The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by ihe
University of North Caro
lina for the Univeisity Ex
tension Division.
FEBUARY 20,1924
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UWirHRSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VpL. X, NO. 14
entorial Bwardi B. C. Brandon. 3. H. Hobbs, Jr.. L. R. Wilaon, B W. Knijfht D. D. Carroll, J. B.BalHtt, H. W. Olara,
Entor^ aa BoeoiKJ-claaa matter Norembcr 14, 1914, at the PoatolBce at Chapel HH1,N. C., ander the actef 24.
PROPERTY TAX RATES
We heav a'great deal about the ex
cessive burden of the property tax
payer in North Carolina, and all ■'sorts
of proposals are being offered to lighten
his tax load. We hope the property
tax payers will get much consolation
out of this study which shows conclu
sively that the property owner in North
Carolina is assessed at a lower average
rate thaninanyotherstate in the United
States. The table carried in this issue
of the News Letter shows the -total
average tax rate on each one hundred
dollars of assessed value in each state
in the Union. The jtable concerns a]l
property on the tax books'and all taxes
levied against such property for all
purposes, state, county, city, town,
and all other subdivisions.
In 1922 the assessed value of allproji-
erty listed for taxation in North Caro
lina amounted to $2,621,115,000. The
total property tax collected for all pur
poses by the state and all,the subdivi
sions of the state—the one hundred
counties, the 470-odd cities and towns,
and the innumerable local districts of
various sorts—amounted to $37,017,000.
The total tax levy per one hundred dol
lars of assessed value averaged $1.47
and the average rate was the lowest in
the United States.
In Florida each one hundred dollars’
worth of property on the tax books
paid an average tax for all purposes of
$7.64. Florida had the highest rate in
the United States, due largely to her
great number of drainage districts and
other development enterprises,
Why High or Low
In order properly to analyze the table
some explanations should be made. It
will be noticed that the rich and poor,
urban and rural states are all mixed to
gether. An analysis for each state
impossible but a few typical illustra
tions can be presented.
Property is assessed in the various
states in much the same way it is ir
the various counties of North Carolina,
A good many states such as Wisconsin,
New Hampshire, Maine, Indiana, Mich
igan, and many others, insist on having
property listed at one hundred percent
of its cash value. In other states, not
ably in the South and occasionally In
other areas, property is listed at a cer
tain percent of its cash value. The per
cent varies according to conscience of
the property owner and the efficiency
of the tax listers. In Iowa the rate
high because property is listed at only
a small percent of its real value. In
South Carolina they attempt to get 42
percent of the cash value of property
on the tax books. The authorities state
that not more than 2b percent of the
property in that state is actually
the taX' books. In consequence the
rate in South Carolina is excessive, al
though the tax burden is actually very
small. The same is true of Mississippi,
Ge(ft‘gia, Arkansas, and many other
states.
$13.98 per inhabitant. The real test of
the tax burden burne by property is to
compare the tax burden per inhabitant
with the taxable wealth per inhabitant.
There are only five states in the United
States in which the entire tax paid on
property is less per inhabitant than in
North Carolina. These states and their
rates are Alabama $9.53, Arkansas
$9.76, Georgia $12.01, South Carolina
$12.10, and Virginia $13.84. Our taxable
wealth per inhabitant is far above the
average in any of these states, yet
their tax burden per inhabitant is almost
as large as ours. So that in proportion to
our real wealth per inhabitant our prop
erty tax burden is less than in any of
the five states in which the property
tax is less per inhabitant than in North
Carolina. In proportion to our real or
taxable wealth or on any comparable
basis whatsoever, property in Norrh
Carolina is assessed at a lower average
rate than in any other state^Jn the
Union.
It is true that the rate in some''coun-
ties is high-^r than in others. In some
towns and cities the rate is much high
er than in others. These are merely
inequalities within the state. The point
we wish to make is that the tax burden
falls lighter on the average property
owner in North Carolina than, in any
other state.
In North Carolina
As a whole, property in North Caro
lina is listed at a fair percent of its real
value. The most reliable authorities
estimate that for the entire state about
65 to 60 percent of our taxable prop
erty is actually listed for taxation. No
uniform percentage of real value is
sought by the one hundred counties of
the state. In some counties the peo
ple do not need to read novels. The
most interesting fiction is embodied in
their tax books. On the other hand
there are a few counties that endeavor
to get all property listed at a uniform
ly high percentage of its real value. In
Durham county 76 percent of the real
value is sought. In some counties ad
joining Durham an attempt is made to
get 60 percent of taxable values on the
books.
