The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-12-26
AUDITOR MOORE'S TAX PLAN
Fourth Letter
Prepared tor The lmesDpa by Thomas Walker Page Ph d.
OF Political Economy in the University 0 Virginia.
Fourth Letter

tom hadiy administered. and the same
UBIQUITOUS System somewhat better adj
ulh!St"r"d' - SO, give US the latter.
eat crow" either cold or hot, WHAT
Wc want Is "a better system than Me
h1N'. and one that VIII hc adapted 40
thar rs soon as The voters arc awak
cned to tn" Importance. OF the subject
We shall set what ~" WANT.
viii The sintr Grt Enough Revenue.
In arguing further against scErc-
CATION our o"mmissi"p estimated that
on one POSSIBLE basis il would impose
large n"t loss of revenue on the
STATE; Willie on amy other basis it
and 10 nearly All o.? tho small towns
Now. Mr. Moore probably knows
more about the yield OF our different
taxes tlIdu any other !iYUg man, ana
his proposed budget Tor tho State bal
anccs 10 remarkable nicely After
4Il however, Mr Moore is subject TO
tAe receipts in his budget are based
p laree measure on what D." esti-
mates the yield OF the state sources
would hc. The revenue can hardly OK
materially below th"m- For instance.
We may have Statewide prohibition.
That Would cut down iis receipts by
$500 600. We shall probably have 10
routluur payiu. bach Uu.- third Of tho
oapitaton taN to til" localities: and
thut would further diminish his re-
mayo - prolonged business depression.
Tiich might concciYahly add To tina
d"iicit hy q Very considerable amount.
We might We'll Changc our policy in
regard 10 business and profcsSioial
licenses. and thus still further mllify
hs calculations.
NJ these things arc possiblc. some
~ them arc probable" SIR Moore has
iornsccn them, and suggests thar anE
deficit arising from them 10 covered
los small property tax. haVo al
ready pointed out The objections to
thlS s"sGcStion; uamcly the per
potuatng uf the abuses of our pros
tui system. also indicated tile great
advantage of apportioning tho deficit
alnDug tho localities on the basis OF
their own expenditures With this
mot ilcation MI. Moore plan could be
revenue for tho state that might at
any time be required.
Eject of the Plan on Local Revenues.
Turning our attention next TO the
eject ot Mr.. Moorc's plan on the couu-
ties and cities. We are confronted by a
NcrS serious set Of figures. If tile plan
should ho adopted by the General AS
scmhly thcrc would be Il loss i'm rove,
M" TO no lcss than four cities and
thirty three counties. This is - very
important fact. well deserving all the
emphasis the Tax Commission gave ii
II ls true that fifteen cities ana sixty
seven counties Wouid gain bv the new
SNst"m; but that would he little con
ISOLATION To those that are losers
!; Is hardly 10 be expected That tho
plan would have the votes OF those
members of tho Assembly that come
from localities that would suffer from
It's adoption. u iS worse than futile
to say that sucIi localities would ioso
because they grossly uudcrHs soss their
property. or to assert that they now
get more Than their Just share of tho
abroad and business taxes. such add
inS o. insult to injury Is not iikely TO
get their votes.
.\ud, ndccd it Is not right sl.ddeu-
y 10 cut OF from them revenue that
tlcN had every reason to regard as
continuing. Thcir tax rates have been
hNcd and tlcir piauS laid on the sup
position that the present system would
b" permanent. Schemes have been
entered upon for road building, school
dcNclopmcut and many other things
Will the full expectation that the usual
them. II these sources are cut OF
such schemes, essential as they are to
the public welfare, would, in many
cases. DC dropped Snouiu The loss hc
large IT would hc hard to persuade
the Inhabitants, even If thty could ar
ford 1T, immediately 10 raise their taxes
high enough to provide funds for
proper developments
II seems 10 me quite Obvious that If
many arc seriously injured by the plan
IT viii mover get votes enough to pass
IL.
But the situation * not 50 desperate
as the figures above would seem to in
four cities and thirty-thrcc counties
amounts To only S276.4i5 Not q sin
Slo county, and only ono city, would
lose an much as $2o.0oo. No more than
ten counties would lose as much as
10000. To sixteen OF tho counties