Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1903-07-23
TAXING THE
Nell. who's ami IS it2

II ~ ~ E1ANAAA e-@ 49, 49,
nose to the grindstone with nnrelent-
ing force.
As matter OF fact our Legislature is
so overwhelmingly agricultural in its
makeup that it is practically the Cen
eral Assembly of the farmers of YER
mont.
All the laws even enacted in this
state have been enacted by farmers.
Every law now on the statute book is
kept there by farmers.
Now if the case is as stated by the
Randolph Herald, why don't the farm
ers take right hold and remedy their
wrongs and enforce equity in law and
taxation?
We would like to have the question
answered, for we are free to confess
that il stumps us, after many years OF
inquiry.
For a quarter of a century we have
been trying to induce the farmers to
disburden themselves of their heaviest
load-the paying OF taxes on land
\ which they do not own. With this re-
form for a starter, others would follow
and a new era would open for the
farmers of Vermont. Talk about a
New Vermont No new Vermont
is possible as long as Vermont farmers
insist on carrying this milestone OF
double taxation hung about their
neeks. Is any M shortsighted
enough to think that this or that meth
cd OF dealing with the liquor question
can radically affect the body OF Yer
mont farmersP
Still the farmers who rule us 90 on
in the old way and meekly bear their
self-imposed burdens and wear them
selves by means of a premature death
from IRE and worry into a world
where we trust mortgages and taxes
are unknown.
Shall it be forever thuse Or will
the farmers of Vermont arise in their
might, set their faces TO the morning
and right their wrongs Huntington
News.
This rejoinder is apt. and contains
food Tor thought. The News asks
why, if the farmers of Vermont are
burdened by the existing tax system,
they don't adopt a more favorable sys-
tenn, having the power TO do so by be-
ing generally in the majority in the
law-making bodies. The News says
it is stumped by its own question.
II is something of a mystery, We
agree. Double taxation of mortgaged
real estate is one of the crying abuses
that our state endures, and it falls
hardest on the farmer seeking to pay
for a home, OF to stem an adverse tide.
We have heard this matter discussed
and debated for years and we never
heard a single person undertake to
Justify the principle of the existing
system. 1t is universally condemned.
The theory that the holders of one
species OF property, to wit, the inn
movable kind, should be treated
differently and burdened more heavily
than the holders Of another kind, to
wit, the movable species, is rankly
abhorrent to all ideas of justice. So
is the theory that because a man has a
nominal title to lands, houses or any
thing he should pay taxes on it, though
he may be owing Tor all or a large
part OF the purchase price. Not only
that, but the person who has sold it is
also taxed for the interest he still
holds in it, so that this interest is
doubly taxed. The inequity and the
iniquity are too apparent to require
extended comment.
But-and here the trouble comes
how are you going to change matters
without making them worse? This is
the rock upon which successive farmer
legislatures have grounded and is the
only reason that can be given why the
was not altered years ago.
The farmers-and others, as we'll
lack not the disposition TO abolish
double taxation, but they do lack the
knowledge or the courage, or both, to
any act that is so free from
objection, so safe from criticism, as
to insure its adoption. So, in spite
Of the grinding wrong, they continue
to stagger along under their load year
after year, quite hopeless of ever
being able to cast it off.
At every session OF the Legislature
there are not lacking bills without
number to do away with double taxa
ton. Some of them provide that the
mortgagor and mortgage shall each
bear taxation according to their
respective interests in the property-a
tair adjustment, it would seem. But
this mean a serious shrinkage in the
grand list and might entail added bur-
lens to the debtor class, owing to the
consequent rise in the tax rate and the
prospect that creditors would decline
% assume their part unless compen-
;ated by higher interest. As the bulk