The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1912-07-26

court clerk Of that county $102,
1892 was collected from dslin
quent officials and represent
money that had already been one
! collected from the people. OF tn,
remainder, the various counties re
ceived from back assessment onl,
$87, 634.57 and the state only $40,
895.41, little more than one-hal
Of one per cent Of the states to
tai revenue.
One Of the stock arguments il
favor Of retaining our back assess
ment act is that these revenue
agents are causing the people tt
pay their taxes promptly and give
in their full property for assess
ment This may be true in some
instances, but I seriously doubt it
In some localities, believe it has
quite the opposite effect. Even
though it is true, / believe that
where one dollar is collected in
this manner many are lost by driv-
ing away capital for fear Of being
back assessed.
These revenue agents, back tax
attorneys and those speaking for
them, almost 60 into spasms Of
lgrief and lamentations over the
tax dodgers, and picture graph
ically the awful conditions that
would prevail in Tennessee if they
were not continued in order to
round up these hayward sinners.
There are tax dodgers in Tonnes
see, but not nearly SO many as the
revenue agents and back tax at
torneys would have you believe.
Remember, it is to their interest
to have just as many Of these as
possible in a community. No one
wants to shield a tax dodger.
Every one should be made to pay.
his full share Of taxes, whether
large or small. The correcting Of
inadequate assessments, recover
ing omitted property, bring the
SHINING tax dodger to time, could
and should be done through the
regular channels and without
additional fees or the Intervention
Of any revenue agent or back tax
attorney.
The excuse that the farmer and
small taxpayer were never bur-
dened with the back tax attorney,
which has been so often used, is
now no longer available, for the
delinquent act Of 1911 falls par
ticularly upon Them, and for the
purposes Of discussion this is con-
strued as one Of our back tax
laws. Under this, another set Of
back tax attorneys is operating
just how many / am unable to tell,
though there can be ninety-six un-
der this one act. The act creating
them is entitled "An Act to pro-
vide a more effective method for
the collection Of delinquent
taxes" and applies to real estate
only. Its very caption is untrue.
It should have been entitled AN
Act to provide additional fees for
the delinquent revenue agents and
their attorneys" for this must be
its only purpose.
After property is sold under this
act the first thing provided for is
cost Of the suit, including q fee
Of $500 in each case to the rev.
enue agent or attorney.
Second--The payment Of 10 per
cent of the amount Of taxes to the
revenue agent or attorney.
THRIFT also contains pro-
vision that any city or municipal
ity can pay these revenue agents
additional compensation if they so
desire.
Fourth-The payment OF state
and county taxes.
Fifth-City taxes.
And the last provision is in the
following language: "The remain
der, if any, shall be paid to the
owner or owners Of the land sold. II
No one has ever been found who
can make logical explanation Of
why this clause was added.
So far as the records reveal, for
every dollar in taxes to be collect
ed under this measure, five dollars,
or 500 per cent, will 60 into the
pockets of the revenue agents and
their attorneys, including costs. 1t
is said there are approximately |