Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-04-19
WHO PAYS FERTILIZER TAX?
Question of Considerable Interest Dis
cussed.

Question of Considerable Interest Dis
cussed.
Apropos of a recent discussion as to
VINO really pays the fertilizer tax that
supports Clemson college, Mr.. B. +.
Taylor Of Columbia, has contributed
!, some interesting communication on the
subject as follows:
I'VE will suppose that the govern
ment levies a tax Of one cent on each
newspaper that Is sold in the state;
that the cost Of producing the news
paper is three cents, and the paper is
sold at five cents. 1t must be admitted
that as long as the cost Of production,
plus the tax, Is received for the paper,
that nothing comes out of the pocket
Of the printer or publisher. We will
suppose, however, that circumstances
were such that the publisher was fore
ed, or desired to sell his newspaper for
81 cents. l think that in that case 1t is
perfectly apparent that the publisher
would pay half of the tax and the buyer
of the paper the other half. AS soon as
the publisher sells his paper for three
cents, or the cost Of production, then he
would have to pay the whole of the tax
Of one cent. Now, who pays the tax as
long as the paper sells for five cents?
Does athe publisher have to pay any
thing? l think it Is quite apparent
that the consumer pays the profit Of
one cent, as well as the tax Of one cent.
1T is just the same thing in the fer
tilizer tax. When the manufacturer
sells his goods for less than the cost Of
production, he pays the tax. When he
sells it for more than the cost Of pro-
duction, the consumer certainly has it
to pay.
There is a tax in North Carolina on
fertilizer and cotton seed meal. AS a
rule cotton seed meal is sold on basis
Of Columbia by the mills located there,
and when our price is $29, Columbia, II
anyone is willing to buy the meal with
out tags, we invariably reduce 25 cents
from our regular price. OF course,
meal can only be bought In this way
when it Is going to be used in mixing,
and when the mixer undertakes to put
his goods on the market he has to pay
tax on the meal. l am quite sure
that the cotton seed oil mills generally
have more sense than to use nitrate Of
soda in order to bring up the analysis
of their meal, for the simple reason
that If they did use nitrate Of soda, and
did not make a statement OF 1t to
Clemson college, the method Of analysis
that would be employed by the chem
lists would be such that the nitrogen
in the nitrate OF soda would not appear
i'm the results of the analysis. In other
words, it would not be converted into
ammonia, but would be converted into
nitrus acid. For that reason the
source Of ammonia Is required by
Clemson college, so that they can apply
the proper analysis to the samples
which they draw. Therefore, If there
has been any such manipulation of cot
ton seed meal, it has not helped the oil
mills who have INDUCED in this prac-
tice.
There Is produced in South Carolina
little over 10000 tons Of cotton seed
meal, and considerable of this goes for
export and for shipment to other
states, and quite a large quantity OF 1t
is used up in mixing fertilizers, but so
far as l know none Of it that Is sold
directly to the consumer as cotton seed
meal escapes paying the fertilizer tax.
The state received the tax on $4,000
tons during the last year.
1T is not strange tnat the local
manufacturer takes advantage OF the
freight rate from other points to his
market in selling his goods, either cot
ton seed meal or fertilizer. What Is the
use Of establishing a factory at Ander-
son, for instance, if the manufacturer
at that point was going to get no ad-
vantage by reason of the freight rate
from Charleston? In either case the
consumer pays the freight, as well as
the tax levied for inspection.
II am not familiar with the price OF
fertilizer, but l certainly can state
without hesitation that the price OF
cotton seed meal in South Carolina,
North Carolina and Georgia is not the
same; 1t varies very considerably.
Wherever there Is a big demand for
cotton seed meal, there you VIII nnd
the highest prices. l am not prepared
to say that the price Of fertilizer would
be reduced If the fertilizer tax was re-
moved, because there are so many other
things that enter into tine making OF a
price, one of which is whether the con-
sumer is willing to pay 1t or not. 90
say, however, that If every condition
except the tax were the same, unques-
tionably the price would be reduced II
the tax were removed
few days ago Mr.. Taylor wrote as
follows:
LAS a manufacturer of fertilizer ma
terial, l wish to say that none of the
fertilizer companies or oil mills OBJECT
to paying the tax, because 1t does not
come out Of their pockets. For IN
stance, the writer sold fifty tons or
meal few days ago at $29 f. o. b., CO.
On the same day we sold fifty tons or
meal to go to North Carolina, with the
understanding that it was not to be
tagged at $2S.75. l think this shows
very clearly who pays the fertilizer tax
But assuming that all the meal that we
made was sold within the state OF
South Carolina, and that we invariably
sold 1t at the same price to every one
there would be no change as to when
party is taxed unless the fertilizers
being sold was disposed of at less than
cost. In this instance only would the
manufacturer or distributor of fertili-
ger material be the one who pays the
tax. AS long as there is any profit, or
break even in the difference between
the cost Of the manufacture and the
selling cost, the farmer pays the tax.
AS soon as it is sold for less than the
cost of production the manufactures