Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1920-01-15
Taxation of Intangible Prop
erty"

State Grange Master W. J. The MP
sen Of South China spoke upon the
subject of Taxation of Intangible
Property" Ills talk was in substance
Us follows:
The taxation Of money, credits and
securities--or what is commonly
called the taxation of intangible
property-probably has caused more
discussion in tax circles during the
past SO years than all other tar
problems combined. UP to the time
Of the Civil War, very very nttle Sc
rious discussion is found on this sub
ject and states have adopted consti-
buttons providing, rs in our own
State, "that all property shall be
taxed equally" and naming intangi-
bile property to be taxed like all 9TH
er property at its true or just val
ue. This is the present general law
Of our State.
Most of the newer states have pro-
vided in their constitutions that leg
islatures may classify intangible
property; and some of the Older
older states have changed their con-
stitutions to allow this classification
by their legislatures. Maine made
this provision four years ago, but
our legislature has taken no step in
this direction.
A special tax commission was ap-
pointed during the last session Of our
legislature to make recommendations
to the next legislature on this and
other tax matters.
The wide difference Of opinion on
this subject arises from three view
points.
First. from that of. the idealist or
tax economist. From this viewpoint
there can be no justification for tax
ing any form Of intangible property.
1t is double taxation and if put into
effect under our tax laws would be
confiscation of property. It ~ IKE
taxing farm and then taxing the
deed of a farm.A man owning q
horse valued at 800 meets a neigh
Dor on the road. The horse changes
hands, the first owner taking a note
for 500 In payment; 500 in taxable
property has been created. A person
living in a town where the tax rate
1s per cent, owns a 5 per cent bond
IN some corporation. If such a bond
is reported to- the assessors, the to-
tai income is taken for taxes.
Second, from the viewpoint Of the
small property holder who feels, re-
CARELESS Of theories, that he is car
rying the heavy burden. He sees his
wealthy neighbor owning large guam
titles Of intangible property from
from which he receives a generous
income, using the roads and schools
having the protection Of the law,
and yet paying small tax or none
at all. No wonder the man will say
Let the rich and poor pay alike on
what they are worth or the prou, r,y
they have; and while there may not
be much science in such a statement,
there II lot of common sense, and
common sense has to be applied with
science to get satisfactory results.
Third, from the viewpoint of an
assessor, who has something Of the
theories Of the idealist. who also has
to deal with the practical, Common
sense taxpayer. ana who at the same
time must find some easy way to get
real dollars from real people to pay
real bills. The assessor has answered
this whole question by his actual
practice. He does not try to tax it all
at local rates. He does not let It all
go free. but attempts to place a tax
upon it such as it can bear.
1t has been Said that the best sys-
TEN Of taxation is the enc that will
get the most feathers from the goose
with the least. squawking. No doubt
the goose is very sensitive from the
pulling OF feathers by intangible tax
alton. and the average assessor is
afraid Of hurting her but this is his
problem. ste H..
Undoubtedly through a classical
lion Of intangible property or by
personal income tax law. local as
SCISSORS might he aided; but in the
mean time they SHOULD aim to work
ut r,stice under the present law.
In 1898. local assessors renorted &c.,