The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1906-02-21
Wednesday, Feb. Fl, 1906.
Does The State Deal ImpartiaIIy:

1BOcS TIC SLhtc ned1 1fupdESloAA4s
There has been of late a great lot Of bowling
on the subject of tax lodging. For some OF
those who plead for increased assessment OF
their neighbours property we have entire
respect. But no man has stated what advant-
age Is to ONE from q higher assessment Of
property. The same amount OF money Is to
be raised, whether the assessment is high or
low.
But let us 60 behind all this ak Of assess
ment OF property, and ask II the State Of
South Carolina deals fairly with its sons?
For instance: Two young men with equal
earning power start out in life together, with
no property at all. They are paid for their
services cash in equal amounts and each fol.
lows the bent Of his W INCLINATION.
zone OF these young men lives economically
and saves a part Of earnings.
The other, with equal talent, spends all his
money In extravaganza SO that be accumu-
lates nothing, even for old age.
Does the State treat these boys alike? No;
, not a bit Of 1t. The State lays It's hand upon
q the man who may have for a time denied
himself Of the comforts as we'll as the luxuries
OF life, and the State takes from him a por-
ton Of his earnings. The spendthrift after
throwing away his money possibly in riotous
and impure living, is ready to join the
demagagical how about tax dodgers while be
himself contributes little or nothing to the
support cfthe Government.
We would ask: Why does the Slate u
South Carolina saddle upon Its sober, lndus'
trious and thrifty citizens the whole burden
OF paying the expense Of the Government!
The economic and the spendthrift enjoy the
equal protection OF the law, and the burden
should be equal.
By making one man pay large tribute while
another pays little or nothing. a premium II
offered to l~sziness, extravaganza and lack o
thrift. All men who enjoy the same protec'
ton of the government, 1t would seem, shoule
pay the same amount in taxes. Why dis
eliminate against the Industrious and thrifty
citizen, in favor OF one who lacks these quail
ties, and who spends his money as fast as ht
AXE II?
In all these howlipgs about tax dodgerl
have you noticed that those who pay mex
to nothing at all in support OF thisg govern
'ment may be loudest in their clamor agains'
the better citizen
One citizen may squander bis money, ane
have nothing at all upon which to pay taxes
Another citizen by INDUSTRIOUS naolIs an'
economy may accumulate a fortune, and hi
may return 1t for taxation at a value below
par, and pay much to the government.
Now, which Of these men is the better citi
zen ?
LIS man throws away his money. or spends
I as he earns IL, so that he has nothing Will
which to pay, does that peodlgaltiy MAKE
him a better citizen than the one who keeps
his money?
Which OF the two is the greatest and mos
reprehensible tax dodger?
II one man throws way his money ano
pays no tax. does that act make him q better
. man than bis neighbor who has saved his
money, but returns 1t for less than the i'm
~pecunious brother may think the market
value? BE-.
Ia It a crime for the citizen to save his mon
ey and be taxed at less than market value
Or, ia 1t patriotic and public spirited for The
citizen to throw away his money, 30 tina
he may dodge all taxation?
isn't he who throws away all bis money
until he has saved nothing, the real or the
ideal tax dodger?