Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1904-01-21
ASSEMBLY sHlRkED ITS DUTY.
from Ex-Gov. Smiths message to the
General Assembly Oct. 4, 1901

session of the legislature since thu
present law was enacted. At the las
session a commission was appointed
to look into the subject, and its reporI
will be found TO contain much yaiu
able information, but it has seemed &c
me from the investigation have glVer
the subject, there is a short cut te
relief that is worthy OF consideration,
aside from the valuable recommends
tions and suggestions, contained In
the report of the commission referred
10. The term .sdouble taxation seems
to be a misnomer, as applied to the
evil sought to be remedied here In
Vermont. The alleged double taxa
ton here arises from the taxation oil
real estate at its full value, and, II
there is mortgage ON it, OF taxing the
mortgage at its full value also. This
is not double taxation, because there
are two distinct property interests,
! which are liable to taxation, and which
are taxed separately; the real estate
itself, and the money which is repre-
scented by the mortgage. Neither
properly value is taxed twice under
our law. The state simply taxes the
full valne of the real estate TO the
owner, and then taxes the MORTGAGE
on his money. This is unfair but not
unlawful.
1t is just at this point. in calling this
situation double taxation and trying
to dig a remedy for the real hardship
out of it., that those who have dis
cussed the question heretofore have
drifted off into the abstract question OF
taxation in general, and failed always
to find any relief to a manifest and
objectionable injustice to the owner
of real estate in Vermont. As a mat
ter of fact, the solution is simplicity
itself if one but takes the trouble TO
~analyze the problem. The injustice
and wrong arise from the statute
which provides that real and personal
estate shall be placed in the list at its
value in money, and with respect to
real estate makes the mortgagor pay
the tax on the entire value of the real
estate, aud allows him no offset to his
debts while with respect to personal
estate, the right to offset is allowed to
the owner thereof, and only the bal
ance is taxed. IL is this unfair, unjust
discrimination between real and per-
sonal property that causes all the
trouble. The situation Is even worse !
than appears on the face of it. Under
the provisions OF the constitution each
citizen is called upon to bear his pro-
(Which means his just proper
tom of taxation, and under the pro-
visions of the statute referred to the
owner OF personal estate may not only
any mortgage on his personal
property, if il is mortgaged, but from
that balance may deduct any other
he may have; while the
owner of real estate Is taxed to the fnll
value of his property and denied any
-eliet whatsoever from his mortgage
and other debts. The more he owes
he greater his burden OF taxation.
The simple statement of the case Is
he strongest argument against ii. Ii
$ not double taxation OF the owner of
'eal estate, but the rankest kind of
II is an unfair discrimination
him and a denial of his plain
light, under the constitution. There
an be no possible justification, legal e,
II equitable, for any discrimination In !
axation between real and personal ,
property they are both property and :
hould be taxed alike. To give one :
lass the right to offset debts and deny /
same privilege TO the other class, :
/; violating justice, fairness. the con- I
and everything that lies at
foundation of good government. r
he remedy lies in treating both +
Iasses OF property alike; give to real \
the right of Offset of debts or n
Ike away that right from personal q
There a be no other soln- ;
on of the problem. The only argu- q
Ient ! have heard raised against :
lch a proposition is that ii real estate n
allowed the right of offset, the :
rand list of the state will be so re- g
need that nothing will be left upon I
hich TO raise a revenue. This aron- .
ent is absolutely without force or !
undation and while it has been used
Brighten owners OF real estate here
fore into believing their taxes would |,
increased if both classes of prop :
~ were placed on a level, there is in
nothing to the argument. It
Iould be remembered that in such
Tent the amount OF evenne to be
Used would not be affected in the
asst. 1t would simply be the rate
at would change. As a consequence
such a change the proportion of
venue personal estate would have TO
attribute TO the state would increase,
the proportion real estate wonld
to contribute would decrease
is is exactly what ought TO occur.
he two classes would be equalizei
Id that is what ought to have
,curred long ago the balance ought
ever 10 have been disturbed. This
luilibrinm ought to be established at
ice, irrespective of consequences.
cause whatever the consequence
nv be, the foundation will then be
id properly. This legislature ought
to adjourn until this wrong is
GIFTED.
At the session OF the legislature in
e fall OF 1898, the subject of taxation
as agitated 10 some extent. but in
cad OF passing the much-needed law
hich would have given the home
aker the desired relief, that august