The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1911-11-04

present.
But. we are told, look at the banks;
see the taxes they pay at this fiat
rate; would not the same rate draw
heavily from individuals with money?
No. First, because a very large per
cent of the money now in the state
already pays this tax, through the
banks, where II is deposited, or
through insurance companies, which
also pay fat rate. Manifestly this
money would not pay two taxes. If
withdrawn from the financial institu-
tions and subject to the same rate,
there would be no gain to the state
or town whether it came one way or
the other. Again, the taxation of
money through the banks has proven
great success as a revenue produc-
er, not because of the low rate upon
it, but because it has been possible
in this way to reach 1t, while all
other attempts to tax it have failed.
When money is in the bank it is
where the taxing power can get at
and count 1t and tax it and collect
the tax. The bank has no interest
to cover 1t up, since the tax really
comes out of the depositor by his les
sened dividend. Vermont has solved
the taxation of money in a way that
other states have been glad to pat
tern after, by leyying on it while it
is in the hands OF trustee-the
bank
But why should banks pay lower
rate on money than individuals? Is
not this discrimination? Why not
the same rate for both? If bank
pays only $40 why not give the indiv-
idual the same rate? Let us under
stand one thing. Banks as such do
not pay taxes at this rate. The mon
ey placed on deposit with them pays
| it, and the tax comes out of the de-
| positor He may be told that his
money is exempt when in the bank,
| but it is a mild form of deception. He
pays the state tax of $40 Were this
tax wiped out, his dividends would
be $40 greater each year Now then,
is it not fact that when the state
realizes $40 on the depositor's mon
| ey, it is actually getting more in the
| form of a tax than either it or the
town where the depositor resides
could hope to II the depostor himself
were to be taxed directly upon it?
Has not experience shown this
From the standpoint of revenue pro-
ducing are we not getting thousands
upon thousands of dollars year
more from money in Vermont by our
system of taxing 1t through the banks
than we ever did or ever will by try
ing to tax it directly? Who believes
that all the money or intangibles out
side the banks and taxable to indy
iduals pays more than the money
within the banks pays, on the aver
age? We are dealing with a condit
ion here-the difficulty of making sc
elusive thing as money or its equiv
alent stand long enough TO deliver
In bank, we have 1t cornered; outside
IL escapes.
Nor do we see how the change pro
posed is going to help the borrower
in many cases. Suppose money IL
taxed at $40 all around. and sup
pose-which doesn't necessarily fol
low-that many people Withdraw
their deposits and go to lending mon
} ey themselves. There will be littl,
more money in all available thar
: there is now. The individual will
scarcely be able to place and look al
= ter his loans cheaper or better thai
the bank does, and he will surely asl
as high rate of interest for his rel
} atively small holdings as the bank
+ with its many thousands out. Tn
+ proposition will then be to him: Shal
T. | leave my money in the bank at fou
; per cent interest net, subject to cal
< or shall take il out be to the trol
= bic and risk Of loaning II at six, pa
! $40 tax on II, and hang II up wher
! can't get II when ! want il? II
9 uncomfortable that a person would TO
J. less than six per cent, with good s,
4 curity. draw his money from a ban
: that now pays four net, bear the prC
e posed TAX and look after the bus
/ ness And unless the rate to the boz
u rover were lowered from six per cen
e where does he gain over the present
l. So We have, in this discussion c
t intangibles, certainty OF loss
d tax revenues that must be made Il
e somewhere; no certainty of gain I
S the state, town, borrower or lende
with a net balance against the prop,
o sition-as We view 1t. II is a n
II form of most doubtful nature, worl
It ing away from the direction in whic
q, true reform should move. We thin
e no more of II than We did three yeal
Is ago when, in connection with twi
e reform" the abolition OF Offsets.
e was proposed as panacea for exis
A. ing ills.-Randolph Herald and New