Newspapers / The University of North … / Feb. 23, 1927, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The University of North Carolina News Letter (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
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. FEBRUARY 23, 1927 CHAPEL HILL, N. C. The university of north Carolina press VOL, xm, No. 15 Editorial Board. E. C. Branson, S. H. Hobbs, Jr.. L. R. Wilson, E. W. Knight, D. D. Carroll, J. B. Bullitt. H. W. Odum. Entered as second-class matter November 14. 1914. at the Postoffice at Chapel Hill, N. C.. under the act of Aupuat 24. 1912. INDSVIOUAL INCOME TAX The individual income tax returns filed with the federal Department of Internal Revenue by North Carolina for the calendar year 1924 numbered 63,864. Of this total only 28,841 were within the taxable brackets while 35,023 returns filed by individuals, including parlnerr ships, were not subject to an income tax. Only 2.35 percent of the state’s total population filed federal income tax Lumberton 265 Rockingham 266 Reidsville .*. 250 Thomasville 230 Albemarle 225 Edenton 226 Leaksville 210 Lenoir 210 Iq addition to the above there are thirty-three towns with from one hun dred to two hundred individuals filing returns, and only a fraction more than returns, and fifty-six one percent of our population actually paid a federal income tax. The state ranks very low both in percent of the population filing income tax returns, and in percent of the population paying in come taxes. The percent of the popu lation filing federal income tax returns is* lower in only five states. The following table is an analysis of North Carolina’s individual income tax returns as compiled by the federal Treasury Department. Number of returns 63,864 Returns subject to tax 28,841 Total Ind. income $247,083,678 | towns with from ten to one hundred indi viduals filing federal income tax returns. There are approximately three hundred and fifty incorporated towns in the state with fewer than ten individual federal income tax returns each. FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES During the calendar year 1925 there were 141 estate tax returns of resident decedents filed with the federal Bureau of Internal Revenue. The estate tax is popularly refered to as the inheri tance tax. Of the 141 returns filed, 124 - j were subject to a tax. Deductions and Net income 200,888,963 | exemptions exceeded the gross estate Taxed income 44,775,590 vin seventeen cases. Ind. income tax paid 3,777,873 Sources of Income Wages and salaries 112,906,891 Business 48,305,229 Dividends 27,598,184 Rents and royalties 20,296,162 PartneraWpa 17,607,406 Interest and investment 8,916,588 Profiits from sale of real eatate, stocks, and bonds 8,761,982 Capital net gain from sale of assets 1,734,720 Fiduciary 929,896 Interest on Gov’t bonds not wholly exempt ^7,631 $247,083,678 The above includes individual income tax returns filed by sixty-five farmers, forty-six of whom paid a tax. Practi cally the entire individual income tax, federal and state, is paid by the urban, or non-farm, population. INCOME RETURNS BY CITIES Charlotte has a big lead over the other cities of the state in the number of individuals filing federal income tax returns. Asheville, although not second in size, ranks second in federal income tax payers, and Raleigh is third. We are not sure whether Winston-Salem is first or second in population, but she ranks fifth in number of federal income tax payers. We are presenting below a table showing how the cities and towns of the state rank in the number of federal individual income tax returns filed covering ificoraes made in 1924. Due to lack of accurate population data the cities cannot be ranked according to returns per unit of population. Only those cities and towns filing as many as two hundred returns are given in the following table. City or Town Number of returns Charlotte .' 6,655 Asheville 4,115 Raleigh 3,940 Greensboro 3,865 Winston-Salem 3,760 Durham 2,S6iJ WTlmington 2,930 Rocky Mount 1,636 High Point 1,800 Salisbury 1,020 Wilson 990 Gastonia 900 Fayetteville 885 Goldsboro 806 New Bern 770 Burlington 625 Kinston 606 Elizabeth City 670 Hamlet 570 Conc»d 520 Henderson 610 Statesville 610 Greenville 500 Hickory 450 Washington 450 Monroe 396 Lexington ?. 370 Tarboro 370 Spencer 365 Hendersonville 360 Mount Airy. ^..... 340 Shelby 270 Oxford 265 Sanford 265 The gross estate of the 124 resident decedents whose estates were subject to the federal estate tax was more than forty-four million dollars. Deductions were almost exactly twenty million dollars, the net taxable estate being more than twenty-four million dollars. The net estate tax paid to the federal Government was $2,392,198 and only seven states paid a larger estate or inheritance tax than North Carolina. CLUB HEARS TAX TALK The subject discussed at the last meeting of the North Carolina Club was that most baffling of all current issues—taxation. Miss Coralie Parker of the Research Institute, read a paper and led the discussion. Miss Parker introduced the subject by citing Seligman’s definition of a tax: “A tax is a compulsory contribution to the support of government.” She then traced American taxation through the five stages through which it has passed. (1) In the colonial period taxes were based on polls exclusively. (2) Later the poll tax was reduced and the major portion of the revenue derived from a tax on land. Land was the principal form of wealth and was thus a fair measure of ability to pay taxes. (3) After trade and industry began to develop the land tax was supplemented by a tax on personal property, and after a while the general property tax resulted’. (4) As the burden of taxa tion increased taxes were extended to items of consumption.' These have usually taken the form of customs and excises. (5) The last stage appeared with the development of the income tax. Theory