The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1908-07-09
TAXATION METHODS
A Severe Arrangement Of the
Present System.
CHANGES SORELY NEEDED
In the Ohio State Journal, II. II. Nc
Mahon Tells Why Constitutional
Amendment Should Be Supported,

Inc report OF Ine governor tal
commission recommending an amend
ment to theS constitution seems t
have raised an unexpected opposition
1t was thought that the taxpayers o.
Ohio fully recognized the need Of {
change in our system of taxation The
present system has been so frequently
and so severely condemned, both pub
licly and privately, that it was natur
ally assumed that the unjust, inequit
able. and iniquitous features of the
system were understood by ALL
The arraignment of the system in
the report of the commission would
seem to be sufficiently severe and well
founded to convince any thoughtful
man of the necessity for a change.
And yet conscientious citizens are
still heard to ask, what is the matter
with our present system and why
should there be any change in the con-
stitutiOn? 1t is argued that the pres
ent constitutional system of taxation
is all right if only the statutes were
properly framed and properly en-
forced.
Unfortunately, some Of the advo-
Gates of the proposed constitutional
amendment seem to admit that the
change is demanded by expediency
rather than by principle. The truth
is, however, that in this matter of
taxation eXpediency only reinforces
and supports the argument from prin-
ciple. The fundamental principles of
taxation. of justice and equality de-
mand that the constitution be amend
ed and every argument from eXpedi-
ency reinfoTces that demand
The advocates of the amendment
should not permit themselves to be
put in the position of even seeming
to make compromise with injustice.
While it is true that minor improve
ments might be made in the present
system without any constitutional
amendment. as pointed out by the
commission, it is equally true that no
mere statutory changes viii ever rem
der the present system satisfactory or
give it even an approach to Justice
and equality. Failure would be the
result in the future, as it has been in
the past, and for the same reason, bel
cause the system Of taxation embodied
In the constitution is fundamentally
unsound. Section 2 of article XII
should be amended, If not repealed,
because 1t violates the fundamental
principles of economics and of gov
ernment.
The two great fundamental princi- |
pies of taxation are derived from the |
very nature of government and are
these, that taxation should be for gov |
ernmental purposes only and that the |
burdens Of government should be !
equitably and justly apportioned to
the citizens in proportion to their abil- |
tty to contribute to the support of the
government.
Section . of article XII of the con-
stitution of Ohio was an attempt by
the trainers of the constitution to
formulate a rule of equality and was
based on the then generally prevalent
theory that the ability of a person,
partnership or corporation, to pay
taxes was measured by the amount of
which he or it owned and
that equality could be secured by re-
quiring all individuals to pay for the
support of the government an equal
of what they had.
The progress in economic thought
has been so great during the last half
that even those unfamiliar
with the technical discussions Of the
economist recognize that property is
no adequate measure of either ability
or duty to pay taxes. This is most
apparent in the case of those public
service corporations whose earnings
are out Of all proportion to the
of visible, tangible property
owned by them. The same thing Is
true, although less apparent in the
case of every taxpayer. 1t is now a
we'll established principle of econom-
cs that taxes are and must be paid
)ut of earnings. No earnings, no
axes. Unless the earnings of the peo-
Die are sufficient to more than pay
heir taxes, the people and the state
must soon face bankruptcy; and sec
ion of article XII of the constitution
embodies an economic
allacy
Even the trainers of the constitution
eem to have had a glimpse of the
ruth, but only a glimpse. While some
Il the ablest judges who have ever
at on the bench of our supreme court,
ne of whom was also leader in the
convention, declared in
Xpress language in 1858, that the pur-
ose of article XII, section 2, was to
lake property the sole basis of tax.
tion.' Judge Swan, one of our great.
st judges, and also a member of the
onvention, declared three years later,
18th reference to the taxation of
anks, that "the constitution and gen.
raj assembly have rejected what a
ank really owns and taken, as
asis of taxation, what it employs"
II Judge Swan was right in his in.
expectation of the constitution and
le statutes, it shows a distinct rec c
gnition by the trainers of the con.
tuition that their rule of equality
as not considered altogether sound |
zen when they adopted it. 1t is
oubtful whether they ever considered A
to be the statement of a funda-
entail principle of eternal justice. 1t
as merely the most expedient and
ost practicable rule which they
uld devise. There was and is moth 8
g sacred about it; and the history of
If state shows that it was a funda- G,
entail and terrible blunder.
Tax legislation in Ohio since the
option of the constitution in 1851
s developed in two directions, one,