Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1904-02-04
Mr.. cose's VIEWS.

given him close insight to the subject
presents a defence of the existing
method of taxation in Vermont; 9
theme that engages much attention
at present.
We quite agree with Mr.. Cobb as
to the unwisdom OF rashness in
disturbing the present order. 1t is
possible that injudicious changes
might bring about a worse state
of affairs than we now endure
although it would be difficult to i'm
agine system less inequable or more
oppressive to worthy class of our
citizenship. The most that can be
said for the existent system, and the
argument that has always carried the
greatest weight with our Legislators
when changes were proposed, is that
the present conditions have prevailed
so long that people have mere or less
adjusted themselves to them, and the
owner or purchaser of real estate who
finds it necessary TO cucumber his
property encounters no unforeseen
hardship when required to pay taxes
on what is equivalent to portion, or
perhaps all, of his indebtedness.
However, this will impress most
people as pretty poor justification
of a system of taxation. There is
really no danger that any general
assembly OF Vermont-a state noted
for its conservatism-will take any
step toward reform without mature
consideration. In fact, the danger to
be feared is that ii viii continue to
do what its predecessors have so long
done-simply consider, and nothing
more.
Mr. Cobb has nothing to say as to
the manifest injustice of compelling
the purchaser of real estate-a farm,
say-to pay the taxes on the whole
when he gives mortgage
to the seller to secure the purchase
price, even when, as in many cases,
the buyer pays but little down and
must trust to the productiveness of
the farm and his own thrift to wipe |
out the Indebtedness. The young
man who seeks to establish a home
in this way undertakes no light |
burden. He must not only meet his
interest payments and keep the build
Ings insured for the benefit of the |
mortgage, but must pay the taxes on
he whole property the same as if
he owned it clear, except so far as
he may be able to offset against his
holdings, providing he has
my. This is not the case if he buys
\ stock Of goods; he can then Offset
every dollar of his Indebtedness and
S taxed only on the balance remain
ng. The effect OF this striking dis
against real estate is
apparent in the Discrimination ofwould-
,e purchasers to take up this burden.
{ is further reflected in the de-
'reciation of farming property and its
general unsaleableness.
Mr. Cobb takes another class of
nortgages for his illustration, which
) fair, of course, since all mortgages
you'd be affected by a change in the ,
Ak laws. But the first class should '
ot be ignored. In cases where the
ctual owner OF real estate pledges
as security Tor the payment of an /
it is clear that no part
I the title passes to the mortgage {
ntil the conditions are broken. 1t
'ould be both unjust and impractica-
lie to regard the mortgage as Joint !
wner and to tax him as such in the /
'wn where the property is located. 7
ut what shall we say as to the JUS !
ce of taxing the mortgagor in this !
ase for the whole appraised value ]
the property, the same as before $
lie loan was made, and also taxing 2
i'm in addition on the proceeds OF
lat loan, wherever they can be !,
aced Is such an increase in the a
rand list real, or is it wholly ficti- r
Gus Does not such a method tend q
cripple him who finds it necessary :,
advantageous to raise money for s
resent needs (? Why must this 7
enalty be melted out to the owner of {
al estate. while nothing of the sort :
attempted when personal property :
so pledged ? a
1t is quite true that the abolition of d
'uble taxation of mortgaged real es- = =
tie would reduce the grand list. How u
UGH nobody knows, but it is not s
-obable that it would be such an ex- +
nsive reduction as many imagine
large portion-we presume the -
eater part-ot real estate mortgage al
debtedness is now offset against the
'rsonal holdings of the mortgaoors.