Daily Kennebec journal., 1921-11-03


accordingly. We are morally bound
to see that those who benefit mos.
by this great public expenditure shall
pay their proper share in taxation,
and you, as assessors. and judges OF
values. should give this matter most
careful consideration.
/ have recently examined the as
sessment lists in 4 number of towns,
in an attempt to find out how this
matter is being handled by the as
SCISSORS, and ! find that there is a
great difference of opinion among
them. and wide discrepancy in re-
suits. Thtre are in many cases
startling differences between the as
scssed Valuation and the actual sell
ing price. Some assessors clearly rec
ognize that the improved highway
has increased the value of land i'm
mediately it is purchased by a nom
resident, but fail to see a similar in
crease in value of land held by their
own towns people. While | have
found no cases in which the non
resident appears 10 be assessed too
much, there are many in which the
Old resident is assessed too little.
In conclusion, I want TO speak 20
Won for moment. not as assessors
but as municipal officers OF your
town. AS such municipal officers you
are required by the highway laws TO
propose to the State Highway Com
mission the location Of the roads on
which your state-aid money is to be
expended. I want to suggest that
such designation should be consid-
cred carefully by you TO so locate
such roads rs 70 prove the greatest
benefit TO the town; not only should
these state aid highways be in some
cases feeders to the trunk lines, and
in other cases roads TO the market or
the railroad station. but they should
also be so located as to produce the
best returns TO the town in IN
creased land values. With this in
mind. you will find new opportunities
for the development of YOUR comn1u-
nifty. and portions of your town, now
comparatively unproductive and OF
little value may be made 70 yield
substantial returns TO YOUR treasury.
Arthur w. Patterson
Arthur w Patterson. chairman OF
assessors at Castine gave very clear
Interpretation of the proposed state
income tax. This tax he declared IS
the best answer to the rlanv vexing
Questions covering taxation. II
should be adopted with the idea OF
nr%y
from local taxation and gradually
doing away with all personal proper
tr taxes. There would probably al
ways be = tax upon real estate but 1t
would not have to bear such an IN
reasonable proportion OF the tax as il
does now.
Any income tax depends u0on ahil-
ity TO pay. as r1ca sured by the per-
sons income. Looking at tho ques-
ton from the standpoint of fairness
alone. how could anythinc be fairer
than a tax assessed ut 4 low rate on
thu earning power of all the individ-
uals Of a community: this rate ad-
,arcinc nro-rcssivel". as the incomes
increase \ state income tax should
not contemplate ANYTHING in the ra-
turc Of excess n~nfit taxes or sur
taxes. These, while no Couht ncces-
sarv under war conditions. in fed
eral income tax. would not he neces-
sarv or justified under normal condi-
tions in state income tax. But is
there ANYTHING unjust in a schedule
such as ! am going to read YOU; one
that iG taken from the preliminary re-
port Of the committee on n plan for
model taxation. OF the National Tax
Associate
This committee suggests that e.
crnntions should not exceed $500 for
single person: $1,000 for married
person: with 5000 additional for each
child sunnorted at the taxnaycr's
home. They 70 on to sucEest that
tho rate of taxation should be IN
upon incomes between 5000 and $500;
orI between $1,000 and s2600: 3rt be-
tween $4,000 ard $500: ~ between
$4,000 and $4,000: 81 between $4,000
md s5GG0: and 81 upon incomes over
$4,000 In no case. under such Plan.
would the tax of the person of large
income be more than 6ft. For oX-
ample a married man. earning $4,000
IA year. (Which is considered a large
salary. in Maine at least) would de-
duct his oyemntion of $1,000. and pay
n tax on the balance of his income,
$500 at the rate of 6Gr, of S32S per
year. \ single man. earning say 5000
year. would take out his exemption
Of $500. and pay n tax of 1cr on the
balance of $500. or 8. In neither case
is there anything that can be termed
unjust or a hardship: each man is
simply paying an equitable tax, based
upon his earning capacity.
The collection of an income tav. i2
order to he done most successfully.
must be done by the state. and not
locally. I think all the state income
tax laws a-ree in this report. Prom I
erlv Worked out such tax could be
collected very cheaply; and the in
crease in state revenues would very
much more than make up for the eE-
pense OF an extra state bureau for :
the collection of the tax. 7 believe it
would accomplish these things.
% It would make - possible to
collect a tax upon the incomes from /
son deriving income from that source: !
thus increasing the revenues and re- I
IiovinS real estate from a too heavy /
burden.
CD 1t would cure inequalities of
taxation. under the present system, .
CO that coch citizen would r,oro (;