The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-12-24
Third Letter

! part Of local governing boards than are
willing TO proclaim Il. Furthermore.
! trum nowadays that results are accom-
! pltshed. \ little frank and informal
talk among friends, few Gu!ot words
arguments, shape more opinions. and
get more votes than n!ne-tenths OF tho
campaign speeches and editorial iirc-
works that draw the crowds and nj
I tho newspapers. Not long ago a plan
somew hat similar TO that of Mr.. Moore
! was turned down. al least temporarily.
/ IN one OF our states. ] happen to know
/ personally that the issue was decided
the, conpiications. confusion and pos
/ s!ble injustice arising out of uncon-
/ trolled power in the localities 10 tax
/ property would damage the welfare OF
There is little doubt that this belief
would be as potent In our General AS
| sembly as it was in that other state.
I II. therefore. Mr.. Moorc's plan implies
the uncontrolled power OF counties.
I towns and cities TO tax property In any
/ way and at any rate that they may at
any time see ~. that plan is not likely
ever to be enacted into law in VIZ
| ginia.
! Local Option Is Not RcuIIy Involved.
But | utterly fail TO see why this
/ so-cal!ed local option in taxation
should he considered necessary. part
Of the plan. The separation OF the
/ sources of revenue does not involve the
abd!cation by the state Legislature OF
any part of It's control over the locali-
! 1t is very important that advocates
Of tax reform in Virginia should bear
this in mind. 1t is very necessary that
/ they should bostir themselves. ana see
( TO IL that any bin providing for tax
limit the taxing powers OF the local :
/ ties. If this DO done, one Of the chief
arguments against this method of tan
reform. an argument that has defeated
1t elsewhere, will have no application
in Virginia TO prepare tho proper bill
viii ~ dutre not only painstaking care.
but also Intimate ledge OF
local conditions. Every step should
be taken publicly and in conference
move should he subject To state wide
scrutiny and criticism heartily in
ton that the Assembly select mixed
commission To complete his plan and to
report at an extra session called for
What IL nm Elastic Tax SYSTEM:
There is yet third general argu-
is by far the strongest in the list The
argument is that such a system makes
the State revenue inelastic, or rather
mean? 1t means that the State would
be unable to increase It's income when
Eiss eG nor e srGM or rc whfn c les
income or lower taxes, if by chance it's
needs should diminish. This is due 10
the nature OF the taxes set aside for
exclusive state use. Under any feast
bile scheme for segregation the great
bulk OF the states revenue comes from
the taxes on corporations and OH bust
ness. The rates OF these taxes cannot
be made variable or be frequently re-
adjusted without disturbing and even
disa strous results IN this they differ
widely from direct tax on property
amount of the States revenue Is fixed
by forces beyond its control. When
times are good and business is pros
porous, the treasury may accumulate
an unnecessary and troublesome sur
plus. ENtravagancc then becomes in
cvitablc. because the surplus cannot be
cut down by lowering taxes. On the
other hand, when times are hard and
comes dangerously depleted.
| Even II general business conditions
should remain normal, ii is practically
certain that state needs will change
materially In Il period OF eight or ten
most likely to appear In the form OF
be ut the same time IL conservative
hut general expansion of business that
would provide growing yield from
the taxes set aside for State use. Mr..
Moore thinks our expenditures in Vir-
gina would not, or should not, he al
lowed to outgrow this normal increase
OF revenue. But If we can keep within
the limits OF a revenue thus fixed by
other state has Yet achicvcd--witli ono
cXception--for any considerable length
of time The exception was offered by
Connecticut. She was one Of the first
1890 she abandoned tho general prop
crty tax for State purposes. BY va
rious shifts and devices, more or less
unsa tisfactory, she dispensed with IL
OF more revenue forced hor to return
to 1t. In Now York tho separation OF
sources was almost complete for five
years beginning with 1906, but the