The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1906-02-16
A TAX QUESTION
Shall Personal Property be Made E1.
empt From ToHstion for State
Purposes.

purposes has come to the front
since Governor Folk announced
the appointment of a commission
to revise the revenue laws of the
State, and is receiving a good deal
of attention. The Governor, it is
understood, favors abolishing the
tax on personal property, and re-
lying upon the taxes from real
estate. corporations, licenses, etc.
to raise revenue for State purposes.
The Democratic platform of 1900
promised, upon payment of the
bonded Indebtedness of the State
which has since been paid-to
abolish State taxes on both person
al property and real estate, decar-
ing that after that debt was wiped
out it would bc possible to raise
sufficient revenue for State pur-
poses by taxes from corporations.
IL is questionable whether it
would be wise to exempt real estate
from taxation. but that the tax on
personal property can and ought
to be abolished is maintained By
many who have given the subject
of equallzing taxes much thought.
1t is contended with n good deal of
reasOnabenesS that under the
present system of assessing and
taxing personal property. the bur.
den tails heaviest on those who
have the least property of this
character; that the man with his
thousands or millions in notes.
stocks, bonds, mortgages, etc, can
and often does evade the assess.
ment OF such property, while the
man with nothing but his house.
hold goods, cow or family horse,
or II wagon aud team with whrrh
to earn living by hauling, is as
sessed on all he has, because it is
visible and the assessor has no
trouble getting at it. This is true
of the farmers live stock, imples
ments and personal property OF
every character.
In speaking of this phase of the
subject IN an interview published
III the Republic of the 18th. Cover.
nor Folk is quoted AS saying:
Some claim that the removal Of
State taxes from personal property,
and having real estate and corpor.
ate monopolies bear the burden Of
government. would benefit the rich
at the expense of the poor.
On the contrary, in proportion
to property, the personal tax tand
by personal property are not meant
corporate franchises and privil.
egeS), falls heaviest on the poor
and honest.
The abolition of this tax, and !
putting 1t on corporate privileges,
cannot be to the advantage of the
rich against the poor. FOR the poor
man has no monopoly privileges
and no corporate holdings.
Every farmer, under the pres.
ent system, pays on every COW,
horse aud hog; every widow and |
orphan whose estate must 20
through the Probate Court must
pay in full, while too often the |
man of wealth, having his person
atty in such shape it cannot be
pays practically nothing.
The tax dodger naturally OBJ
jects to any change IN the revenue
laws that will reach his property.
for if he manages to dodge now,
be is content.
Some persons object 10 cOrpor-
atoms and real estate bearing the
burdens of State government. But
he State gives to corporations,
which are artificial creatures of the
state. rights and privileges the or.
iinary citizen does not enjoy. and
I is only just that the State should
'eceive full return in the way of
'evrnue for the powers granted
This suggestion, according to
he Governor view, only related
o State taxes on personally, leav-
ng that class of property to be
aXed locally or not, according to
he needs of the locality.
Instead of relieving those who
low perjure themselves of the pen.
lilies of their perjury, he bcBeves
will make the prosecution sure,
~ then, he says, evidence can be
lorc easily obtained. Continuing 4
e said :
Instead OF benefting those y
Tho now dodge taxes. they will he Y
lade to bear their just proportion {
t the burdens OF government, 4
trough the taxation of privileges 4
nd franchises in which their hold J
lgs are invested Y
The honest man, who makes Y
ne return, the farmer and those q