New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-04-01
4 CHANCE FOR IMPROVEMENT.

The Albany dispatches indicating that in spite
OF the caucus Of Wednesday evening, the legis-
lature might modify the stock transfer tax bill
somewhat suggest the possibility that some Of
the bad features of the proposed mortgage tax
may even yet be corrected. We may fairly con-
slider that the caucus has determined the party
policy upon the general question Of raising reVe-
nue. from mortgages and stock transfers. Not
withstanding the lateness of the session, how
ever, there is good reason for open discussion Of
the features of the particular measures. SO
many tax schemes have been before the legis-
lature. and so many contradictory reports have
been made as TO what was likely enough to
pass TO be worthy Of serious consideration, that
the features Of the caucus measures as reported
by the newspapers come somewhat as a surprise
TO the public. The latest printed forms Of the
mortgage tax bill In the two houses which we
have received do not agree. The Senate bill, on
which attention had been largely centred, APP
plies absolutely only to future mortgages, While
the Assembly bill, which now seems preferred,
applies, at least in one section, to all mortgages,
though the bill is not consistently redrawn in
harmony with that plan.
AS we have each year for many years de-
clared, mortgage taxation is utterly wrong IN
principle and should be abolished. 1t is double
taxation, and places an unjust burden on the
land owners least able TO bear it. 1t makes
borrowing expensive and is handicap on the
development Of real estate and the making of
homes The proposed annual tax on mortgages
is defensible only as being in principle trihe
better than the present abhorrent system by
which all mortgages are liable TO taxation as
personal property at local rates. while all but
a few Of them escape through allowance for
countervailng debts Of their owners, by means
OF hiding or by absolute perjury. Something
may be said for a small tax uniformly levied
as against large tax generally evaded. But
the present tax is so generally evaded-even
lawfully escaped-that there is grave reason to
fear that the new tax would in its operation
hamper business much more seriously, and,
while theoretically more equal. would practt-
cally do much more general harm.
We wish it were possible TO change the form
Of this mortgage tax bill so as to impose simply
a recording fee. Nobody would object seriously
to that. 1t is fairly to be defended as a charge
on a transaction, whereas the annual tax is IN
questionably a tax on certain part Of the value
OF real estate already heavily taxed. The aver
age life OF a mortgage is about three years, and
provision could be made TO compel the payment
OF a new fee on mortgages allowed TO r II be-
yond their specified period. AS only half the
mortgage tax is to go to the State the State
revenues would be almost as well OFF with the
recording tax, even if the annual tax did not so
half of it less than the whole Of recording fee
which would be paid each yea. IN about one
third Of the sum total of outstanding mortgages
This does not take into account long term bonds
some Of which return only about 8 per cent
and which the mortgage tax would place under
heavy contribution; but a securities tax Of five
mills once for all on bonds whether on prop
erty in this State elsewhere, in lieu of all
other taxation, would draw capital here for pur-
NOS coPT
our revenues and stimulate our prosperity.
Accepting the idea OF mortgage taxation rs
the determined method Of raising necessary
revenue, think it will be highly unfortunate
to push through a measure the features Of which
have not been fully understood by the people
when the States expenses may be met by i'm
posts on the same class of securities which will
be less burdensome and less destructive to bust
ness enterprise.