New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-02-20
FOR PERSONALLY TAXES
State Tax Commissioners Oppose
Plan to Abolish Them.
BETTER TO EXEMPT HOMES
Report Suggests This Would Be
More Advantageous to the
Welfare of the State.

Albany, Feb. ly-The State Board of Tax
Commissioners In Its annual report. which
goes to the Legislature tomorrow, takes
a decided stand against the plan to abolish
taxes on personal property.
I'VE have repeatedly called the attention
Of the Legislature" the report says, ito
existing conditions In respect to the tax
alton, or attempted taxation. OF personal
property under our system of taxing It on
the same bssisas real estate and the great
injustice and inequality which arise there
from In the distribution OF tax burdens.
1t is well known fact, recognized by all.
that for many years personal property has
been enormously increasing In volume and
value. 1t Is generally admitted that the
value OF taxable personally at least equals
and probably greatly exceeGs the value Of
taxable real property. and vet the value
actually taxed Is but small percentage of
that OF realty.
1T Is freely admitted and claimed by
persons who would impose all tax burdens
upon real property and those who favor the
complete abolition of taxes on personal
property, either because OF seIf-interest or
az remedy for curing inequality, that the
wealthy citizen. through his own astute-
Eees and the astuteness OF counsel. can and
does escape taxation on personally, and
that excessive tax burdens are cast upon
widows, orphans and small holders. who
are unable to escape. II Is true that the
more wealthy people do escape TO large
extent the taxation Of their personal prop
erty, and 1t Is also true that the owners
Of small holdings In personal property, al
though less able to do so, pay relatively
much larger proportion OF taxes than do
the more wealthy owners OF such property.
Analysis Of tho Laws.
Aralyying the present laws taxing bank
stock, mortgages, deposits In savings banks
and investments In corporate enterprises,
the report brings out many interesting feat
ures, summing UP as follows.
These different methods of taxing GER
tain kinds Of personal property, instead of
showing a substantial amount taxed, as
compared with the aggregate, tend to
show the tremendous amount of such
capes taxation"
Continuing, the report says:
In dealing with the subject OF taxation
of personal property, and N fact Of airy
other property, we must take as 81 tasls
the conditions rs they are fond TO Cxist.
The subject must be dealt with az 4 prac-
teal rather than a theoretical proposition,
and We must md a remedy TOR existing
conditions which will be productive of the
greatest degree of equality possible TO at
tain, and which is practical In its appica
ton and of enforcement.
There seems to be no Just reason why
personal property, which requires a very
much larger expenditure OF moneys raised
by taxation for its preservation and pro-
lection than does real estate, should not
bear a fair share OF such tax burdens. AS
a matter of public policy, IL would be In
welfare of the state to encourage home
building by partially exempting the home
from taxation, and correspondingly in
creasing the burdens on personal property.
than to increase the burdens on the home
to enable personal property TO escape taxa
ten.
1t is our belief that the solution Of this
question lies in the proper classification OF
personal property and taxing, 1t at fixed
rate, making the rate dependent upon the
character Of the property taxed. In other
words, make the rate according to classi-
flcation, dependent upon its nature and
character but make IL uniform for each
class throughout the entire state.
We believe that the amount Of personal
property which is driven from the state on
account of the administration of our gen.
eral property tax law In the assessment
thereof IS a negligible quantity.
What we need in this state is equality in
the taxation of this class of property
equality in the sense that each class Of per-
sonal property shall be taxed upon the
same basis throughout the entire state
The rate OF taxation should not be high.
but 1t should be uniform, and when II is
made uniform and reasonable the motive
for removal or change OF residence to evade
taxation viii be largely eliminated.