The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1912-01-09

1 'hc'tihS WIN a Sltdt uedl VI OppOSl-
ton from the taxpayers of this COM
| munity. The plan mostly fought is
that of the twenty-five hundred dollar
exemption on homestead improve
ments. The conte: ton of the
governor is that at present the man
who is improving his farm or city
property besides increasing his own
taxation by that improvement, is also
increasing the valuation of the unim-
proved farm or residence property al
the same time. BY so doing he is mere
ly Stacking his own future that much
more, while the Spectator sits tight
on the job and watches the value of
his property skyrocket without turn
| ing over his hand Governor Hawley
is single tax exponent, believing in
the taxing of land alone because of
| the impossibility of lodging owner
ship, owing to records of all transfers.
! He believes that the exemption should
be merely upon Improvements and
does not advocate exemption from the
tax on the farm or lot either occupied
or unoccupied His exemption in the
case of man having a twenty-five
hundred dollar building would cut off
all tax on improvements but would
not exempt the man from the tax for
the full value of the lot. In doing this
Governor Hawley practically favors
the increase of the tax on all real es-
tate so that the revenues will not be
impaired, but the burden which falls
heavily now upon the man who is
working to improve his land will fall
equally on the Spectator who owns
unimproved lands or lots. Governor
Hawley's idea is a worthy one in that
he is struggling for equality, yet to
the minds of those who are following
the tax question, the heavy exemption
is not safe method. In the first
place, take in city or county there are
not more than twenty-five per cent of
the residences or farm houses that are
valued at more than $500 actual cash
value. The result would be this, that
seventy-five per cent of the people
would not pay on improvements at all.
Twenty-Five per cent would pay on
improvements over the twenty-five
hundred. The tax revenue would be
cut down enormously. To offset this
would naturally come heavier tax
upon realty. The value of the realty
because of the heavy tax would de-
creased correspohdihgly and in the end
cut down the taxable valuable on real
estate. For every fall in the value of
the realty if the exemption was made
would come little heavier tax levy
until the taxation would give the re-
venue necessary to meet current ex-
penses. In no way could the increase
in the land tax enforce improvement by
the Spectator, who would merely sell
at the lowered value rather than make
increase in improvements. On the
other hand should such Spectator
make improvement he would naturally
only make improvements which come
under the twenty-five hundred exemp-
ton and would go no farther. Nor
would the thrifty man be induced to
put on more improvements which would
total over the exemption mark if the
chances of heavier tax on such i'm
provement was possible. The whole
npctinn inv SC. 30
sufficient to meet the expense and the
distribution of such tax in such way
as to treat all with equality The need
for revenue law is more to make it
possible to arrive at the real amount
of property of each and assess accord
ingly. AS result of moral turpitude
of tax dodgers the burden of taxation
falls heavily on the property owner
who cannot conceal his property and
less heavily on the man owning stocks
| and bonds and negotiable securities or
cash. Schemes to equalize the burden
have failed and will fail whether it be
the single tax or combination of taxes
just as long as no remedy is found for
tax evasion. Plans for equality of dis
| tribution have been suggested by the
tax reformers. State after state has
passed laws which remedy the tax evil,
yet with the reoccuring claim that the
personal property cannot be success
fully taxed owing to ease of conceal
ment. Until the state or government
would have the right to confiscate a
mans personal property for the
amount of his sworn tax value turned
in to the assessor, there is no remedy
which will accomplish taxation equal
| ity in personal property. Nor will the
single taxation of the real estate
equalize where many men with stocks
of merchandise and cash have no real
property. The tax exemption does not
! fill the place which it is intended to