Arizona republican., 1915-12-01
PROBLEM IF TAXATION
 OF MONEY AND CREDITS

dividend oss his share of the business guaranteed and in return for these guarantees is willing to accept small return, and to allow the stockholders ali the profits over the guaranteed re- turn. The proper capitalization of shareholders profits determine the value of the stock of the bank which. under the special law provided by the full cash value"
 Money borrowed on note is usually put into property or some kind. The owner of the note has an interest in the property Of the borrower but un- like the mortgagee, is not secured by the pledge of any particular items, but like the mortgagee adds the amount ot tax plus the tax risk to his interest charge: another instance of double taxation with the burdens shifted to the shoulders of the borrower and not the private money lender" at whom such tax is aimed. The few examples heretofore briefly outlined are suffi- cient within the scope of this paper to show the impractibility and the in- justice of levying a tax upon the class of property in question in the same
 
 tangible property under the form known as the general property tax sys- tenn; under which is assessed the gen eral mass of property subject to the Jurisdiction and laws of the state.
 It is claimed by the advocates of the general property system that it is pc culiarly American and democratic and it is generally supposed to be a method ,.-l, f,411, obIige every taxpayer to contribute to the support of the government in pro- portion to his ability to pay. But as a matter of fact. in practical operation the system is neither American, demo- cratic or just. It is now quite gen erally admitted by the great majority of people who are well informed upon the subject that however excellent the intent of tlie law the practical result have never heen that all citizens do contribute in proportion to their abil- ity. The general property tax was once in as nearly universal use in Eu- lay II was brought to the colonies by the early settlers and scattered all over the Union. Today, We find that not a single European nation save in the cantons of Switzerland where it
 
 continues by use the general property tax as applied in the United States. It is equally erroneous to call the gen cral property tax a democratic form of taxa ton. IT is not found in such ultra democratic communities as the Aus tralasian states. nor. with the excep- tion noted. is it found in those coun- tries of Europe in which democratic s5 brought to America from England in the Seventeenth century century, when democracy existed neither in the moth CT country nor in the colonies. and has been fastened upon us ratrer by historical accident than because of it's inherent democratic qualities. The ex- perience of our American states with the general property tax has b\en at all points similar to the experience of Europe. From earliest times to the present there has been nothing but a succession of complaints that personal property, particularly property of an intangible character has escaped it's fair share of the burden of taxation In our own state, as in others, it has fallen down, any if not most of the states have appointed commissions to
 
 and devise methods of improving them. Reports of these commissions show wide divergence of opinion con- cerning the remedies to be adopted, but they are substantially unanimous upon one point-that in the taxation of this class of property the general property tax has been a dismal failure. Statistics from every state in the Union: census bureau reports all bear out this statement. Drastic efforts on the part of administrative officers have been made in many states to tax this class of property without appreci- able result The reports of commis- sions are full of testimony to this ef- feet. Tn them we read that existing laws put a penalty upon honesty and a premium upon perjury, that they are educating the people in he practice of making false oaths; and that high court in one state has decided that tax list does not affect his general credibility under oath.'
 Our present laws make tax -dOdging exceedingly profitable, and in many cases almost a necessity for the resi- dent Of the average city or town who owns any considerable amount of tax ible securities. He cannot. and in jus tice should not, pay g tax amounting to one-half or One-fourth of his in comel and if pressed by the assessors he either makes false return or else moves Go a more favored locality. We are not now considering the case of a -