The low property tax rate in North
Carolina is not due to the fact that a
large percent of our property is on the
tax books. Irrespective of what part
of the property is on the tax books the
actual tax burden borne by property is
lighter in North Carolina than in any
other state.
Per InhaMtant
The entire property tax collected in
Local Purposes Only
Property never has been heavily
taxed in this state. Even when we had
a state tax on property it amounted to
very little. Our state is largely rural
and our taxes have gone largely for
county purposes. Most of our people
now pay only a county property tax
which averages less than-one percent.
City taxes are usually heavier than
county taxes, and are in addition to
' county taxes. In all the states except
North Carolina, California, Florida and
Pennsylvania, the state levies a proper
ty tax. The absence of a state proper
ty tax materially lessens our property
tax rate.
The tax rate on property is lowest in
our state, then, because property is
taxed for local purposes only, and the
bulk of our tax payers pay only a single
property tax—the county tax. About
one-third of the property tax payers
pay an additional city tax, but no prop
erty is touched for the support of the
state. This condition is made fpossible
because North Carolina is one of the
great manufacturing states. The own
ers of industrial and other corporations
largely support our state government.
They are abundantly able and seeming
ly willing to do so.
We all hate taxes, but no other prop
erty tax payer has as much room for
contentment as the average property tax
payer in the State of North Carolina.
He gets more for the taxes he pays
than does any other property tax payer
in the United States. Government
is cheap in North Carolina and no peo
ple in the world receive more for their
money than do the tax payers of our
state.
Summary
The proof is conclusive to anyone
who takes the time to analyze the facts
recently reported by the United States
Department of Commerce concerning
the financial statistics of states. In
these last four issues of the News Let
ter we have attempted to present the
more important data. The following
are the outstanding facts, which
should be known by every citizen of
the state.
1. It cost $9.68 per inhabitant to run
our state government in 1922. The total
cost included $8,600,000 spent on high
ways and schools which money came
from bond sales and was not a proper
charge against the cost of operating
the state for that year. Even with
our expenditures from bond sales
included,' state government cost
more per inhabitant in thirty-two
states than in North Carolina. Reve
nue receipts exclusive of bond sales,
totaled $14,164,249 or $4.97 per inhabit
ant. This represents the actual cost
per inhabitant to run the entire state
government in 1922. This includes au
tomobile, license, and gas taxes, and
earnings of the state departments.
2. The entire tax burden in North
DESIRABLE CITIZENS
Two minutes is all too short a
time in which to mention even the
major reasons which might be ar
gued by way of convincing a desir
able citizen that he should choose
North Carolina as-^the best possible
state for his home. Nature’s rich
est gifts, in the way ofj climate,
soil, resource.^, and beauty, might
each present to the home-seeker a
most convincing argument in favor
of North Carolina, as might also be
presented the argument of man’s
achievement in the way of better
agriculture, manufactures, public
improvements, education, and wel
fare.
In.my opinion, the most cogent of
all the many reasons why a desirable
citizen should choose North Carolina
for his home is the fact that North
Carolina’s citizens are themselves
desirable. I believe the amazing
development and progress of North
Carolina today is due in a larger
measure to the quality of her citi
zenship than to any other cause. A
heartening thing is the fact that
native leadership has wrought
mightily for North Carolina weal,
and from the native stock still
comes and shall continue to come
those who deem service a privilege,
and who count public welfare of
greater value than private wealth.
—Miss Elizabeth Kelly.
were completed amounting to $626,627.
“Projects under construction, but
not completed in 1923, consist of 1,622
miles of roads, 761 miles of pavement
and 861 miles of progressive types.
The contract prices of the uncom
pleted Tiiads amount to $28,917,870.
“It is contemplated that during the
year 1924 we will let additional con
tracts for approximately 600 miles of
pavement, and 300 miles of progressive
type roads, estimated to cost around
$18,000,000.
• “The State Highway Commission has
under maintenance about 6,766 miles of
state highways upon which was ex
pended in the year 1923 approximately
$3,000,000. >-
Type
Miles Cost
Topsoil
221.63
$1,909,691.12
Graded .......
