Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1903-02-28


Secondly, poll tax should be abol
ished. If such tax ever was advis,
able, it certainly has outiived its use
fulness, and should be abolished.
Thirdly, mortgages On real or per.
sonal property should not be taxed
Or if taxed, then the amount of such
mortgage should be deducted from
the value Of the property itself when
it is listed for taxation. But bette r
not tax 1mortgages at all. It is simply
absurd to levy a double tax on land
burdened with mortgage. Suppose
man owns a piece of land worth
$5,0OO.OO; he sells it for that amount,
and takes mortgage on the land to
secure the purchase price, towit /;
IS 100000. Not one bit of wealth has
been added to che community, and
vet here are now two men each pay
:ng taxes on $5OOO0O, all of which
has to come out of the land, This is
a hardship on one or both, and ought
to b, avoided. Then, too, when a
law is not enforced it is better to
abolish it. Constant disregard Of
laws tends to bring laws in general
into contempt. AS matter of fact
people constantly disregard the laws
taxing personal property, and more
particularly money and securities.
Taxes on property in this village
mount to about OBJ percentum Oh
the dollar. You can borrow money
on real property at about six or seVen
percentum on the dollar. Right on
the fac Of it you can see that the
holder Of the mortgage does not, anu
don't intend to pay taxes on these
mort cages or notes as provided ~
law. So we might as we'll abandon
such taxes, or prepare to enforce
them by charging our jails.
Fourthly. the railroad companies
are>paying thee per cent gross in
come tax. Compared with the taxes
other property holders ia the state
are paying; this is not enough; it
should be raised to four Or five per-
cent. We pay, in this village, thitty-
seven mills tax on the value of Our
property, the railroad companies are
paying thirty mills on the income
derived from their properties.
I belieYe, however, that our tax
laws SO far as they relate to the tax
alton of personal property, are much
better than wa are inclined at first
view to think. Ifyou will take time
10 read over these laws you will find
tn It they are framed to reach aim
every conceivable kind OF property
aad that they provide fer the collec-
ton Of the taxes levied, too. Many
changes might be suggested, some Of
them good, but would they remedy
The objections to the present laws?
L. other words, is the system of tax
ing personal property good one?
81 all now take little time to
outline some of my views on taxation
[ do not claim that these views are
fully matured, or that they are flaw
less or faultless. / believe, however
that they are desirable changes, and
if | am wrong you need only point
out the fallacies in my argument, and
I shall gladly acknowledge them, and |
humiliate myself before this body
First: | believe in tax on rea!
and improvements thereon.
We might perfect our present system
somewhat, but upon the whole ] be
lieve it is quite good.
Secondly: / do not believe i'll a
tax on PERSONAL property, hut would
therefor an income tax.
It is almost universally conceded
that tax on personal property is q
practical failure. Only small pro-
portion Of The property ever iuds it+ 6
way into the assessors books. Tue
poor man pays much more than this
just proportion of the taxes, not Le.
cause he is the more honest, but be
cause he cannot so readily cover up
his property as the man who owns
stocke, bonds, mortgages. etc. This
kind OK taxation brings, or tends 10