The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-01-01
Brought to Book At Last.

Our Monday paper would not be natural
without brush with The Index-Apponl
on tho subject of double taxation. Our
contemporary has jumped about so rap
idly that It has been ha.d for us TO keep
up. Sometimes 1t has travelled on horse
back But we have succeeded at last in
getting from 1t two interesting admissions.
The one relates TO this self-same horse.
The other day 1t declared that The
but we showed from the files of The
Index-Appeal that :he animal was trottcd
out for illustration by our contemporary.
The 1ndex-Appeul replies.
I'VE do not repudiate the horse. We
explicitly accepted Il for the sake OF
argument, but we did not introduce 1t
as mortgage transacticn.P
Why don't you consult your own files?
You introduced the horse for Illustration,
and we accepted II, and we were not
speaking at the time of mortgage trans
actions. We asked you If you would tax
c on a verbal promise from A to return
a loan of $500, and you said NO" but
that You would tax c on his $500 unse-
citred), just as you would tax MIN on
q horse which he had loaned to ~ we,
thanked you for the illustration and
said:
If the horse were in AS possession on
February LIST. 1t would be assessed against
A, and a would pay the tax. Would our
contemporary then tax the horse against
e also? Now, precisely the same condi-
ton exists when c lends A $500. II "A
Keeps the money he pays the tax on 1t,
and If he passes 1t on 10 b. Z pays the
tax on 1t, as though the borrowed horse
had been passed on from A to Il. Now,
does not our contemporary see plainly
that TO tax that money as against A or Il,
and tax it also against c Is double taxa
tion?"
OF course, VIC were presumirg that the
horse like the money. was loaned for a
considerable period of time, and not for
n day, as our artful contemporary tried
to make 1t appear. But nothing was
said in this immediate connection about
n mortgage. We were both speaking
specifically of unsecured loans. But, sup
pose A had given bond secured by mort
gage on his land for the safe return of
the horse and his hire at the end of
twelve months. would you tax the horse
and the bond also2
But our contemporary makes still
more interesting admission, and. appar-
emily. without qualification. In one of
Its articles 1t said:
But in putting that tax burden on the
mortgage. where 1t properly belongs, why,
in the name of common sense. should
there be any deduction from the assessed
valuation of the real estate mortgaged as
security for payment of the debt2''
And we replied:
For the simple reason that no man
should be taxed upon debt In assess
ing personal property. the commissioner
of revenue makes allowance for any debts
of the owner which may be. and the sum
OF his indebtedness is deducted from the
assessed value of his personality
In another article The Index-Appeal
said:
The farm is assessed al its value. nor
at AS interest In it, but, as its owner, a
is required by law to pay the taxes on
It's assessed value. or sell out TO some
ore mat can and VIII pay it. He has full
possession and use of the farm. and ms
the farm itself is liable for the taxes.
clearly no one else should pay them but
a while he retains ownership of It,
But, in its last article on the subject.
1t uses this language:
But nowhere can we discover in Tho
contention any suggest
ton that the money-lender should be
taxed; The man that borrows money and
keeps 1t pays taxes on the money and
on the security too. Now n great many
people who borrow money keep 1t for
other uses than buying real estate,
though they give real estate as security.
What do the property owners of Virginia
tank of plan which requires them to
pay oil their property and also on the
money they borrow. which belongs to
another, while the lender goes untaxed?
Or suppose that the borrower Ia re-
leased, very properly, we think, from the
obligation to pay taxes on the money he
borrowed, on the ground that one should
not be taxed on his debts what do the
taxpayers of Virginia think OF plan
which extinguishes taxable asset be-
cause II has been converted into a reve-
nue. producing investment? That Is ex-
actly what would happen II the mortgage
is not taxed. and there would be COR
responding increase OF the burden on
other taxpayers, or a corresponding cur
tailment OF the public revenues"
That Is complete surrender, and while
our contemporary was in the mood of
confession II should also have told its
readers that The Times Dispatch had
clearly stated that If the amount of the
loan We're deducted from the assessed
value OF the farm the lender should be
taxed. The central point in this long
drawn out discussion, so far as our side
of it is concerned, is double taxation Our
contention throughout has been that TO
tax both the mortgage and the land to
their full value is double taxation, and
II ia unfair to say that our concern has
been 10 shield the lender. We have been
trying to help the borrower, and we have
shown that 1t does not help, but hurts
him to tax the mortgage after the bor-
rover has paid full taxes on the land.
There are but two ways, as we have
shown, to help tho borrower one by de-