Perth Amboy evening news., 1910-10-24
MAXIMUM TAX
LAW A FARCE
Rates In Many Towns and
Cities Creeping Up to
Old Figures.
TAX BOARDS
Special to the EVENING NEWS.

gust everywhere and the taxpayers are
wondering where the municipal drafts
on their pocket books are going to end.
The disgust is by no means confined to
this city, either, for returns being filed
with the State Tax Board show that in
many sections of the state the tax
rates are advancing and are far beyond
the maximum rate of $1.75 originally
fixed by the maximum tax rate act of
1905.
For instance the rate for Asbury
Park this year is 1914, Harrington
Township, Bergen county, $3.06; Ber.
genfeld Borough, Bergen County, 1925;
Metuchen, $2.12; New Brunswick, $2.l6
Woodbridge Township, Middlesex Coun-
ty, $2.02 and Clinton, Hunterdon
County, $l.95. 1t is expected that when
the state Tax Board receives full re-
turns many tax rates all over the state
Will be shown to have advanced.
Many taxpayers are remembering
that in 1906, when both the maximum
tax rate act and the County Tax Board
act were passed, many promises were
made by the Republican administration
that they would solve the tax troubles
and prevent extravaganza rates. For
mer Governor Stokes, in his inaugural
address, recommended a law fixing a
maximum tax rate of $1.70, or lower,
IT possible. He declared that bv that
means "the difficulties of the burden
some tax rate and municipal expendi-
lures would be largely soIved.n
The new tax rates for this wear. conn
led with the tremendous raise of assess
ments in the last four years, show that
the plan has been a dismal failure.
Governor Fort in his last annual mes
sage. showed up the true situation. He
said:
"The people of the state favor the
abolition of the County Boards of Tax
alton. Their existence is without ex.
cuse, and always has been. Their OBJ
ject and purpose was solely to secure
an increase of taxable values so that
the average tax rate upon railway prop
erty might be reduced. They have ac-
s~ultant loss to the public school funds
for distribution by the state of not less
than $$500,000 per year for each year
since their creation.
"One of the excuses given for the
enormous increase in property values in
the state has been the maximum tax
rate act of 1905, which, it is claimed,
has required the increase Of assessable
values in order that under it munich
palities might get enough revenue to
run their local governments. There
may be some truth in this. But it only
demonstrates the cunning which devised
County Boards of Taxation and maxi
mum tax rate laws to furnish a meth
cd for lowering the average tax rate,
which, by the act of 1906, was made
the basis for the taxation of railroad
property" Governor Fort recommend
ed the repeal of both laws. He has been
opposed to them ever since he has been
in office.
The first result of the passage of
these laws was a tremendous increase
in ratables. The report of the State Tax
Board for 1906 shows that this increase
in the whole state amounted to nearly
half a billion dollars over 1905. In ex-
act figures it was $416,527 ,112. Every
county wa hit, the increase in each be-
ing as follows: Atlantic, SO, 286.41S;
Bergen, $~8,937,444; Burlington, $4,496.-
443; Camden, $11 ,94s, 1887; Cape May,
S,782, 861; Cumberland, 81, 1856, 1886; Els
sex, $l49,215,991; Gloucester, $2,198,-
$50; Hudson, $57 1859, 897; Hunterdon,
$983, 710; Mercer, $23,398, 1856; Middle
sex, $S,009, 195; Monmouth, $17, 1913, ITO;
Morris, $6,607, 637; Ocean, $2,936,415;
Passaic, $50, POI ,083; Salem, $375,072;
Somerset, $2,203, 594; Sussex, 81, 015,-
036; Union, $50,998, 1928; Warran, ST.
247,410.
Of course, with these great increases
in assessments the tax rates went down.
In Trenton it dropped to $3.50 from
1925, and there were corresponding de-
creases In the rates all over the state.
AS shown by Governor Fort this mater
tally decreased the average tax rate in
the state and thus cut a large slice off
the taxes paid by the railroad compan-
les, who pay at the average rate. This
decrease in rates was hailed as a proof
that the new system was going to do
great things for the tax payers. But as
already shown, it has failed utterly to
do what was promised. Not emily has it
saddled upon the state the twenty-one
County Tax Boards, which Governor
Fort maintains are useless and which
cost the State last year $9l, 1880, be-
sides what they cost the counties, carry
ing the total cost up to about $3.50, 900,
but in addition the tax rates all over
the state are rapidly climbing to the
figures which existed before these new
laws were passed.
In every year since I9o6 there has
beer a further increase in the assess
ments, though OF course these increases
have not equaiied the big jump from
1905 to 1906.
When it is remembered that the IN
creased rates are pelhg pala on tremen,
dously increased assessments the full
force of the failure of the laws in