The Medina sentinel. [volume] (Medina, Ohio) 1888-1961, 1919-08-08

Yet in spite Of these facts, money
lenders, representing this intangible
property, appeared before the joint
taxation committee of the present leg
islature an dopposed the enactment of
an income tax law, because "the in
come tax would injure the credit
structure of the state by exposing
porperty for taxation"
The frankness of this admission is
startling, and should cause every tax
payer in Ohio to ask those in author
ity why this condition is allowed.
It is travesty on the justice and
morals of the state that anyone should
publicly appear before legislature
and object to the enactment of any
law on the ground that it would tex
pose Property for taxation" when thea
property legally andrightfully owes
the tax.
This is the same property that
wants classification"
It's owners know the dire need of
revenue in Ohio.
They know they owe the state legal
ly $9O,000,0O0 and morally many bill
lions.
They know that the owners of visi-
BILE property have been paying their
taxes for fifty years.
They arc trembling with fear be-
cause there is possibility that the
common, everyday citizens of Ohio
will rise in their wrath and force our
!, lawmakers to mete out justice to
their intangible property.
So, as a last resort, they are pro-
posing "Classification of property for
taxation"
They want to pay in the future
about one-tenth of the tax that other
men pay.
They want to be forgiven of al
their past debts to the state, as they
! We're forgiven in 1911 under the Smith
law.
They want, in the end, tn real es
tate OF Ohio to bear practically al
the burden of taxation, in place O.
the 62 per cent it bears at present.
New York State, as well as Ohio
needs revenue. She could have ha,
"Classifcation" if she so wished with
out changing her Constitution. Il
place of SO doing, her legislature ha
adopted the income tax as a revenu
raiser and the governor has signe
i the law.
/ The following opinion, in oppositio
to "Classiication" as revenue pre-
ducer in New York, from the creates
authority on taxation in the Unite
States and probably in the world, Ec
win A. Seligman, L. L. D., explain
why the New York legislature re
= fused "Classiication" as a means
obtain more revenue.
Prof. Seligman said: "In practic
3 a classified property tax must be
II low rate tax on certain forms of PEI
j sonality and especially of intangib
q personality. Such a system has bee
u in effect for many decades in Pennsy
u vania. Here, however, we are told
q the Pennsylvania commission that IL
Il low rate tax on personal property h;
" been only "more or less successful
@ collected The commission furth,
\ tells us that SO far as Pennsylvan
u clings to the personal property tax
M vogue in other states, by attemptir
to tax other money investments, 81
81 undoubtedly suffers the same failur
~ as the other states
ri "The commission points out that S
ZS curities as well as moneys are n
nj reached, because there is no source
1 information except the honesty of Il
S person making the return In 9th
IN words, the official verdict on the sit
8 alton in Pennsylvania is that the lc
"a rate on intangible personality, apa
~ from the tax on mortgages, is just
- much a failure as the ordinary tt
u levied elsewhere on personality.
"In Connecticut, as everyone who
acquainted with the situation know
it is almost complete farce.
"In Baltimore, where the low t;
rate on certain intangibles has be-
administered by officials of remark
BILE ability, there is no pretense tn
any real equality in taxation is q
tanned, or that great evasions are n
practiced. In the State Of Marylal
at large, the system is conceded to
a notorious failure.
In Rhode Island, where the low t
rate on intangibles was introduced
1912, and where, as is natural, t
assessment considerably increased,
is impossible to ascertain whether t
revenue from this class of PERSONAL
is now more or less than before.
"In Minnesota, where the law W
introduced in 1911, and where exc
comparative figures are ascertainab
the revenue at first actually fell o
since then under an admirable adm
istration the revenue has grown 81
- stantially, but is still comparative
. insignificant. In fact, the able t
, commission tells us in their last !
port very frankly: 1T is doubtful
the returns this year, large as tn
are, represent more than one-third
what they should be-
Finally, in Iowa, where the low
tax rate was introduced in 1911,
revenue now is undoubtedly mu
smaller than before"
+,a ~ obox7o oil ho