The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-02-16
rooD FOR THOUGHT.


with the duty of legislating for his community
ana Commonwealth and The Virginian does not
expect the report OF the grand jury investi-
eating the tax returns Of Richmond to be so
dismissed by the disregarded by the
other.
1t is TO the interest OF every taxpayer In the
State of Virginia to read the report published
in the newspapers yesterday morning and to
study IL carefully. More specifically it is the
duty Of every member of the State legislature
to do the same. That our tax laws are In a
had shape and that, as the jury reports. they
are wage in their meaning and in some parts
apparently impossible of intelligent construc-
ton" is unsupported assertion and
that the fault rests in large part with sue
cessive legislatures is apparent, but the voters
os the State OF Virginia also sharers in the
blame. Not only have they failed to familiarize
themselves with the tax laws of the State. but
they have failed sufficiently to interest them
selves in the disposition or ability of their re-
personalities TO enact just. equitable and other
wise desirable legislation. 1t is not necessary
for them TO understand thoroughly all phases
Of the tax question. Few people do. They
can. however, read the report of the special
grand jury of Richmond and form an intelligent
idea of the need of amendments to our present
laws Certainly they cannot read the report
and fail to reach the conclusion that something
Is needed knowing even no more than this
they can trust themselves TO elect representa-
tives willing to revise the laws and capable of
doing.
From the report of the Jury to Judge Rich
ardson II is found, In the opinion of the Jurors
that
The personal property interrogatory is filled
with innumerable subjects of taxation which
might be omitted from the list, such books
and pictures. tools OF mechanics. watches.
clocks. bowie knives, dirks, ct cetera;
Taxation of bonds and mortgages and other
evidences of debt is double and sometimes
triple taxation;
Running accounts OF individual bank deposit
tors and deposits in savings banks should not
be taxed:
The term capital in business should be more
clearly defined to meaning and some items
Included, chief among which 10 borrowed
capital. should be omitted from the classis-
cation.
These are the chief points emphasized by the
special grand jury given in brief The Jury
goes into great detail and expresses its views
clearly and forcefully
The exempuo- q, small articles such those
enumerated. II seems, might we'll be made with
out any great loss to the State. Should the
time necessary for listing these articles be de-
voted TO other subjects of taxation the small loss
would be more than recouped. The question
mooted one. but many writer's OF authority and
many students Of the subject of taxation hold
the view. contained in the 3ury's report, that
it is Unjust md inequitable. Moreover. there
lis merit in tn statement that the State revenues
could be Increased by the abolition of this tax
and the substitution Of the recording tax law
va afsser States, explained I'm the report The
exemption OF the savings bank deposits would
be q boon to small wage -earners and might be
accomplished If the returns TO the State as a
result of following other suggestions In the
report should prove as large az the Jurors evil
IDENTIFY believe.
The Jury's report states that the term "capi-
tai in business" applied to manufacturers
stock companies etc. gave the Jury more
serious consideration than any other taxable
subject" and it well may have done 80. The
question of double taxation enters into every
item scheduled; apparent hardships are met
with on every side: the justice of taxing borrow
"a money In one form another in no
trim has always been difficult one, and The
laws on the subject are most difficult of compre-
heasion- II is probable that the jury report
egagge yates the effect OF proper enforcement of
the existing law and that few manufacturers
I would be put out of business they COM
PEELED to pay all the taxes demanded. but that
Inc burden would prove onerous there seems
8a pc no doubt. Borrowed capital has been tax
s8 before 1t reaches the hand Of the borrower.
the hands of the lender 1t was asset and
AZ taxed: in the hands of the borrower II
hsSagne a liability and IL seems unjust that ii
afonld be taxed again. especially as the invest
faesst into which the borrower intends to put
i'll viii be taxed
Thess remarks touch but briefly this main