The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1914-10-30
THE TAX AMENDMENT

Editor Banner
BY request of the Knox county
grange, hereby send you an article
for publication in the good old Banner
concerning the Taxation Amendment
While this may not be the most i'm.
portant amendment upon which we are
permitted to exercise our franchise
at the November election, yet the vot-
er should know what the purport Of it
is, and what is sought to be accom-
plished by it.
This is not the first time this pro-
position has been before the people. 1t
will be remembered that five or six
years ago We voted upon a similar
measure, and the people of the state
said they did not want such an act in
corporated into our constitutional law.
1t has. been before every general as
sembly since, also before the ccnstitu.
tional convention and they all turned
1t down.
The one per cent limit in 1t, is only q
blind to deceive the voter. We have
law already sufficiently limiting the
rate, but 1t is the classification fea-
ture that Is sought to be enacted.
This is unfair and absolutely unjust.
The authors of the measure propose to
make three classes of property for tax
alton, viz: real estate, tangible person
al property and intangible personal
property. They suggest no rate thi,
time, but before, when the measure
was before us, they proposed to make
the rate on intangible personal prop
erty one-tenth of one per cent.
At that time the rate ran from one
dollar and fifty cents to three dollars
on the hundred, so that the owner of
real estate would pay twenty times as
much taxes, on the average, according
to his wealth as the holder of bonds,
mortgages, securities, etc.
About the only argument that is
used in favor of this amendment is
that 1t would induce the dishonest tax.
payer to list his property.
Away back some time in the past
some one saw At to withhold part or
the whole of his property from the as
SCISSOR, then another and another, and
another, with the result that the rate
of taxation was increased and the hon
est man was made to pay the dishon'
est mans taxes. This thing went on
until in some of the larger cities the
rate became SO high that it was equal
to, or greater than the rate of interest
that the banks would pay.
Now let me ask whose fault was 1t?
Was 1t not the tax dodgers?
If all had continued to pay their
share of the taxes according to the
present constitution which provides
that laws shall be passed taxing by a
uniform rule all property according tc
its true value in money, the taxes
would be burdensome to no one.
Now that the wealth of the state is
being forced upon the tax duplicate, II
is no wonder that they are making q
howl, and want their property legally
exempt from taxation
The idea OF coaxing out the wealth
of the state by classification is all tom
myrot.
| There can be no fairer proposition
than taxing bv uniform rule And this
is what the people have been standing
! by for the past figteen years since this
single tax idea has been promulgated
But see how ingeniously they have
worded the proposed amendment: "Al
property shall be valued for taxation
by uniform rule. at it's true value In
money"
The present constitution makes botf
the value and the rate uniform, but the
proposed amendment makes the valua
ton only, by uniform rule. then pro
ceeds to classify in order to fix the
rates, which rates will be different or
different classes of property.
The above sounds so much like the
old constitution, that one is apt to ge,
the idea that taxing by uniform rule
Is retained In this amendment.
Again this amendment gives the leg
islature power to exempt mortgages
and this Is liable to be misunderstood
The casual observer might think that
this meant to avoid double taxation
by exempting mortgage Indebtedness
hut 1t says mortgages. It is mortgage
Indebtedness that ought to be exempt
cd and not the mortgages.
The enactment of this amendment
win be long step toward the Henry