The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-06-09
MERCHANTS BEAR AN UNJUST BURDEN Property Owner Has Easy Time
 In Birmingham HOW THE TAXES ARE PAID John L. Parker Points Out That Li- cense Taxes Are $so,ooo a Year
 More Than Are Real and
 Personal Taxes.
HOW THE TAXES ARE PAID

John L. Parker, chairman of the license and taxation committee of the Board of Trade. has made a special study of the taxation problem of Birmingham. He says in his report that the time has come when steps should be taken to remove the advantage which the landowner holds over the merchants. He shows where legislative action is positively necessary. Here Is the report:
 Gentlemen-Your committee on licenses and taxation begs to make the following report
 First, I will cite you comparative statement of license and real estate tax ation for two years, or rather one year and Il months
 License-July 1, 1907, to July 1, 1908, $305. 5.142.25. July 1. 1908 to June 1, 1909, $262, ,S5S. .63.
 Real and Personal Tax-July 1, 1907, to July 1. 1908, s273.e35.07. July l. 1908, to June 1, 1909, $S40,SS69 95.
 It will be noted that for the year, July 1, 1907, to July 1, 1908, the collections from license fees exceeded the real and per- sonal taxation by over $30000. There was also included in the real and personal tax a merchants tax of nearly $30,000. For the Il months from July 1, 1908. to June 1, 1909. 1t will be noted that real and personal tax collections exceeded the license collections about $70OOO. However, this does not mean that the license on the merchants has been reduced. This difference was caused by the loss of liquor licenses and also by the increase made by the state board of equalization In the real and personal taxes If the liquor licenses had been collected for the year. which would be about $15O,000 making q total of licenses of about $412000, the H. censes would have again exceeded the real and personal taxes by about s70,0O0, although there was gain of $70,000 in the receipts of real and personal taxes
 This great question of over-taxation of the merchants in favor of the landowner has got to be settled sooner or later, and I think this body should take steps to bring 1t to focus now.
 have heard any number of large prop erty owners say they would be glad to pay more taxes, as they thought they should bear more of the burden. How ever, under the law, they cannot pay the city more taxes without giving nearly one and half times that amount to the state and county, which does not need the money.
 Upon our present low valuations the county of Jefferson pays one-sixth of the states real and personal taxes.
 Under the present law the raising of property valuations is the easiest way to bring in more money from real and per sonal property, thereby enabling the mu- ncipal government to reduce the license. However, as stated above, 1t would be a most unjust way, as it would cause the landowner to pay s1.35 to the state and county for every s100 he pays to the city.
 The great question is how can it be done?
 Some have suggested that inasmuch as the Board of Revenue has authority to reduce the county tax rate that this be done and the values raised, so as to give the county practically the same revenue it now receives and the city more. This plan Is very well as far as it goes, but how about the state, whose rate cannot be reduced?
 Others have suggested a constitutional amendment to enable cities of certain population to have a separate board of assessors, assessing city property much higher for city taxes than for state and county.
 Another suggestion is that the city tax rate be increased However, this also would have to be done oy constitutional amendment.
 A plan which is successfully in vogue in many large cities of the east is sliding tax rate Many of these cities have no privilege tax at all They get up a budget the first of the year finding out 1low much money will be needed during the year. They then take the assessments and make the rate whatever is necessary to bring in the amount needed. While this plan is very nice for large cities, it has it's drawbacks, as it leaves with a few men authority to make the tax rate what they please.
 This great question should not be de- layed longer, and the merchants should be relieved of the unequal burden of tax ation JOHN l.. PARKER, Chairman