Newark post. (Newark, Del.) 1910-1969, 1916-08-02
STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION TO
THE PUBLIC
Reconstruction II Method
Of Taxation Needed In
Delaware

1929. For school purposes it as
sesses the "clear rental value of
lands" the value of personal
property Gas horses, cattle, etc.,
and a certain assessment as a
head or capitation assessment. On
these several forms of assess
ment the rate is uniform. Since
the assessment of farms thus
yields only very low total assess
ment for a school district is must
necessarily be true that the tax
rate will be relatively high;
therefore, at the high rate, the
amount of taxes paid by the per-
sonal property owner and by the
capitation assessment will be very
high in comparison with what it
would be, at the same rate, if land
were assessed at it's real value.
For instance, one school district
in New Castle County, now raises
it's school taxes on a total valua-
ton for the district of S13,655,
and must fix it's rate at S1.33 per
hundred. For the same territory
and for the same persons the
county assessments total S45, 300.
The school tax assessment would
have required a rate of .33 on the
hundred dollars of assessment.
This shows clearly that the high
rate on the school assessment
bears very hard on the personal
property owners and capitation
tax payers, and very lightly on
the payers on "rental values"
When all taxpayers see this
state of affairs and feel it's injus-
tice, and are given a chance to ex-
press their preference, it does
seem as if the sense of fairness
and of spirit of equal rights to all
must produce power and impetus
to abandon the present system for
one that shall be fairer, squarer
and more essentially democratic,
that is, more fully based on an
utter disregard of class distinc-
tions in society.
To the question which must
have arisen often in the mind of
any reader who has carefully fol-
lowed the Boards series of state
ments about proposed changes,
the question "Where is the money
to come from to pay for all the
contemplated increases of expen-
diture?" there are two replies.
First, most of the additional eX-
penditures proposed are to be
paid out of state funds. The state
collects no local taxes. Therefore
expenditure of state moneys can
not impose increased burdens on
local taxpayers. Of course, it is
recognized that if more is ap-
propriated for education. less can
be appropriated for other pur-
poses. However, it IS known that
the states revenues have increas-
ed considerably. Therefore the
question will be, shall a larger
part of the increase go for educa-
tion or for other purposes 1t is
for the citizens to make up their
minds. then to inform their repre-
sentative, then to keep the repre-
sentative in mind of their desires.
If the increase is not appropriated
partly for education. it is almost
sure to go for something else; cit
liens must decide and must see to
it that their representatives are
advised and kept advised of their
constituents desires. That is
truly triumphant democracy"
The second reply to the source of
revenue for school purposes. is
contained in the statement already
made, namely, if all values are
properly taxed for school pur-
poses, the entire valuation will be
so largely increased that the tax
rate can be everywhere lowered,
and yet largely increased reven-
ue can be secured. Higher school
taxes are not generally opposed,
but higher school taxes under
conditions where the biggest part
of the burden falls on one class,
this is bitterly opposed when
there is a ranking sense of injus-
tice felt toward the system. Given
a tax system that is regarded as
fair and just, bearing equally on
every class of citizen, and increas-
es of amounts of taxes levied are
not only probable but very Ger.
tain. In the forms of sociables
and other money raising plans, il
has been shown that parents are
willing to contribute to school bet.
torment with an unsparing and
unstinted readiness. By far the
most forcible single objection