The Marshall republican., 1912-09-06
SINGLE TAX ARGU-
mEnT ANSWERED

A. promised our readers, we viii
present q series of four articles on
the Single Tax issue now attract
ing 90 much attention. The Mis-
souri, Equitable Taxation League
which is back OF the bill, has had
prepared and 10 publishing broad
cast the articles we are reproduce
ing herewith, but in order to show
where they make h'sleading state
ments we make our comments with
each article. The ~ OF arti lie Is as
follows;
There are two things. II IL said.
from which no man can escape: death
end taxes. and there seems to be an
equal dislike for both. The payment
Of taxes is looked upon by people
generally ~ an extortion exacted
from them by q power beyond them.
Speak to anyone about taxes. whether
business man. farmer or working
man. and he will ut once tell you that
he 10 paying more taxes than he
should. Il would be difficult TO fnd
one In the entire State OF Missouri
who does not In some way condemn
the present process OF raising the pub
lie revenue. Even the large corpora
tious that defend the present system,
are continually condemnins n. They
coademn II By theIr persistent Of.
forts to evade the payment of . part
or all Of the taxes levied against
them.
But there is q difference In the
motive Of the corporation and the
mass Of the people for condemnation
Of the present system. Tue motive OF
tho corporation 10 purely selfish.
while with the great mass OF people
there 10 m instructive feeling that
taxes are unjustly levied: that some
how. In some way. they are made to
pay more than their share.
To tho end that assessment OF taxes
BE- made more just. the people. not
only Of tho State Of Missouri. but
every State In the Union. are con.
tinuaily demanding changes In our
tax laws and Il would be difficult to
And the records OF any legislative
session OF any State In which Il does
not appear that the tax laws have
bscn % amended. and yet. after con-
unusd effort OF over . century, we
6nd - much. II not moro. dissatisfac-
ton with our tax laws than ever be-
fore.
In those years. We have tried every
method but torture. 10 compel
correct return OF personal property
for taxation. with the same result.
that today. We nnd that not over 20
TO 40 per cent. 10 % returned.
To any ono who win give the mat.
ter a moments thought. the Unequal.
ity Of such a tar is apparent. One
business man may give In his stock
Of goods at actual value. while his
competitor may return his stock At
ouehaif or ons-quarter vslus. This.
especially In the case Of large CON
Germs. places the conscientious busi-
ness man at q dissdvantsgs. When II
comes 10 taxing money. the pessonni
property tax almost fails entirely. A
few years aso. In the city OF Los
Angeles. the hanks heid dsposlis To
the amosat OF Ssa.000.oo0. The tax
collector could And but 100000 and
the larger amount OF this sum was
found in the possession Of men Of
moderate wealth.
Another great inequality is to
hs found in the asssssment OF
personal property Of the city tax-
payer and the 1arnsr. The personal
property Of the city taxpayer consists
largely Of money. stocks Of goods.
and household effects. AZ q rule he
makes his return aAa such return 10
acceptable without question and Il 10
impossible for the assessor to ascer.
tsip whether or not such return is
correct, but In the case OF the farmer
II 10 different. Every farmer knows
the value OF his nelghbsr's stock and
implemsuts: whether or not he has
any money ard how much--in fact
the provisions OF the, farmer Is
common kpc~isdss and IL would be
dIfacult for him to make a false re-
turn OF bis personal e6ects- One needs
but to glance over the tax list to
sss that the farmer pays taxes on =
much larger proportion OF the person
al property that he owns. than any
other class Of oitisens.
In the city there 10 almoat as great
q proportAonste difference In the re-
turns Of mea OF wealth and men OF
moderate means and workinsmen
who possesa 10 wealth. except their
household effects. Many such men
have returned their personal effects
It 800 or more. whiis there are al
number Of instances In wAieh men Of
great wealth return lees than >soo.
II l. evident that the psrsoaal prop
erly tas b failure. II is imprac-
tieil. Il h manifestiy unjust and
should hs abolishsd u Tor no other
reeson than this.
Hut there ID another rsason and
H..