The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-03-04
The Necessity for Tux Reform.

Tunstail
The Necessity for Tux REFORM.
To tho Editor of The Times d ispatch:
Sir,-Wh'lc l agree fully with the
clear and strong Statement. OF DIR:
January 90. showing the absolute noe
essity tor tax reform In Virginia. and
can add nothing to the force of his
an Illustration of the unfair. unjust,
even conhscatory character of the
present tax laws of this State. which
SURPRISES that of the Danvilie, Va,
widow had. for the support OF herself
and her children, the income from
trust fund OF $4,000. which had been
Invested by the court IN a S per cent.
mortgage on real estate. and, therefore,
yielded a gross annual income or $3.50.
The state and city taxes on that
face value. amounted to $500 or 20
per cent. OF the widows total income.
In view OF the fact that tangible per-
sonal properly is assessed at an aver
age of about 81 per cent of it's actu;S
value throughout this state; and In
view of the further fact that much OF
mum arous branches of business, yields
an income of 10. 20, or even 30 per
cent. II Is manifest that the imposi-
ton OF tax on Intangible personal
property amounting to 29 per cent. OF
It's annual Income. especially when In
tangibles are assess ed at their full
value. Is extremely oppressive. 1t Is
about what one might expect under the
governments OF Russia, Turkey or
Persia, but not under thu government
Of a free and educated people like
But the unfaIrness. the injustice and
the oppressiveness of DR.. Freemans
Illustration app zar TO be the personi-
flea ton of generosity on the part Of
compared with the operation of another
feature of Virginia's tax laws. which
shall now consider.
For many years past the tax law has
Imposed tax on all money h,lds by
any citizen in bank on the list day OF
February of each year. no matter how
could be said against the oppressive
ness OF this law In the case of the ordi-
nary citizen; for since such a tund is
usually portion OF his income from
the previous year. on which he is tax
ed l per cent, he has also to pay a
State and local tax, sometimes DIS much
us per cent, making an aggregate
undsr this double taxation OF ) per
cent on his bank balance as of Febru-
airy LIST. But this illustration applies to
the average man, who is free TO dispose
of his money at Will. to buy non-tax
able securities or anything else, in or
der 10 circuinvent an unjust law. Tho
real hardship of this feature OF the tax
law Is found In numerous instances
whore funds, belonging TO persons oil
limited means. generally widows and
children. are tied up In court, and can
ers In the same manner in which man
controls his own money. In every suit
brought for tho sale OF real estate or
securities. the proceeds OF sale have
to go through the court. And as such
suits are being brought all the tins
throughout the State much of this
money Is necessarily tied up in court
on February l OF each year. This is
believed to be especially thu case OUT
Side OF the larger cities OF the State.
where the courts are not continuous as
in the cities, and whcra the opportuni
ties OF investment in non taxable Sc
curities are not go favorable, Now
what Is the result OF this accidental
tying up of court funds on the list day
per cent. per annum on court deposits.
The State and city taxes in the city
of Richmond. for instance, aggregate
"a per cent Consequently, the own
ers of the court fund get only AZ per
cent, whil- the government gets SIS
per cent. OF the income for Il whole
year. Now. while this is a far more OPP
pressive case than that of DIR. Free
mans Danville widow. yet this case
even is not ths most ubiquitous feature
these court sales OF land and sccuri
ties are being made all the time
throughout the state. good many OF
thes. court funds must necessarily be
deposited in bank in the month oil
January And as these funds are be-
ing distributed by the courts all the
u
taken out OF bank during February.
Or to give an extreme case. which
more fully shows the absolute injns-
tice OF this law as 10 court funds.
ii court fund Is deposited in bank TO
the credit OF the court on January 81,
and Withdrawn by a decree of court on
February .. and then invested in real
estate by the court. that fund pays Il
whole years property tax, State and
local, because il happened TO be de-
posted in bank TO the cr.dit OF the
court on February /. and then 1t pays
year on the investment. Under the
rate of taxation in the city of Rich
mond this would impose a tax of al
most ! 2 per cent for ons year on
funds and property controlled by the
court. Now. while IL is admitted that
this last illustration is rather an eX
tremc case. yet the payment 20 the
State and local governments of IS per
Dent OF the income on these court
funds. while the bcneticiaries. frequent
~ poor widows and orphans. gel only
AZ per cent, is q yearly occurrence in
Richmond; and il Is presumed that the
same thing happens. more or lees mod
itied by the rate of tn? local tax, In
many other cities and II my counties.
Now what is the renssdy? Either to
place court funds along with chooses
in action or intangibles under the pro-
posed Fletcher bill In the Senate.
If any OF the members Of the Legis
latura have any doubt about the eN-
IRENE hardship, and even confscatory
to court funds ii Is only necessary for
them to confer with any city Judge i'll
Virginia who has equity Jurisdiction
PRESTON COOKE
-
The Gnmc Protection.
\ SsF. =