Henderson daily dispatch., 1936-04-14

Fundamental subtraction here shou.,
that the State in 1888, after the sales
tax was adopted, provided $1,35OOOO
less for the schools than it had nro-
vided before the sales tax was adont-
ed. These are appropriations. But
appropriations and expenditures were
not the same thing under the Budget
Bureaus knife. Actual expenditures
for schools from State funds in the
year 1892 were $16,942,823. In 1882
80 actual expenditures from State
funds were $16,84O,561. In 193334
actual expenditures from State funds
were $15,443,549. In 1934-35 thew
were $16,664,7 III. Thus in each fiscal
year following the adoption of the
sales tax the State spent less than in
either fiscal year preceding the adop-
ton of the sales tax.
Mr.. MacLean, declared further that
"the, percentage of. reduction of pro-
perty taxes has been substantially
greater to individuals than to corpora
tons, and that the percentage of all
tax reductions of every kind has been
about so per cent more for individ-
uals than for corporations-assu
that individuals pay all of the sales
tax" This is certainly an interesting
statement. It would have been even
more interesting if Mr.. MacLean had
put the great corporations and the
very wealthy individuals on one side
and the little corporations and the
masses of the people on the other So
conservative business magazine as
Business Week not long ago collected
statistics on the consumers market.
Those figures show that a man with
an income of $1,000 a year spends
e0.9 per cent of that income for COM
modities upon which the sales tax
falls. At the other extreme a man
having an income of $1,OO0,OOO a year
North Carolina has one or two of
them) will spend only one per cent
Of that income on commodities on
which the sales tax falls And on the
basis of a three per cent exemption
less sales tax such as North Carolina
has, the $1,000 man pays in sales taxes
$500 per thousand while the $1,000,
GOO man pays 80 cents per thousand
But to go further in this matter of
relief Of individuals from State ad
valorem taxes as a result of the sub
stitution of the sales tax. Probably
not even Mr.. MacLean would suggest
that the man with no property re-
ceived any relief but now that man
if he eats q piece of bread pays a tax.
A man with $1,000 worth of taxable
property was relieved of State taxes
amounting to $3.50 by the substitution
of the sales tax for the State ad valo-
rem tax, but if he buys as much as
$50 worth of food, clothes and every
thing else in year he pays as much
III sales taxes as he was relieved of
other State taxes. On every dollar of
purchases above that amount he pays
more in sales taxes than he was pay
ing before. The total relief from
State property taxes granted the man
with the $4,000 home was $3.50. If he
spends more than $3.50 on taxable pur-
chases land all purchases down to fat
back are taxable) in a year, he has
lost by the change. OF course it is
true that the adoption of the sales tax
was also attended by the slashing
away of all local support and local
ievies for schools, but that tax relief
came not from the State but from
the decreased wages of teachers ana
the decreased educational opportunity
of the children of the State.
Finally, not once has the sales tax
been approved by the Democratic
Party. There is no platform declara-
ton anywhere which approves it. MOI
once has candidate ever been elect
ed to major State office on the
promise that he would seek the en-
actment of sales tax Far otherwise
in the last Statewide campaign it was
damned. Democrats have
voted for the sales tax and Democrats
have voted against it. The division Oh
the question is not division on party
lines but division between those who
would levy taxes on the basis OF aoii-
ity to pay and those who would trans
fer the tax basis from those who are
able to pay to those who cannot eS-
cape from paying.
r.