Graham guardian., 1912-02-09

NA%' at"Nh feio VIM NetiNS y" Se''
run these principles out in detail to
their logical conclusions.
II these principles are sound. it
follows that persons who loan prop
erty to others, secure payment of
the loan by mortgage lien on the
property loaned, or on other prop
perty of the borrower, with a fixed
and high profit in the shape of in
terest on the loan, ought, according
to the maxim of justice, to pay
taxes on the property so loaned at
the fixed rate and valuation. Here
seems to be case for the prompt
and effective application of, Equal
rights to all, special privileges to
none" unless this shibboleth is the
merest buncombe and claptrap.
Some interested persons contend
that taxing mortgages is double
taxation. which our statute pro-
hibits, and they would have you be-
lieve that it would be doubly taxing
the owner of the mortgage, the
mortgagee. The truth isthat if the
is not taxed, as is now
the case here, the mortgagee is not
taxed at all for the property loaned
and thus secured, and the mortgagor
is taxed for the loan. To illustrate:
A Owns land worth $10.00000 and
has paid taxes on it for the last ten
years. Just before the assessor
calls, he sells it to B for that price,
receiving $4,000 down (all that B
Is WORTH, and takes a mortgage for
the other $4,000; interest. IL per
cent year; lends the $4,000 cash
to c and takes mortgage on C's
ranch, with interest at IL per cent,
and in pops the assessor. He as
sesses the whole of the first farm to
3, the second to C. while A, who
sii.l has some kind of interest in the
props rty that nets him 500 per
does not contribute a cent
10 lie keeping up of roads (if he's
SD,. schools oi courts, and without
The latter, how could he enforce
Of the loan?
1t seems too clear for argument
that A still owns property worth
$40 coo and gets more out Of it than
when he owned the ranch. He is,
therefore, just as able to pay for
necessary expenses of government
as he was before. Is it not dis
to both him and his neigh
bors that he is not paying his share
Of the necessary public expendi-
lures?
If we assume now that the land
has not enhanced in value. it follows
that neither B nor C is worth any
more, but still he is paying taxes on
$40. worth of property, half Of
which is AS. B can cash in for
,nly $4,000, and C is paying on
IS, ,0C0 that essentially belongs to A.
The same amount Of taxes are still
evied and collected. the aggregate
If the property owned by all three
8 exactly the same in value and is
owned exactly as before
he sale and loans, the only differ
,nce is that A gets more profit from
lis farmstead and has shifted every
.ent due the government to the
of his neighbors B and c.
Now, this financial twist did not
originate in Arizona. The. stunt
vas old long years before Dickens
Old Scrooge. and long be-
lore Shakespeare damned Shylock |
o unenviable fame. In fact every |
State in the Union has had to legis-
ate on the subject. Nearly all have
ettled it according to the maxim of
quality and justice. 1t is now un-
Ivoidab.y up to" Arizona.
The State Of Oregon easily dis
,osed Of it years ago by simply tax
ng the mortgage as the owner of
IN interest in the land to the amount
# the loan. This statute was well
and fully approved by
he Supreme Court If the United
states in the leading case Of Saw
ngs Society VS.. Multnomah County,
SO U. S., 421, az l.. Ed., 500,
March, 1893.