Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-02-23
STILL OPPOSES TAX SEGREGATION

SILL OPPOSES T..
| TO the Editor of The Times Dispatch:
Sir.--ln connection with your publ-
cation. IN your issue OF February H.
! OF citations from letter addressed
| by me to the members of the I.cEis STA
ture opposing the Weaver Buchanan
bin. you state senieditorially that the
! figures on which my calculations were
based had been shown to be Inaccurate
and repudiated. and call attention to
AN odd discrepancy" in that ] took
no account OF the relief given towns
Z by the Tavenner amendment"
! This letter was but Il small part OF
my activities to get the Weaver Buch-
auan bill defeated. or at least some
amendment thereto. TO relieve the
towns The Tavcnner amendmen,
grants small. but greatly Inadequate
( relief to towns. relieving Black tone
TO the extent of saO3 out OF "A total
prospective loss Of .2.I92, out Of total
revenue of 1920. Regardless OF the
opinion OF scgrcgationist members OF
I the Legislature. my figures on my coun-
| ~ tNottoway) and town tBlackstonc)
arc accurate. and our loss IS certain;
and when the amended bill goes into
| effect practically every town ia the
state Will find itself a heavy loser In
proportion to its revenue
Though often in conference with
many members OF the Scnavc just I-ior
! 10 III. passage OF tho Weaver Buchanan
! bill. none OF them seemed able TO point
out any material inaccuracies Ia the
estimates ,of the Auditors Office,
am advised) printed by order OF the
Legislature, on which my calculations
/ were based. Doubtless there are some
! inaccuracies in these estimates. as well
as the estimates OF the Tax Commission
on the ratio Of assessed values TO actual
values Of real estate. but these csti-
mates are the most accurate data th.t
the Legislature had before IT, aud un-
! ques,;onably the data on which 1t
worked. They were incomplete, how
! ever, in that they failed TO contain any
| data on the effect OF the bill on towns,
as distinguished from counties and
! cities.
| began my study OF the Weaver
! Buchanan bill much inclined To s"gre-
cation; but a careful! analysis and com
| parlson Of these estimates and other
| available figures have absolutely con-
WINGED me that any plan OF scgrega-
ton similar TO that OF the Weaver
| Buchanan bill will increase, rather than
| diminish. Inequalities in taxation as he
state. and that The Weaver Bu chAnan
/ bill. as passed. has done so.
The Weaver Buc hanan bill, as passed
! does gross injustice 10 the small towns
! AS. with the exception of the Taven-
ner amendment" IL is drawn in abso-
| lutte disregard OF its effect OF the three
tax units. II entirely prohibits the com
| munitics which furnish Insurance COM
! panics their business from forcing them
| to contribute TO local support, ii prac-
| t!cally cNempts from contribution to
| local support the wcnlthicst class Of
citizens. and forbids the localities from
! deriving any appreciable benefit from
! the most probable form of Increase in
! actual wealth. intangiblcs. and ms he
| tween county and county. city and
county, the srossest inequalities are
! produced. as witness the few given be-
! low, taken from the almost innumer-
/ able inequalities it breeds
| Fredericksburg has the highest as
! scsSmcnt Of any political unit In the
| state G6.5 per cent?, Carroll County the
lowest G2.5 per cent?. fredericksburg 8
| rolling stock tax is only $l54 while
| Carrolls is $l,95S. Iredericksb has
! city tax rate of Sl.2G on the 500.
| carroll on average county tax rate of
| SL2l. Under the bill as passed Carroll
gains over $4,000, Fredericksburg loses
|
| Six counties in the State nre assessed
below 20 per cent of actual valuation,
four OF them gain under the bill as
| passed, gaining in the aggregate over
! $4,000. and only two lose, losing in tho
! aggregate about $2,500.
In the Twenty eighth Senatorial Dis
! trict l.uncnburg and Amelia arc
| assessed below the average Dim
widdie and Nottoway above the aver
age. Nottoway is the highest as
! sessed county in the district (4S3,
! mas the highest average county rate
| Si20). and is the only county in
| the district that loses losing under the
| bill as passed $685., besides which the
! towns In the county lose an additional
| amount of over $4,000.
| All counties in the Twelfth Sena torial
| District are assessed below the average
| Warren has. however. the highest as
| scssment and the highest average tax
! rate. and is the only loser.
| In the Fifteenth Senatorial Distric,
| Orange is the highest assessed county
| OLD, and is the only loser under the
| Dill as passed.
In the Fifth Senatorial District all
| four counties are assessed below the
! average. Wythe and Giles have Tho
| higher assessments and lose under the
| bill as passed, while Bland and Pulaski
| have the lower assessments and gain.
| But even more condcmnatory of tho
| bill, as passed. are the incouaIities in
the percentages OF loss and gain to
the total revenues OF the counties.
| sussex has an average county tax
! rate OF sl.22, is assessed at 57.2 per