The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1914-06-06

Lieutenant Hove. which
was in the nature o. a reply 10 Mr..
Royce's article recently appearing In
this paper IN which ne sci forth the
injustice q one phase Of Nermonts
tax sysien. There also appears To-
night AR Royces reply 10 the Ran
ners editorial and IL Is hoped that
these tWo efforts viii be widely read
because they are concerned with q
matter which Is OF ever Increasing
importance In this commonwealth
Al this particular time The Mes
senger has no desire 10 enter into
the discussion between AR Royce and
The Banner. However. In order that
a better understanding OF the contro-
versy may be- obtained. IL would not
be out OF the way 10 remind Vernon
tiers al this time that they are living
under the general property tax.
With this system. the Banner seems
10 be content. while Mr. Royce finds
no consolation In IL whatsoever. Il
may serve the purpose OF clearness II
generous quotation is taken from
Prof Edwin r. A. Selgman.s recent
book on taxation. Professor Selieman
j. recognized as one OF the county D
foremost tax experts. and his con-
illusions on the gehe.sl property tax
are as follows.
From the preceding survey Il Is
difficult TO escape the conclusion that
the general property tax as the main
source OF public revenue is failure
from the triple standpoint OF history,
theory. and practice.
Historically. the property tax was
once well nigh universal. Far from
being an original idea which the
Americans instinctively adopted. IL is
found in all early societies whose
economic conditions we're similar TO
those OF the American colonies. II
was the first crude attempt TO attain
semblance OF equity. and il at first
responded roughly to the demands OF
democratic justice. In a community
mainly agricultural. the property tax
was not unsuted TO the social condi.
tons But as soon as commercial and
Industrial considerations came TO the
foreground in national or municipal
| life. the property tax decayed. be-
came a shadow OF its former self, and
while processing TO be a tax on all
property. ultimately turned into tax
on real property. The disparity be-
tween facts and appearances. be-
tween practice and theory. almost ey.
erywhere became so evident and en-
| gendered such misery. that the prop.
erty tax was gradually relegated to a
subordinate position in the fiscal sys.
TEN. and was at last completely abol-
ished. All attempts to stem the cur
rent and to prolong the tax by q
more stringent administration had nc
effect hut that OF injurious reaction
on the morale OF the community
| America is today the only great ma
tion deaf TO the warnings OF history
But it is fast nearing the stage where
il, too will have TO submit to the in,
evitable
Theoretically. We have found that
the general property tax is deficient
IN two respects. First. the theory
presupposes that there is an ascer
tainable general property--a definite
surplus of assets over liabilities. In
primitive social conditions this is
| true: there is a composite mass OF
property. because there is no indus
trial differentiation. But in the mod
ern age property is split up into a
hundred elements so that if we at
tempt to tax each element separately
it is often impossible to decide from
which category deductions are to be
made for Indebtedness. An individu
| al. for instance. owes more on his
book account than is due him. Grant
ing that he therefore pays no tax on
his book accounts, shall he be permit
ted to deduct this surplus OF debt
from the value of his real estate ?
| This is maniiestly inadmissible. And
yet unless this is done he is taxed
not on his property. but on his sur
plus of debt; not on his real assets
but what he owes; not on his ability
but on his liability. The theory OF
the property, tax is not carried out
and it cannot be carried out because
the conditions of the theory fail. The
general mass of property has disap
peared. and with it vanishes the foun
dalton OF the general property tax.
Secondly, the property tax is faul
~ because property is no longer q
criterion of faculty or tax paying ca
pacity. Two equal masses of proper
ty may be unequally productive ant
hence unequally affect the margin o.
income from which the public contri
buttons are paid The standard o.
ability has been shifted from proper
ty to product; the test is not the ex
tent but the productivity of wealth
And since revenue is better indie,
than wealth.. the vast class of earn
ings derived not from property bu
from exertion is completely and un
justifiably exempted by the taxation
of property alone. The theory of thu
property tax again fails because thu