. 123.06
1,084,367.84
Gravel
. 92.62
862,297.67
Bit. Mac
. 38.66
942,511.79
Waterbound
Macadam....
. 40.76
695,289.30
Sheet Asphalt.
. 21.37
284,762.80
Asphaltic Con
crete
. 186.94
6,538,531,63
Portland
Cement
. 223.04
7,453,383.40
Reinforced
Concrete
. 32.71
1,218,886.32
Brick
.67
14,348.77
Corduroy
.. 3.32
33,769.89
Bridges
- • -
626,627.69
Sand Clay
.. 55.60
404,497.13
Reconstruction.
.. 6.20
70,841.79
1044.27
$22,028,787.14
inhabitant. This is the amount it cost
per inhabitant to run our state govern
ment, the governments of our one
hundred counties, our 470-odd towns
and cities, and our innumerable local
districts of all sorts. The tax burden
per inhabitant for all purposes, state,
county, and local was less in only four
states, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkan
sas, and Alabama. In ratio to our
wealth the tax burden for all purposes
within our state is less than in any
other state in the Union.
3. The net bonded and other debt of
our state and all subdivisions, of the
state in 1922 amounted to $69.03 per in
habitant. The total net debt per in
habitant was larger in twenty-six
states than in North Carolina. Our
recent debt is largely for road con
struction and the entire cost of carry
ing this debt is being met by^the auto
mobile owners. Oar highway system
is self-supporting. The rest of the
State debt is carried by taxes on
comes, corporations, inheritances and
the like. Only the local debt is car
ried by property owners.
'4. Property is taxed for local pur
poses only. The total tax levy on prop
erty for all purposes whatsoever aver
ages $1.47 per $100 of assessed value
and the rate is the lowest in.the United
States. The average property owner
in North Carolina pays less taxes in
proportion to his wealth than in any
other state. The rate averages the
lowest in the United States. The entire
property tax burden per inhabitant is
less in osly five states, in all of which
the average wealth is much less'than in
our state.
6. The North Carolina, tax payer
gets more for his money than does the
tax payer in any other state, and es
pecially is this true of the man who
pays only a property tax. Government
is cheap in North Carolina. In no other
state in the Union are the people getting
as much in return for what they spend
in taxe^ as-in our state.—S. 11. H., Jr.
North Carolina in'1922 amounted to Carolina in 1922 amounted to $18.01 per ,
BUILDING HIGHWAYS
Chairman Frank Page of the Caro
lina Highway Commission writes this
brief summary of road construction in
Carolina for the last issue of the Man
ufacturers Record:
“The North Carolina Highway Com
mission completed in the year 1923,
1,044 miles of road at a cost of $21,-
840,100. Of this, 644 miles was of
paved types, and 600 miles a progres
sive type of road using gravel, top-soil
or sand-clay as a temporary surfacing
material. In addition to the paved
roads, bridges not included in the roads
“January 1, 1924, there were regis
tered in North Carolina 230,000 pas
senger., automobiles and 23,00fi trucks, j
an increase over the previous year of
practically 36 percent.
“The automobile license fees and the
thre'e-cent gasoline tax brought to the
state treasury approximately $7,000,-
000 during the year 1923, an amount
sufficient to pay interest on the bonded
indebtedness for highway construction, j
to set aside a substantial sinking fund i
for the repayment of the bonds, and 1
maintain the state highway system. j
“Public sentiment is strongly in
favor of a continuation of the high
way program until all of the 6,200
miles of roads on the state system are
of the highest type.” —Greensboro
News.
GOOD SCHOOLS FOR ALL
In a recent issue of the North Caro
lina Educator, Carteret county’s super
intendent of public schools Mr. M. L.
Wright has an article entitled “Advan
tages and Shortcomings of the County
Unit Plan.” Mr Wright takes ihe.po-
sition that the present system of edu
cation, which is the county unit plan,
results in affording very unequal op
portunities to the youth of the state.
He further calls attention to the fact
that the constitution says that “A gen
eral -and uniform system of public
schools shall be provided throughout
the state. ”
It is a matter of common knowledge
of course that the children in the
wealthy counties have far better ad
vantages in the way of schools than
those in the sparsely settled and com
paratively poor counties.' It is true
that there is what is called an ‘equali
zation’ fund but unfortunately this does
not by any stretch of the imagination
equalize the expenses and facilities of
the one hundred counties in North Ca
rolina. In one “county for instance
there is a'school tax rate of 90 cents
and in another the rate is 32 cents; the
other counties have various rates in
between these two extremes. The bad
part about it is that even after they
pay the high taxes the folks in the
small counties do not have as good
schools as the. wealthy counties have
with much lower taxes.
