The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1915-03-03
HEARING ON TAXATION
developed Differences Of Opinion
About Intangible Taxation

1
About Intangible Taxation
| Montpelier, Feb. 24-The special
committee ON taxation held a public
| hearing in the House chamber to gait.
er information as to the sentiment Of
| the people as to what they want. The
hearing was we'll attended by manu-
facturers, merchants. lawyers and rep
resentatives.
John w. Gordon OF Barre scored
strongly the general property tax and
mentioned several remedies. He fav-
ored fiat rate ON intangibles and de-
MED that IL was a rich mans PROPOSE
ton. He said that the proposed tax
OF seyen-tenths of ! per cent on IA.
tangibles was too high as men would
not declare their ownings and he point
ed to the various states which have a
lower rate as justification for his
statement. Four-tenths was the prop
er figure, he said. TO put the rate at
seven mills would be stupendous
blunder. Mr.. Gordon declared that I'm
der the present law by which intang-
ibles are taxed at the general proper
ty rate, no man could afford to owA x
bond in Vermont company and that
because of this the development of
the state was not so rapid as it ought
to be. He closed by advocating a tax
on ability but admitted that the people
were not ripe for ii.
S. Hollister Jackson of Barre, repre-
senting the granite manufacturers and
other citizens of that city, said that
he was satisfied with the proposed
law which restores the Offsets up to
rs per cent, abolishes exemption on
per cent money and places a fiat
rate of seven mills on intangibles. He
said that the Offset seems fair and en-
forceable and he hoped the bill would
be tried.
Mr.. Hapgood of Peru said offsets
should not be permitted, preference
should be given to the direct tax and
no tax should be imposed on intang-
ibles. He wished that all the money
de loaned at per cent. and be ex-
empt from taxation.
Fred l.. Laird of Montpelier set out
to defend the tax law passed by the
1912 body, Of which he was member.
which the present law would replace
He said that the bankers would kill
off all attempts at fiat rate measure
as they did in 1912. He thought the
1912 act should be left with another
clause exempting bank loaning at 5
per cent from the franchise tax of
seven mills.
Mr.. McCleary of Windsor said that
with the exemption clause. he |
thought that the present agitation
meant that some Offset measure was |
certain to be passed by the present |
Legislature and he was of the opinion |
that the plan proposed was on the
whole good But the Offset law is not
good for all classes, ne said. and does |
not give the help that would come
from s per cent money. The Offset
does not help the man who is tryinS /
TO buy home. because no Offset is al
lowed on real estate. but per cent |
money would, He thought that there
would be lot of money loaned by
banks at rate as low as 3.4 per
cent If no tax had to be paid.
The last statement caused MIR Tay-
lor of Springfield to say that he did
not see how banks could loan moneJl
at per cent, as they have to pa the
depositors for its use. then have to
pay the state seven mills ard have
the remaining three mills only to
meet all expenses and make 4 profit.