Jasper County Democrat, Volume 19, Number 58, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 October 1916 — GOODRICH'S SYSTEM SWATS THE FARMER [ARTICLE]

GOODRICH'S SYSTEM SWATS THE FARMER

Change Advised by Him Would be Detrimental to Owner of Real Property. TANGIBLE' PROPERTY ‘GOAT’ Indianapolis, Oct. 9.—The taxing power of government is the most vital and at the same time the most dangerous and easily abused power of government. The Constitution of Indiana provides for “a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation.” Obeying the mandate of this fundamental law, a Democratic Legislature many years ago passed the most comprehensive and just tax law the State ever had. It was fought in the courts by large money and corporate interests, but was sustained by the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Democratic platform asserts that this principle of uniformity and equality of assessment and taxation shall be maintained and made effective by a general betterment of administration. The attitude of the Republican party is favorable to a constitutional amendement which will permit a classification of property for assessment and taxation and consequently destroy the principle of equality and uniformity. That this position of the Republican party on this most vital question was inspired by and reflects the attitude of Mr. Goodrich, the candidate of that party for Governor, has long been known. A pictorial history of the candidate in an Indianapolis paper Sept. 24 quotes him on the question. From his own statement in that article we gather that he favors placing taxable property in at least two classes, which he terms “tangible" and “intangible” property. In the first class is to be placed, for illustration, the farm, buildings, implements, stock and crops of the farmer and the home and tools of the workman of whatever trade. These are to be assessed, under Mr. Goodrich’s system, at their full value and taxed at a rate of $1 a hundred. In the second class is to be put “money, stocks, bonds and mortgages.” This so-called intangible property he proposes to assess and tax only on “its earning power” and at a rate of 10% of its earning power. How would this interesting scheme work out? Obviously in this way: John Doe has “tangible” property—a farm on which he lives and which he farms. The land, buildings, implements, stock and crops are together worth $15,000, and on this value it is assessed and taxed $1 a hundred, or a total of $l5O. The farm, through the labors of John Doe and his family, produces him an income of about 5 per cent. John Doe has a neighbor, Richard Roe, who owns no farm and toils on none, but who has “intangible” property money, bonds or mortgages—of the value of $15,000, on which he has only to collect the interest. His “intangible” property, like the “tangible” property of John Doe, brings a return of 5 per cent. On this 5 per cent, he is assessed and taxed 10 per cent., or a total of $75. Thus the system with which the Republican party and its candidate for Governor propose to displace uniformity and equality in our tax laws makes the toiler pay double the tax on an identical amount of property that the coupon-clipper pays. Does the farmer, the small business man, the clerk, the artisan or any of the many who own but a home want this change which the Republicans would avowedly thrust upon them?