New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-09-26
Senator Ogden L. Mills
One of Chief Speakers
at State Convention.
SPECIAL TAXES, AS
4 WHOLE, A SUCCESS
They Produce a Revenue Equiv
alcrt 10 a Two Per
Cert Levy.


r'vcd 900 'bc efforts 60 secure salts
factory tsN reform 90 this state on
rdsv lss' 90 tho state Realty Con-
vcnton at Saratoga Springs. He "a
chairman Of The ioiu, legislative Com
r,ttcc on Taxation. He spoke to the
convention. not as chairman Of that
committee. bu, as on indi' dual.
"Al 7 can do here TODAY is 30 give
on tho brictcst kind Of sketch Of our
problem az it appears 20 me Sai"
senator Mills.
~T}c ,s~c;ion Of tho committee iS,
..lncd b. tho resolution walcn cr'"'''
o. rs follows:
".To investigate generally IN respect
o. e,-t"rs and methods Of taAatloh'
particularly vlth regard 20 the pcs
methods of couitably and ehectualIy
fcarn.r~ Ill property which shouid DC
subjected 10 TAXATION.
"Thfs. words evidence clear intent
,. Tho rart OF the Legislature not 70
,cpar; from our traditional system OF
.a<inc all property. save That Whlc1
De- sncc fcalv exempted by law. ana
,s.ec an once the question as to the
relative burden borne los diHerehl
classes Of pro0crtN. .,
.Rl property can be roughly divided
.r.o two classes real and personal
That Inequalities exist in the taxation
~ real Dropertv Is undoubtedly true,
hut think il is fair 20 say that rear
state On the whole. is to-day bearing
its full share OF taxation.
"Thc question. in SO far as personal
c,~.aruad of great
,omplexitv and difficulty. bee. use OF
no MAN. kinds o. personal property
and the difficulty OF grouping and
class.fving hem for the purpose OF
sscertainir- what each class IS paying.
The task is further complicated owing
"a the fact thai New York does not
impose p general property tax on all
personal property alike, but has de-
,.eloped n system of special taxes I'M
posed at different rates and under dif-
fercnt methods Of assessment upon
certain classes OF personally. That
studv and comparison of the various
special taxes is highly desirable. car
hardly be questioned. but such TASK
could not be adequately completed IN
six months. Moreover, these taxes are,
on the whole, fairly satisfactory, pro-
duce a large revenue. are administered
cheaplv and cause comparatively niue
friction. Whether they ought TO be
modified or not, am satished that
hey form permanent part OF our
revenue system. They should not,
then. be the initial subject of inquiry;
ION the other hand. the method OF
taxation of the large amount OF per
sonal property which is stu subject
10 the General property tax is one
which calls for immediate attention
and remedy. Such study divides IL
self naturally into four parts:
Il How much personal property Is
there subject to taxation
"2-How much Of il is reached
IS Is the method Of taxing il salts
factory?
Il If not, what are the possible
INSTITUTES?
The first question is almost impos-
s.blc 20 answer with any degree OF
.ccuracv. there being no accurate sta
ustics available. Two years ago SUB
committee Of the Commissioners OF
Taxes and Assessments Of the City OF
New York estimated the amount Of
tersonal property in abe state subject
TO taxation 10 be $1,000. 338,97l, d.
vided as follows: Tangible person
-O4. CAS- 900; bonds. Sl.S52 1924. 450;
credits. etc. 1900, 900, 900. 1t estimated
the revenue derived from this property
TO be s45 500 1924, of which 1897 ops
vas paid in special indirect taxes
u included in its list Of special
taxes on classified personal property
the corporation tax, the tax on
organization Of corporations, the in
keritance tax. the stock transfer tax,
the secured debt tax, the mortgage re-
cording tax. the tax on motor vehicles
and the bank tax. OF these, 1t seems
hardly fair 10 include the inheritance
tax, which is paid by realty and per-
sonalty alike. or the stock transfer tax,
which is tax on business rather than
property. II these amounts be de-
Quoted. the revenue derived from indi-
rect taxes on personal property
amounts 10 S2l.52O,s0l. and the total
revenue from personal property
amounts 20 s23, 794.099. according 70
their figures. One further correction
Of these figures. however, should be
made. The committee estimates the
personal property tax in New York
City at s6.lS5.744. being the revenue
derived from an assessed valuation OF
1857 .923.i23. Now, as matter OF fact.
only $+,50S. 900 of the 1912 levy was
collected. The actual collections for
upstate counties are not available, and
though collections probably do not
equal the levy. yet am leaving this
item unchanged Thus corrected. the
total revenue amounts 70 S2S.l16.355.
At = per cent II would require 81 ,397,-
90
we deduct this amount from the esti-
mated amount Of personal property, it
leaves S9.526. 70i BIS worth Of personal
property which is not reached by either
special taxes or by the general property
tax.
IL know that there are some who
will object 20 tho inclusion of the
mortgage recording tax in the revenue
derived from personal property on the
ground that u is always paid by the
mortgagor. yet in view % the fact that
mortgage prior 10 the mortgage re-
cordirg TAX were taxable As personal
property. 81 has seemed fair 20 me 20
90 80.
prom these figures the conclusion is
inevitable that the Specisl taxes are.
IN the main. success. IN that they
succeed IN producing a revenue equivs-
lent 20 2 per cent tax on over one
billion dollars; and that the I'D gen
eral property tax is a failure in that
II, reaches only some 1862 100000 on,
II total value Of over nine billion.
Il is only fair TO remember, however.
that debt deductions would probably
cut the latter amount in two
------