is over S4,OO0O00 in direct taxes for the
current year.
The recent tax laws during the year ended
October ]. 1903 will bring into the State Treas
Ury approximately S11.000000. OF this amount
New-York City will pay but 5S per cent, or
S9.SG0O00. and the direct tax imposed this year
OF S496954 80. making a total Of SlO,S569o4 ~
as the amount OF the tax which the city OF New
York is called upon to pay this year both from
direct and indirect sources. The total amount
OF the appropriations this year was about
S22,OO0,O0O. If all of this amount had been raised
by direct taxation NewYork would have been
called upon to pay % per cent, or Sl4,I4O,OOO-
In other words. New-YOrk City gains through
the indirect system OF taxation S43S4O45 Oh.
This amount is checked by the declaration and
statement OF the Controller Of your city to the
effect that. Notwithstanding the increased ap-
preparations by the Board Of Estimate and APP
portionment, made necessary for schools and in
other directions in the coming budget. ow
ing 10 the Iact thaC over al UlUUtU less has Deen
called for by the State as result Of Republican
economy, they were able to reduce the amount
Of the total appropriations by 81 100000.
These are some OF the results OF the present
system of taxation, and they are further
centuated by the statement that the city
ceives 81. .2O3 600 from the State for school pur-
poses this year. $500. .175 As more than it pays
to the State in direct taxes. It will be seen from
this that the system of indirect taxation is
shown to be in the direction of a saving to the
great city Of New-York.
rrroTyTrres TILL,
But we have not stopped here The Republi-
can party enacted the so-calied LIQUOR Tax law.
One Of the results of the enactment Of that
law is the reduction Of the number Of licensed
places by nearly twenty-seven hundred. and,
while the receipts under the old law to the va
rious localities amounted to only S1.736. 91S 43.
under the new law So 261 662 "A goes to the city,
an increase Of over S3.OOO.OOO which has gone
into your city treasury annually to aid in rejuc-
ing local taxation. But this is not ALL The
cities are benefited by the State Franchise Tax
law, which in the city of New-York has added
S143OO0,O00 to your rolls, increasing your
revenues 50. 717.OO0 annually.
While we have taxed trust companies upon
their surplus and undivided earnings, and II is
claimed that by doing so We have taken 5000
600 Of assessed valuation from the assessment
rolls OF the city OF New-fork, by making this
tax payable directly TO the State II is also true
that we have left the real estate of such COM
panies to local taxation If, however, we take
this SS0O0.0OO of assessed valuation and figure
II at the highest per cent rate, New-York City
would lose only 100000. while the State is ex-
is, consequently, relieved by this particular tax
Of 90 per cent Of that amount which otherwise
would have been required In the form Of direct
tax So that the difference between $4,000 and
90 per cent Of 81 ,460, 600 represents the actual
gain to the city of New-York on this item.
The savings bank tax which has been enacted
has been the cause of considerable criticism
The cry has been raised that the Republican
party is taxing the thrift Of the workingmen
Under the old law the assessors had the right
and they were actually exercising that right in
the city OF New-York. TO place upon the assesG-
ment rolls those who had deposits IN savings
banks and / am Informed by those who were
intrusted with the administration Of your Tax
Department that poor working men and women
were actually taxed in this manner Under this
law, which imposes a tax of l per cent upon
the surplus Of savings banks, It is impossible
10 impose tax upon individual depositors. The
surplus of savings banks has been gradually
created from the aggregated earnings as a
whole, and is a guarantee against loss or de-
probation Of assets from any cause. In no
event can any part Of II be paid to depositors
The deposits in this State in such banks amount
TO over sl,OOO,eOOOOO and the market value OF
their surplus assets is Sl15,54O. $50 10. and the
par value of such assets S73, ,722 $40 There is
no State in the Union where the eleemosynary
system Of savings banks exists that does not tax
savings bank deposits. except the State of New
York. In shaping system of taxation for
savings banks IT was recognized that 1t should
be done in such a manner as to avoid any
danger OF lnterrupting the tendency TO thrift on
the part OF the people, or to discourage the
habit Of saving by the working people. There
fore, II was decided not TO impose a direct tax
upon deposits, but that the tax should be as
sessed upon the surplus only, in which the
depoSitorS do not share.
The Republican party has always exercised a
Watchful care over the savings Of the masses Of
the people. and this small tax upon the safety
reserve held by the banks is no injustice to the
deposition, while a refusal to lay such a tax
would work positive injustice upon the great
body OF the people who have to bear the neces-
sariIy heavy burdens of taxation. both State and
local The articles published in some Demo-
cratic journals concerning the tax upon saw
ines banks are entirely mislead II has been
shown that since the imposition of this tax
81 293, ,450 has been actually added to the sur
plus of the savings institutions of the State.
IL Is true also, that some of these banks in or
der to attract undesirable deposits that is, the
deposits of men who have large sums Of money.
the ability Of these banks was severely strained
by the high rate of interest allowed.
FEW REDUCTIONS IN INTEREST
The number OF such institutions is small, how
ever and there has been no decrease Of interest
rates because of this tax because the tax. II
figured on deposits instead or the surplus,
amounts to but One-fourteenth OF l per cent.
The fact of the matter is that, with very few
exceptions, there have been no reductions in the
rate of interest, and that there will be none in
the future is shown by the fact that, as the
surplus increases. the earning capacity OF the
hank also increases. and the more certain ana
Nyed will be the rate OF interest and the security
OF the depostors. 1t would be impossible under
any Circumstance for these banks TO pay the
rate OF interest which some few or them hao
heen doing because of the gradual reduction
in the rate Of interest upon the investments
which such banks were permitted by law to
hold That New-York is still liberal in its treat
ment OF these banks may be shown by COM
nar;son with some of the New-England States
upon this subject. The SAVINGS banks of Maine
in 1900 paid a tax Of S44s.S21 50 upon total de-
posits of S67 100000. more than nve-eighths OF
per cent and about ten times as much as is
naFd nv the New York savings banks: The
New-Hanpshire savings banks paid S02o.OOO in
taves upon deposits of S53.000O00, nearly five
eighths of per cent, or about ten times that
paid by New-York sayings banks. vermont :
paid a tax OF S241,5S9 upon total deposits OF
sse 600 600 a little over ave-eghths of per cent
and ahout ten times the amount paid by New
~ 49, Sa-,;nes hanks. Massachusetts, leVies a
tsy NJ one-half of / per cent, with the exemp-
tSor of two classes of railroad bonds and real