The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
JUNE 4,1924
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE iraiVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. X, NO. 29
Editorial Board* B. a Brstoaon. 3. H. Hobb*. Jr.. L. R. WIlasD, B. W. Knight. D, D. Carroll. J. B. Ballltt. H. W. Odom.
Bnterod aa aoeond-elaaa matter Novembor 14.1914, at the Poatoffice at Chapel Hill. N. C., nnder the act el Angoat 24. 1811
TAXABLE WEALTH IN N. C.
WEALTH AND TAX HATES
Elsev/here in this issue will be found
n table in which the counties are ranked
according to the aggregate of
wealth listed for taxation on a per in
habitant basis for the year 1923. The
accompanying column shows the aggre
gate county tax rate in each county.
The aggregate rate does not include
special district or local levies against
property, such as in the case of special
levies for local school districts. The
April 1€ issue of the News Letter car
ried a table and interpretationj|of tax
able wealth by counties. This brief
sketch mainly concerns tax rates on
wealth listed for taxation.
Aggregate county tax rates) .vary
greatly in the 109 counties of the state.
Explanations for the widely different
levies on property are almost as num
erous as the counties of the state. The
two extremes in aggregate county tax
rates are represented by Forsyth and
Clay. Forsyth is the richest and most
populous county in the state and enjoys
the lowest aggregate county tax rate,
the levy being 56 cents on the one hun
dred dollars listed for taxation. Clay
ranks next to the bottom in total
wealth and last in population and 'Jtias
the highest aggregate county tax rate
found in the state. As a rule the rate
tends to be high in poor and sparsely
settled counties, and low to moderate
in the richer anU more populous ones.
Divergences from this general tendency
may be due to many causes.
However, the rate on property is of
ten a very poor indication of the real
burden of taxation. In some counties
property is valued at a fair percent of
its true value while in others the tax
books give little indication of the real
wealth of counties. Some of the coun
ties which appear moderately wealthy
are really poorer than others whose
listed property is much smaller. See
News Letter Vol. X, No. 22. The
point we wish to make is that some
counties work for maximum values and
minimum rates while others hide off
the tax books as much wealth as pos
sible and in order to raise on the wealth
listed for taxation the revenue needed
to run the schools and the county gov
ernment the rate must be high. The
actual tax burden in such counties is
much lighter than the rate indicates.
Most likely Wilkes county is a fine il
lustration of this point, for Wilkes is
not the poorest county in the state,
real wealth considered, although she is
the poorest on the tax books on a per
inhabitant basis.
Four Classes
In this discussion of taxable wealth
and tax rates the counties of the
state may be divided into four groups.
In the first group appear those coun
ties with a large amount of taxable
wealth which are able to maintain good
schools and effective county govern
ment on from low to moderate tax
levies. Forsyth, the richest county in
aggregate wealth, does much for her
people, although her county tax levy is
only 66 cents on the hundred dollars of
listed property. Her low rate is due
partly to the fact that the bulk of the
wealth in Forsyth is listed for taxation.
Buncombe, Rowan, Iredell, and Meck
lenburg also come in this class.
A second group comprises those coun
ties whose tendency it is to undervalue
property for tax purposes. In those
counties of this class which have fairly
large expenditures the county rate
must be very high to provide the need
ed revenue. A third group is composed
of counties with low valuations and low
rates and in such counties are found
the poorest schools, roads and the like
to.be found in the state. These are
the counties with less tax-willingness
than taxable wealth, and it is in such
counties that one finds the remaining
areas of social and economic stagna
tion. As a rule such counties are sad
ly lacking in leadership, which usually
explains why some poor counties have
a large amount of tax-willingness.
The fourth group is composed of sev
eral counties which not only have a
fairly large amount of taxable wealth
per inhabitant but which also have high
tax rates on the listed property. These
are the counties that are liberally sup
porting schools, roads, and other public
enterprises. Usually such counties
have a large bonded debt. In this group
fall such counties as Lenoir, with the
largest per inhabitant county debt—
a county that spends liberally on it
self; New Hanover and Wilson, both of
which have the county-unit school sys
tem with no local tax districts; and
Alamance, Henderson, and others which
are spending liberally but whose tax
rates are not so high.
The Rate Increases
The average aggregate county tax
rate in the state is steadily increasing.
