The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-08-30
TAXATION AND CONFIsCATION

fectually than mere argument. The
rate is $2.40; that is, $24.OO on the 81 ,000
First example: A man owns 81 900. He
lends it at per cent, the legal rate. He
assumes the risk in this loan. He re-
ceives $4,000, of which he pays in taxes
s24OO, leaving him only $4,000 as his
share. $24.0O is 40 per cent. of $4,000. This
tax, therefore amounts to 40 per cent.
of the income Of the person.
No political party could levy such a
tax directly and survive an election.
But this is not the end of the matter.
This rate of $40 covers only State
county and city tax. The United States
takes her share out of the $4,000.
econd example: Houses Nos. 1T ana
| III Polk street: These houses rent for
$1e66 per month, or 5000 each per year.
They were appraised at $4,000 each, on
what ground no one knows. They are
now appraised at $4,000 each. The tax
rate is $24O0 per thousand or $1,000 on
each house This leaves $12S.06 as the
| income from one house, or 5000 per
month. The tax collectors receive $500
per month Their $500 is certain, while
! the owners 5000 is not only subject to
less by difficulty in obtaining tenants,
but from this precarious 5000 the owner
must pay repairs, insurance and improve
mcnts.
| | have authority, by the way, to sell
| to any of our tax assessors or any mem
Der of the Board of County Commission
ers either of these houses, valued by them
at $4,000, for $4,000. And l think $4,000
a. good price, This offer is made in
good faith In fact, according to the
appraisal of this property and a piece of
| his own, l can give one of the appraisers
quite bargain in a swap.
| Example number three: A widow re-
ceiKes from her husbands will 100000
| She invests it at per cent-the best she
! can do She gets 100000. She pays the
| tax collectors out of this $2,400-leavlng
her only $3,600.00. With this she must
! pay attorney fees, Withstand losses, etc,
etc. Evidently the tax collectors receive
| in net money from her property nearly as
| much as she does.
| Example number four: A house on
Blount street is appraised at $4,000. Our
appraisers put it higher, but 1T was re-
duced to this sum. 1t rents for $4,000.
| The tax on it is 1888. The rent IS $516
This leaves the owner only 1928 on her
$12,O 900 property; and with this she must
keep it in repair; keep it insured; paint
! it, etc. She receives, therefore, practlc-
ally nothing for it. Taxation that de-
stroys the profit-paying power Of piece
Of property is confiscaton, no more and
i no less.
| / think 1 am justified by the introduce
tory to the latest report of the North
! Carolina Tax Commission Il. e., the Cor
poration Commission) in saying that a
tax rate of $40 on the money value of
a piece of property is confiscatory and
cannot be collected. / refer the reader
to that report.
| | am also justified by the foregoing ac-
tual example in saying that the recent
! appraisal of property in Raleigh is as UNI
| just as the taX-rate is oppressive.
j. w BAILEY
| 1.-THE question of the tax-rate has moth
inc whatever to do with the assessment.
1t is the sworn duty of the assessors to
put the property on the taX-books at its
true value in money" That duty is the
same in Rhamkatte, where the tax rate
| is two thirds less than it is in Raleigh,
| as in Raleigh where the very high rate
o: $40 prevails. Mr.. Bailey gives four
| examples of pieces of property that he
says are over-valued. We printed yester-
day the record of seven pieces of prop
erty, sold in Raleigh since the assess
mcnt, that were undervalued. One piece,
assessed at $4,000 sold for $1,000. There
is some property assessed too hight
ought to be reduced. There is some prop
| erty assessed too low--it ought to be
increased. But the fact remains that
in nincty-nlne cases out of every hun
dred the assessment is below 1.-The true
value in money" If the law ought to
take into consideration the question as
to net income from property, raised
by Mr.. Bailey, let him agitate to change
flcials who took an oath to make assess
ments in accordance with the law. If the
assessors were guilty of favoritism, as has
been alleged, let it be pointed out and cor
rected. Any favoritism in asse9ment is
wronging every taxpayer whose property
is assessed at its true value.
With reference to Mr.. Baileys figures as
to what tax is paid by the person who
lends out either $1,000 or 100000, it is
only necessary to say, according to Mr.
Bailey's statements, that there is next to
no money loaned out in Raleigh if we are
to judge from the textbooks. Ifapeople in
Raleigh have solvent credits, they do not
appear on the ax-books, for Mr.. Bailey
says the solvent credits aggregate only
81 ,81S1S Is he not mistaken in thcs
figures We need not waste sympathy
on the heavy taxes widows pay on money
loaned when the tax lists show that they
do not pay it!
The tax assessment in Raleigh is Meth
er unjust, unfair nor confiscatory, though
it is not perfect or free from inequalities
From Mr.. Bailey's letter, it appears he
is Directing chiefly to the high rate in
Raleigh. In that position he is right
With the increased assessment of prop.