The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-01-19
WEST COMPARES
TWO TAX PROPOSALS
TAX COMMISSION PLAN
AS PROPOSED WOULD MAKE REAL
ESTATE TAX oxERoUs
POINTS OUT TROUBLE
SAYS UNDER COMMISSION PLAN,
SUFFOLK STANDS TO LOSE $4,000
IN REvENUE-UNDER seq
REGATToS 5000.
POINTS OUT TROUBLE

The first real tilt between the ad-
vocates OF tax segregation and the
commission plan Of tax reform during
the official legislative session came al
the close OF the joint session of the
House and Senate Finance Commit
tees yesterday afternoon.
Senator ]. F. West. OF Suffolk. and
Delegate Hill Montague. OF Richmond.
advocates Of the segregation and tax
com mission systems. respectively,
Were the speakers before the commit
tee Senatnr Nest is strong believer
in tn segregation principle. while
Delegate Montague will lead the fight
for the commission plan in the House.
Very little had been said on the
fioor OF either house on the strict
merits OF the two rival provisions,
and the debate yesterday may be
taken as a fair indication OF the lines
that will be followed in the Iegisla-
ture when the time comes to vote be-
tween the two principles
The Two Views
Mr. Montague spoke In favor of
the bills reported by the commission
favorinE the proposed bank tax OF
$ia5 and also in favor OF the bin
making the tax rate on intangf BILE
property ] per cent. Mr.. Montague
gave the argument OF the commission
advocates for these bills. Senator
West followed with sharp criticism
OF the commission idea He held that
the Legislature represented both the
State and the locality. Consequently
in providing State revenue II had no
right to limit the power of the locality
TO tax local institutions such as hanks.
The bill proposed by the commission
advocates, he satd, reduces the local
bank tax to one dollar, but leaves the
State tax at thirty-fve cents The
locality is prohibited from raising It's
tax on banks
Not God Policy.
AS matter OF public policy this
should not be done. II the bank tax
was to be reduced why was not the
State rate lowered and the local rate
kept as 1t was instead of lowering the
local rate. keeping the State rate at
Its original amount, and restraining
the locality from increasing that rate?
The State rate, he pointed out. might
be made nf.een or twenty cents and
the local rate kept at the present
figure. The effect of this action would
be to make the locality increase its
real estate rate to make up for the
loss in bank taxes. He held that tne
application OF the commission plan,
with all the recommendations OF the
commission plan. would lose to the
city Of Suffolk over eighteen thousand
dollars, while the segregation plan, in
all It's ramifications, would reduce its
revenue only eight thousand dollars
Must Raise Local Rate
The result of this action, in order
to make up for the deicit. would
cause the city to raise It's rate on real
estate and tangible property sixty-two
cents making Anal rate ea-tfts
class of property. s2.42. Reducing
the bank tax without the power to m.
crease II, and placing the rate on in
tangible property Mt one per cent a
greater inequality than at present
would result. This rate would not
take into account any future improve
ments or allow for any additional