The rate before revaluation in 1920
was very high in some counties be
cause property was not uniformly list
ed, just as it is high today in counties
that have put into effect large reduc
tion in tax assessments. Following re
valuation the rate decreased, enormous
ly in some counties, but since 1921 some
counties not only have chosen to retain
the revaluation figures but have added
enormously to the wealth on the tax
books. Others have effected whole
sale horizontal reductions. The result
is that conditions are authoritatively;
reported to be, much worse today than
before revaluation; that is, there is a
larger difference between the counties
that list at high rates and those that
list at low rates.
The average aggregate county rate
in 1921 was approximately 91 cents on
the hundred dollars of listed property.
The rate in 1923 averages around $1.16.
The increase is due in part to increased
expenditures on the part of the county
governments for better schools, im
proved roads, new bridges and the like.
But also it is in some measure the re
sult of horizontal reductionson assessed
valuations adopted by a majority of
the counties. Practically a billion
dollars of wealth was3wiped offithe tax
books, and to raise the necessary reve
nue the rate had to be proportionately
increased.
Special Levies
The aggregate county tax rate is not
always a fair indication of the real tax
burden of all people within a county.
Local district assessments often add
enormously to the taxes paid. Within
each county where the county unit of
taxation for schools has not been adopt
ed there are local school tax districts.
Often there are special taxes for roads,
bridges, drainage and so on. In some
counties every school district has voted
a local school tax. In other counties
there will be only one or two local tax
districts, so that the county tax is prac
tically the entire tax. Special district
taxes vary enormously. Often the tax
for schools in one district is five times
as high as in the adjoining district.
Which is to say that the tax burden
on property in North Carolina is not to
be measured entirely by the county
rate, which is more than four times as
high in one county as in another;but in
thousands of little districts, special
assessments for roads, drainage, schools,
and so on, have much to do with the to
tal burden. The increase is often very
small but also it is often as burdensome
as the county rate of many counties.
These local assessments like the county
assessments have been voluntarily as
sumed by the voters at special elec
tions, and they represent the willing
ness of local groups of property own
ers to invest more liberally on them
selves than is true of the whole county.
Falls on Whites
The burden of taxation in North Ca
rolina, as elsewhere in the South, falls
almost wholly on white people. While
negroes in North Carolina are 29.8 per
cent of our population, they own only
5 percent of the wealth listed for tax
ation and pay about 6 percent of all
property taxes. The aggregate of
property listed for taxation in the state
is $2,664,012,120, of which $136,295,400
is listed by negroes and negro-operated
corporations. Property listed|by whites,
including the physical valuation of
white-operated corporations totals $2, -
190,158,363, and the valuation of public
utilities and corporation excess totals
around 327 million dollars, practically
all of which is owned by white people.
In the eastern counties where the
negroes are largely concentrated the
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
County government in North Ca
rolina at the present time involves
an annual expenditure for all county
purposes o f approximately 30 million
dollars. This is approximately the
sum required to maintain the county
school systems, which includes
all schools in counties with the
country-wide tax. system, to main
tain county roads and bridges, to
maintain the county offices and to
defray all other expenses involved
in operating the 100 county govern
ments of the state. It is a large
sum of money that we spend annual
ly on county government in North
Carolina, and its more economical
utilization demands the election of
county officers of the highest type.
County government today requires
men of the calibre employed to di
rect million-dollar corporations.
tax burden falls most heavily on the
whites. In Scotland county for instance,
negroes are 66.2 percent of the total
population, yet they pay less than four
percent of all property taxes. The ne
groes are tenant farmers mainly, and
create wealth for landlords. Indirectly
they pay taxes, but directly the taxes
are paid by the whites who own nearly
all the property. In the thirteen
counties with negro majorities and in
the other counties with large negro ra
tios, the burden of taxation falls heavi
ly on white property owners, and it is
in such eastern counties that one hears
a large part of the talk about high
taxes. And their taxes are high, as
they must always be wherever from a
half to two-thirds of the people are
practically propertyless and the bur
den must be borne directly by the few
who own the wealth. Indirectly of
course, a large share of the tax burden
which falls on land is paid by the white
and negro tenants who cultivate the
land. In Scotland and Edgecombe
counties only a fifth of all farmers own
land. The tax is paid directly by this
small class of white landlords, and the
total seems large, but indirectly the
burden rests in some measure on the
shoulders of the tenant masses. There
is no remedy for the high tax burden
on landlords in such counties, except to
make owners out of the tenants, and
instead of a movement in that direction
the tenant rate is steadily increasing.