It is not possible ^for everybody t®
live in Guilford, Mecklenburg, Forsyth,
and Wake counties, Somebody must
live in the other counties and help de
velop them. When undeveloped sec
tions of the state are brought up
nearer to the level of the more ad
vanced parts of it the whole common
wealth will be greatly benefited. The
people who live in the more prosperous
sections ought to be willing to extend
a helping hand to the others. The
strong should help the weak until all
are strong. This principle governs the
state’s highway building policy. In a
few years state highways will be in
every part of North Carolina. If it
had been left to the counties to build
these highways most of them would'
not have been built for many years to
come. Education is more important
than good roads and all the children no
matter where they live should have a
chance to attend a good school.—Beau
fort News.
PROPERTY TAX RATES IN THE UNITED STATES
For All Purposes per $100 Assessed Value in 1922
The following table, based on statistics issued by the U, S. Census Bureau,
shows the total average property tax rate per $100 of assessed value for
the states of the United States in 1922. The first column shows the
total property tax paid per inhabitant for the same year. The total property
tax levy per $100 of assessed value was highest in Florida and lowest in North
Carolina. The total property tax per inhabitant is highest in Nevada, $65.47,
and lowest in Alabama, $9.63.
The assessed value of all property in North Carolina in 1922 was $2,621,-
116,000, and the total levy for all purposes instate, counties, cities, towns, and
all other subdivisions amounted to $37,017,000. The property tax rate averaged
1,47 per $100 of assessed value, the lowest rate in the United States. Our total
property tax averaged $13.98 per inhabitant and in only five states was the
average smaller.
S. H. Hobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank State Properly
Tax per
Inhabitant
Total
Tax
Levy-
Per $100
Assessed
Value.
Rank State Property
Tax per
Inhabitant
Total
Tax
Levy
Per $100
Assessed
Value
1
Florida
..$31.44
$7.64
26
Louisiana
..$22.64
2.66
2
Illinois
... 37,60
6.26
26
Nevada
.. 65.47
2.59
3
Iowa
.. 48.26
6.99
27
New Hampshire
. 31.21
2.46
4_
Washington ...
... 47.12
5.96
27
Pennsylvania
..*26.70
2.46
5
Montaj^
... 43.98
5.61
29
Connecticut
... 33.30
2.44
6
South Carolina..
... 12,10
4.79
30
Wisconsin
... 36.96
2.39
7
Minnesota
... 43.77
4.66
31
Alabama
.. 9.53
2 38
8
Mississippi
... 17.65
4.46 ■
32
North Dakota...
-. 47,24
2.37
9
California
... 48.97
4.26
33
Maryland
.. 27.90
2.31
10
Oregon
.. 49.63
3.97
34
Wyoming
.. 40.68
2.28
11
Idaho ...
... 40.91
3.88
35
Indiana
.. 39.26
2.24
12
New Jersey
... 44.02
3.62
36
Ohio
.. 37.63
2.16
13
Maine
... 28.83
3.60
37
Delaware
.. 21.20
2.18
14
Texas
... 22.57
3.23
38
Kentucky
.. 14.87
2.12
16
Oklahoma
... 26.69
3.20
39
Arizona
.. 42.45
2.09
16
Arkansas
.. 9.76
3.02
40
Tf»nnps5PP
.. 14.78
. 26.63
2.03
1.97
17
Georgia
... 12.01
2.99
41
Missouri
17
Vermont
.. 26.07
2.99
42
Kansas
.. 38.84
1.94 .
19
New York
... 42.72
2.96
42“
Virginia
.. 13.84
1.94
20
Colorado
... 45.70
2,88
44
Rhode Island ..
.. 32.12
1.90
21
Utalj...-
.. 37.97
2.80
46
West Virginia .
.. 26.40
1.84
22
Massachusetts ..
... 39.33
2.75
46
Nebraska
.. 40.08
1.65
23
Michigan
.. 41.67
2.70
47
South Dakota...
.. 49.96
1.64
24
New Mexico,,,.
,,. 23.89
2.67
48
North Carolina...
.. 13.98
1.47