The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-04-14
Views Of the
Virginia Editors
The Lenycn I. Worktnu.

=
ing against double taxation in Vir-
GINA have had our dark days Few
people seem TO look at the subject Sc
riously; some actually laughed at US.
But the heaven is working. The Rich
Inond Real Estate Exchange has gone
doubled bow shot beyond us old time
reformers, and is now talking about
'quadruple taxation" by way of IL
lustration, IL cites the following case
from Henrico County:
Mr.. sold for $4,000 n tract Of
land that had not been cultivated for
forty years and that had grown up
In broom straw.
mad been receiving only it's land tax
from the property
When the transfer was made the
party buying paid In cash $4,000 and
gave note for $4,000. payable in one
year. with quarterly interest notes.
Mr.. Il. who bought the property,
paid the State taxes on the same for
the current year. amounting to .276.
THE man vino sold the land deposit
ed $4,000 cash in bank at 3 per cent.
and paid the State of Virginia tax
OF 500 on the cash, and on the 3 pcr
cent income from his cash he paid
$3.50 taxes
, Then ts upon his mortgage OF $4,000
he paid the mortgage tax of $500
The State thus received an aEgre-
gate of sl,12230 in one year on a
pieco of land that had previously only
paid small annual land tax
The man who sold the property
had three taxes to pay, while the man
who bought 1t paid one, thus making
quadruple tax. where only one exist
cd before II this is not detrimental
and deterrent to the Improvement OF
the State, what is?'
Here lis another case from HenrIco
which this writer can vouch for: Mr..
owned vacant lot adjoining Mr.
IS residence. which was assessed at
$500 The tax rate in Henrico. State
and county. was 81 on tho 500. or
per cent, so that the tax on the LOT
was 50 per annum In the course of
time, Mr. I} sold the lot to MIR {. for
$500. taking his open. unsecured nota
IN payment. 1t was n friendly trans
action. and Mr.. r took no deed Of
trust on the property 1t was the sim
piest sort or transaction The prop-
erty passed from Mr. Il to MIR. G ana
the deed was made to Mr.. C's wife
Ihere was change OF ownership ana
nothihg more 1t was the same old
lot. and 1t is the same old lot. Rut
there was radical change in the sit
uation when the commissioner NJ tho
revenue got through with il next wear
me lot was still assessed at $500 but
the note which Mr.. Il received fro,n
Mr. was assessed also. and that. too.
at It's race value. Hence the State re-
ceived taxes on the lot assessed nj
500 and the note assessed at 5000,
ana mus the state received taxes on
valuation OF $1,000 instead OF n val.
uation of $500
But. some may ask. who was in
Jured? The purchaser got possession
of the lot, and enjoyed the use of a.
and the seller came In possession of
a note which paid him per cent in
terest. Quite so. But Mr.. B took oc-
casion to tell Mr.. c that he would not
have charged him but per cent in
terest If the note had been exenn,
from taxation. That's the way II is
with the mortgage tax. The borrowcr
pays it. But whether he does or not
tho State has no right to levy double
tax. for the Constitution says that tnxs
alton on all property OF the same class
shall be equal and uniform
mere ia but one fair rule, and It Is
this: All actual property should be
taxed once. and only once. ANY ta,xa-
ton beyond that is double taxation
and is unjust.-Newport News Press