The study of taxation in North Caro
lina is an endless one. Our main idea
here has been to point, out some factors
affecting tax rates and tax burdens in
various counties. In conclusion let us
again state that the percent of true
values listed for taxation varies enor
mously in the 100 counties. The situa
tion is nothing short of ridiculous. Tax
rates vary greatly but due to unequal
assessments the rates do not always
indicate the actual burden. Special
local assessments often add much
to the tax burden on property.
Ninety-five percent of all property
taxes are paid by whites, and the di
rect burden falls most heavily on white
landlords in counties with large negro
populations and excessive ratios of
farm tenants. The actual burden is
heavy in some counties while in others
it is light, depending upon true wealth
and how liberally the counties are sup
porting schools and county govern
ment. The burden of taxation within
counties is far from equal, just as it is
unequal for the different counties. While
all of the above is true it is well to re
member that every cent of taxes paid
on property is levied locally and spent
locally. It is all spent within the coun
ty, and within the special tax districts
where levied. No property tax
leaves the county in which it is col
lected.
There is just one thing that we can
say in favor of taxes in North Carolina.
The total assessment on property aver
ages less in this state than in any
other state in the Union. But the bur
den does not rest equally, and most
likely we are farther from equality
than we have ever been. We know of
no reasonable being who will not agree
that all property should be listed uni
formly in every county. Then why isn’t
it so listed? The tax burden can never
be equalized until this uniform listing
is accomplished, and when the burden
is equalized we will hear much less
talk about taxes than we hear today.—
S. H. H., Jr.
THE CROPPER’S HARD ROAD
Although tenant farmers in the
United States in large numbers have
succeeded in accumulating funds out
of their farm earnings to make initial
payments on contracts for the purchase
of land, the process has become one of
considerable difficulty in many parts of
the country, say economists of the
United States Department of Agricul
ture who have studied the conditions
under which it is possible for ten
ant farmers to rise to the status of
owning farmers. Increase in the val
uation of land has sometimes discour
aged many tenants from attempting to
buy land, and may have increased the
difficulties of purchasers in the early
stages of payment. These conclusions
are based on extensive, data gathered
by the department. If tenants are to
accumulate out of their own earnings
enough money to make the initial pay
ment on a farm, they must do so, it is
said, by one or more of the following
means: (1) make their farms earn
higher than average incomes; (2) pay
rent on their land at a rate lower than
the prevailing mortgage rate of inter
est in their neighborhood; (3) own part
or all of their operating capital when
they become tenants; (4> live in most
cases on less than $600 a year in ad
dition to what the farm supplies in
kind; (6) keep production costs down by
employing the members of the family
without wages. Employing family
labor without wages, say the depart
ment economists, is a possibility of
considerable importance to the intend
ing purchaser. Studies of labor con
tributed by members of farm families
show that over a series of years such
labor had an average valuation of $211
on a group of 60 Wisconsin farms. This
was 21 percent of the expenses of these
farms.* In calculating farm incomes, a
deduction is usually made for the un
paid labor of the farm family. It rep
resents a return which is not included
in rent, interest on the investment or
payment for the services of the farm
operator himself. Where the tenant
has no unpaid labor from which to in
crease his margin of return over neces
sary expenditures, he carries an addi
tional handicap! in his struggle to be
come a farm owner.—Country Life
Bulletin.
A CORRECTION
In the May 21 issue of the News Let
ter the value of rural school property
for Gaston County was reported at
$80,000. The value should have been
$800,000. The total value of all school
property in Gaston in 1923 was $1,472,-
000, representing an investment of
$24.38 per inhabitant. Gaston ranks
eleventh in investment in public school
property per inhabitant.
TAXABLE WEALTH PER INHABITANT
And Aggregate County Tax Rates for 1923
In the following table the counties are ranked according, to the aggregate
of property listed for taxation per inhabitant for the year 1923. The accom
panying column shows the aggregate county tax rate in each county.
Durham leads with $1930 of wealth listed for taxation per inhabitant, and
Wilkes comes last with $465.
State total of property listed for taxation $2,684,012,120 or an average of
$988 per inhabitant.
Forsyth, the richest county in aggregate wealth, has the lowest county tax
rate, 65 cents on the $100. Clay, the second poorest county in wealth, has the
highest aggregate county tax rate, $2.26. No account is taken of special local
district assessments. The average aggregate rate for all the counties is ap
proximately $1.15.
