Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1915-08-03
OCCUPATION TAX.

There Is nothing the matter with the
principle of a municipal license AK on
occupations. On the contrary such q
tax is necessary and proper.
1t is not practicable for a municipal
ity to raise all the revenues 1t needs
from a direct assessment, for the rea-
son that most municipalities are al
ready assessed on q basis that Is sup
posed to be on an equality with coun-
try property, and the law Of the state
requires that municipalities pay state
and county taxes on the same assess
ment as for municipal purposes.
Special license taxes have been found
necessary in most Of the towns Of the
state, and they are necessary in this
town.
But one thing that Is necessary and
important is that all taxes should be
just and equitable in their application
to all individuals, firms and corpora
tions. AS to whether this condition has
ever been attained elsewhere, we do
not know; but as the situation appears
to us the work completed by w. w.
LcWlop Eoq.t IN iotiiiCo Wy thS to"h
council does not show much evidence
of such equity.
The statute governing the right OF
the town council to levy an occupation
license tax-Section 2947, Code Of 1912
provides:
90 That said license should
be graduated according to the
gross income Of the persons, firms or
corporations required to pay such IL
cense, n upon the amount Of capital
invested in said business Pro-
vided, that no city, town or village
within the state shall collect any occu-
patton license tax from any person or
persons engaged in the business Of buy
ing or selling cotton in bales, or cotton
seed in any such town, city or village
Now 1t would seem to be out OF the
question to suggest that Attorney Lew
Is has not read this statute during all
the time he has been engaged in get
ting up this schedule. yet notice:
Cotton Seed Dealer, per years. 8 10
Cotton Dealer or Merchant, per
year ......... ............ :. lO uU
It will be noticed that throughout the
whole schedule, most Of the amounts
levied are arbitrary, without reference
either to capital stock or gross income.
Why should a cotton mill be charged
80 cents a 81, 900 on capital stock and
surplus, and q bank be charged only
rs cents per $1,000 on capital and sur
plus over $4,000?
Why should a hotel be charged on a
basis of its rates per diem. instead of
on a basis of it's gross receipts?
Why should a merchant carrying
$40,0 900 Of stock be charged only 81 per
81. 900 after the first $1,000, while the
little fellow who has but a single thou
sand, Is charged Sc?
Why should kerosene, gasoline and
other oil companies be charged SIS a
year? If such a heavy tax should dis
courage competition, the people will
have to pay many times the amount Of
the tax.
If they are going to tax automobiles
at all, why charge the owner of the
little old WORKOUT Brush, at the same
rate as the owner Of the $4,000 car?
Why this 500 on sales managers?
Why are building and loan associa-
tons only 81?
So far as we are concerned we do
not know that we have any serious OBJ
lection to the schedule as 1t stands,
other than that we do not consider 1t
just and equitable. We see several
places where the assumed powers in
volved a be used by way of oppres-
sion, to intimidate people and the like,
and while nothing Of the kind may be
done, such things have been done, and
everybody will do well to keep their
eyes open.