Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-04-26
State Auditor on Tax Reforms


THAT very interesting and comprehensive
statement of the provisions and effect
of the new tax laws. compiled by the State
Auditor OF Public Accounts. and printed in
The Times Dispatch yesterday shows very
clearly that the people Of Virginia not
excessively taxed. The incessant complaints
of past years have been based on inequalities
for any impost is burdensome and oppres-
sive that is unequal and unfair.
Mr.. Moore. admittedly among the first au-
thorities of the State on matters Of taxation,
gives his approval TO the work the General
Assembly has done. 1t is not likely he re-
CARDS the task and duty Of tax reform as
completed, but the measures enacted he does
regard as n long step in the right direction
Experience will show in what respects the
laws need amendment, and there is no reason
to doubt that such amendments will be sup
piled at future legislative sessions
We are constrained to disagree, however
with one recommendation that Mr. Moore
makes. That is. that the localities levy in
all cases the 30-cent permissive tax on in
tangible personal property, thus making the
combined State and local tax 95 cents per
500, while withholding the levy of the 25
cents on realty and tangible personally, re-
leased by the State to the localities In our
view, this is a mistake. In this city the Ques-
ton is academic, for Richmond is not in a
position 10 take Mr.. Moores advice, even If
it would, and has, in fact. determined already
TO avail itself OF both sources Of income AS
a general proposition, however. the plan is
scarcely fair TO the owner Of intangiblcs.
Where real estate and tangible personally
Is assessed at so per cent Of it's market value
and the owner pays a combined State and
local tax of s1.50 per 500, his taxes on a
$1,000 house or farm amount to $3.50. The
owner of bond worth in the market $1,000
would be assessed for that amount, and his
taxes, State and local, at the combined rate
OF 90 cents per $780, would be $3.50. There
is neither Justice nor eXpedency in that dis
tinction. OF course, the owner OF the bond
is far better off under the new tax laws than
the old, for formerly he was required to pay
the full S1.50 rate, but the equality should
be made moro nearly complete. If the owner
or intangibles fs tempted to become tax
dodger, he ought not to be supplied with a
sop to his conscience. in the shape of what
he may we'll regard legal discrimination
or course, under the old high rate there
was an enormous amount of tax-dodging by
owners OF intangibles, which was reflected
in the current saying that, when committed
by such owners, "taX-dodging was a virtue
rather than crime" In reducing the rate
the Legislature found partial inspiration in
the belief that it would bring hidden securi-
ties to light. That hope ought to have full
opportunity to win its own Justification
AS matter of fact, the taxes that may be
imposed on intangibles are still too high.
Reduced rates and the machinery provided
by the Legislature will reveal many that have
been hidden. and permit further rate re-
auctions There are solid arguments in
favor Of relieving some classes of intangibles
OF all imposts, because in such cases 1t is in
effect double taxation; there are arguments
Of cxpcdiency, which suggest lower rates
than those imposed on other property; there
can be no argument to support the collection
from the owner Of bond, note or other evil
dence Of Indebtedness of higher taxes thar
are collected from the owner Of city resi-
dence or country farm.