Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 76, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 February 1909 — ANOTHER SCORE [ARTICLE]

ANOTHER SCORE

The Democrat’s Contentions Proven Correct. OFFICERS NOT PRIVILEGED CLASS Their Salaries Are Subject to Taxa* tlon Same As Accounts Due Common People, Says the Tax Board. Readers of The Democrat will remember a question that came up last June when a newspaper attack was made on The Democrat editor and he was charged with being a tax-dodger; how he proved conclusively by the tax records that he was not guilty, but that the other fellows were. In the course of our reply to this unjustified personal attack we referred humorously to the fact that some $3,000 was allowed the various county officers here at the March, 1908, meeting of the county commissioners and $1J8.55 to our traducers; that of the dozen or fifteen county officers who drew their salaries at the said March meeting, salary earned prior to March 1 and due them at the said taxing date of March 1, only two gave in the amount of their salary for taxation under money or accounts due them, or gave it in at all. The newspaper that made this unwarranted personal attack upon us at that time did not give in for taxation the $148.55 that it was allowed at the same March meeting, and came back at The Democrat with the “argument” that it had not been the custom of county officers heretofore —most of them, at least —to give in their salaries for taxation; that a public officer could not be taxed on his salary. The Democrat took the position that county or otner public officers were entitled to no more favors in assessment of property than the farmer or any other individual. At the Annual Conference of the State Tax Board and County Assessors at Indianapolis last month, the proceedings of which have just reached our table, we find at Page 70 this question and the answer or the State Tax Bdard: “Question. —The county commissioners. meet the first Monday of each month. Should a county officer’s salary be listed for taxation for the quarter ending March Ist, or should it be listed if it was not allowed on March Ist, or before?” In the answer following the Board says these salaries are taxable. This proves The Democrat’s contention at the time was correct, and would that these was a little work for the county assessor in going back and assessing all these salaries that have not been listed in years gone by. The taxing officers get after the farmer or ordinary individual who falls to list his property for taxation, and they should be careful in not doing themselves the very thing that they condemn in their constituents. In order that there may be no slips of memory of this kind again, it might be a good idea for the county treasurers to incorporate this ruling in the compendium of rules concerning taxation, which was used in some of the counties last campaign, as a campaign document and which may be used again.