Newark post., 1913-08-06

down by the Courts is the strongest
and, to the general public, a suff-
cient answer.
(2J The argument that an auto
mobile is assessed at higher rate
than real estate is not a strong
point at all. This condition is
merely an example of our whole
system of taxation. Not only is
there a wide difference in rate of
assessment of autos and the same
investment in real estate but there
are in many instances even wider
distinctions in real estate invest
ments.
The confusion in this question
arises from the fact that real estate
is assessed on rental value and
autos on % per cent of real value
In our real estate here in New
ark, some properties worth $25, 900
to $4,000 pay less tax than other
properties worth on the market
perhaps only $4,000 to $4,000.
This seems and it is unfair but it
is the legal method Of taxation and
the small property owner or inves-
tor has no redress. It is the sys
tenn that is wrong and while prac-
tically every man recognizes this
fact, it has for years, been impOs
sible to remedy this by act of Leg
islature. The reason for this has
been the deterrent influence OF
large owners, who by the. assess.
ment on rental value, escape this
just tax and throw the greater
burden on the tenant. This same
condition applies to properties i'll
town.
(3) Another weak point is tins:
At the third meeting of the School
Board, it was understood that the
automobile owners would ccept
without protest an assessment of
20 per cent of the value. This
meeting was held at the request of
the owners of cars. The had a
representative at that meeting who
made this suggestion The Board
felt that their original agreement
Of the sliding scale of assessment
based on age of cars was a fair one,
yet in the spirit of harmony and in
Difference to the opinion of these
tax payers, compromised and fixed
the rate at % per cent the first
year, 20 per cent the two sncceed-
ing years, ID per cent the fourth
year.
Now if 20 per cent was agreeable
and legal in the opinion Of the
autoists, why does % per cent be-
come an outrage?
If the Court says it is legal to
assess cars that is all there is to it.
If, with that power, the Board OF
Education says the rate shall be
% per cent, who decides that this
is illegal? The Board certainly
fixes the rate. This is entirely out
of the jurisdiction of the Courts.
The attempt to fix the rate ON the
earning capacity would place the
auto in the same category as real
estate. Instead the assessment on
automobiles is based on rate on
real value as in stock and all other
personal property.
Five thousand dollars invested
in horses is assessed at apprOxim-
ately two-thirds Of real value,
while the same amount invested IN
auto is assessed at one-fourth of the
real value.
The proposition made to the
Board was a rate Of 20 per cent
This for years would amount to
80 per cent. Instead Of making it
fiat rate of 20 per cent for 4
years, the Board thought that a
equitable way would be to assess
new car for % per cent and lower
the rate in succeeding years as is
illustrated by the methods of the
insurance companies. The rate as
agreed upon by the Board totals
so per cent as suggested by the
automobile owners. The only diff
ference is the increase the first and
last year.
Though not exactly pertinent to
this question, it is, however, an IN
teresting observation that owners
of high priced cars are owners OF
high priced homes where $4,000 to'I
$4,000 to $4,000 is invested, yet
they pay but little more tax than
the $4,000 property because the as
on real estate is based, not
on the real value but on the mar
ket rental value. Every one will
admit the injustice of this, yet it
is the legal system in this State.
While in theory it might seem that