The table is based on information as reported by the State Commissioner
of Revenue and the Registers of Deeds of the respective counties.
S. H. Hobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank County Aggregate Aggregate
Rank County Aggregate Aggregate
Tax Wealth
County
Tax Wealth
County
Per Inhab.
Tax Rate
Per Inhab.
Tax Rate
1
Durham
...$1930
$ .92
60
Haywood
. $824
$1.35
2
Guilford
... 1766
l.OOt
62
Cumberland
. 814
1.38
2
Forsyth ........
. .. 1766
.65
63
Harnett
. 808.
.83
4
Buncombe
... 1676
.80
63
Jackson
. 808
1.49
6
Mecklenburg ...
... 1582
.87
65
Surry
. 802
1.22
6
Gaston
... 1400
1.00
66
Carteret
.. 797
1.60
7
New Hanover...
... 1247
1.26
67
Greene
.. 796
1.61
8
McDowell
... 1197
1.00
68
Granville
. 782
1.30
9
Rowan
... 1183
.86
69
Tyrrell
. 781
1.18
10
Wilson
... 1177
1.26
60
Pender
.. 770
1.25
11
Scotland
... 1160
.97
61
Martin
.. 766
1.00
12
Richmond
... 1133
1.10
62
Robeson
.. 752
.94
13
Iredell
... 1116
.88
63
Pamlico
.. 761
1.26*
14
Pasquotank
... 1093
1.03
64
Onslow
. 760
1.26
15
Cabarrus
... 1083
.96
65
Washington
.. 747
1.17
16
Catawba
... 1068
.81
66
Anson
. 740
1.00
17
Wake
... 1064
.86
67
Perquimans
. 736
1.60
17
Wayne
.... 1064
.96
68
Nash
.. 733
1.10
19
Moore
... 1063
1.10
69
Polk
.. 714
1.66
20
Pitt
... 1060
1.00
70
Gates
.. 708
.75
21
Alamance
... 1032
1.37
71
Jones
.. 706
1.15
22
Cleveland
... 997
.76
72
Currituck
. 696
1.16
23
Henderson
... 995
1.70
73
Columbus .1..
688
1.08
24
Montgomery....
... 992
1.20
74
Burke
. 686
1.10
25
Rutherford
... 982
.88
76
Camden
.. 685
1.36
26
Stanly
.... 979
1.00
76
Bladen
.. 681
1.20
27
Craven
... 976
1.26
77
Alexander
.. 676
1.44
28
Graham
... 963
1.09
77
Union
.. 676
1.45
29
Chowan
... 961
.68
79
Hertford
.. 674
1.26
30
Swain
... 961
1.39
80
Warren
.. 661
.75
31
Beaufort
... 960
1.28
81
Randolph
.. 646
1.00
32
Vance
... 946
.93
82
Northampton
.. 639
1.50
33
Davie
... 942
1.02
83
Bertie
.. 632
1.36
34
Lenoir
... 922
1.76
84
Stokes
.. 627
1.48
36
Rockingham ....
.... 920
1.36
86
Sampson
.. 612
1.20
86
Davidson
... 906
1.00
86
Chatham
.. 609
1.22
37
Orange
... 903
1.10
87
Watauga
... 698
.90
38
Lee
... 897
1.00
88
Brunswick
.. 566
.97
39
Hyde
... 896
1.22
89
Caswell
... 661
1.70
40
Caldwell
... 886
1.26
89
Cherokee
.. 661
1.00
41
Transylvania ...
... 881
1.32
91
Yadkin
.. 552
1.33
42
Alleghany
... 873
.90
92
Franklin
... 546
1.15
43
Person
... 866
1.08
93
Yancey
.. 644
1.23
44
Lincoln
... 863
1.26
94
Madison
.. 635
1.76
45
Hoke
... 867
.87
96
Avery
.. 630
1.72
46
Halifax
... 848
1.32
96
Ashe
.. 519
1.34
47
Johnston
847
.90
97
Clay
.. 613
2.26
48
Mitchell
.... 844
1.00
98
Dare
.. 471
1.68
49
Edgecombe
.... 835
.71
99
Macon
.. 468
1.10
50
Duplin
... 824
1.04
100
Wilkes
.. 466
1.48
i The county rate for Guilford is $1.00 outside and $ .75 inside the cities.
♦ Rate for 1921.