ofTasation The principle of benefit as a basis of UNIFORM LISTING There is considerable division of oninion over many of the tax prob lems confronting the state, but there is one point on which all heartily agree, namely that wealth listed for taxation should be listed at a uniform percent of its true value in every county in the state. There is no single reason why property should continue to be assessed as it is now assessed by the various counties and municipalities of the state. If, as is claimed, the obvious is often over looked, then th^ glaring obviousness of the necessity for the uniform listing of property throughout the state may be the explanation for the existing indefensible practises. There are two factors in the property tax burden,—the rate and the value. And of the two the value is the more important factor. often those who draft tax legislation are afraid to insist upon the application of sound principles. They are guided by political expediency. The speaker suggested that the inability to localize in comes and inheritances might eventually lead to their being limited to federal application. In local government the benefit principle can probably be utilized more fully than it has been of late. Miss Parker pointed out the impor tance of just and efficient administration of the tax machinery. Any tax becomes unfair unless it is equitably and vigor ously applied. Especially is it impor tant that there be expert appraisal of property if the property tax is to remain as our major tax. UNIFORM VALUATION The solicitude foi local government units being manifested in Raleigh might well take the form suggested by Repre sentative Winston and others, and do that for the counties, which they cannot do for themselves. * This is to exercise supervision over property taxes, thereby establishing uniformity of v^aluations. If the state did its duty well and thoroughly, many injustices and much confusion would be appreciably diminished. In the first place, there would be established a uni formity of relationship of tax value to sale value, so that the tax rate in a county would have a definite, under standable meaning. In the second place, while it is possible for the people of a county to set up a machinery of tax assessment that will be without fear, favor or influence, it is far more reason able to expect a machinery to operate in that way if it is from without the county, an agency of the state, which is equally interested in all the counties, equally responsible to all. / Uniformity of tax valuation through out the state would manifestly be in taxation has been gradually abandoned j interest of justice to all the tax- ' payers of the state, therefore to all the counties. But it is practically impossi ble for this to be attained through county because it is based on the wrong theory of the state. The ability or ,sacrifice' theory is now fin vogue. The applica-^ tion of the ability theory has led to pro-i Even if it could be done, it gressive or graduated rates in many ( be done by an all-inclusive instances. Too often, expediency ratTier ; concert of the counties; and for what is than sound economic theory has been central government? the guiding principle in levying taxes. No such thing as a uniformity of ap- Taxes are levied where they arouse the praisals could be had except through a least resistance. Because no single central appraising agency, even if the form of taxes is apt to bear on all with , counties should unanimously decide for equity, a diversity of taxes is generally ; uniformity, or if they should decide upon desirable. Some are (^irect, some in- a ratio of tax valuation to productive direct. Direct taxes are more elastic i valuation, or to sale valuation. It would and usually more economically col-, be practically out of the quest^ion to lected. Indirect taxes are usually re-! secure unanimity of opinion among the gressive thus a violation of taxation 1100 counties as to what would be a de- according to ability; nevertheless, they | sirable rule for tax valuation.—Greens- are popular because they excite less boro News, resistance than direct taxes. , Taxes are not to be judged entirely : from the point of view of revenue. They may be used as a means of social The results of the Missouri Crime control. Inheritance taxes, for instance, l Survey are summarized succinctly in while of some revenue^,value, are es-; the Kansas City Star. They are sentially a means of redistributing | important as revealing not only local wealth. conditions but conditions which exist Recommendations! | generally thoughout the country. The speaker did not attempt to offer ■ a tax program for North Carolina, but j simply pointed out the need for a scienti- i fic study of taxation. She urged that tax ; revision, whatever form it may take, • be courageous and intelligent. Too j CRIME SURVEY FINDINGS Chance of escaping conviction; For Murder or Manslaughter—11 to 1. For Robbery—28 to 1. For Burglary—60 to 1. Why? The coroner is not required to be a j physician or to qualify as competent. The police department under state rule is a political football. It is under manned, and many members are aged or inexperienced. The county shiTiff’s force is inade quate. It cannot arrest outside the county. State police are necessary to cope with the motor age criminal. The prosecutor may dismiss charges without explanation. He should be under jurisdiction of the attorney- genei^i. A loose bail bond system permits almost anything. . Presumption of innocence of defen dant, even though convicted and on appeal, is a hindrance. There is no presumption in civil cases. The criminal code is obsolete, copied after an old English code that was revised years ago. Extra jury challenges to defense give an advantage. They should be divided equally with the prosecution, A stricter jury exemption is needed. A mush-mouthed, weak-kneed public aids the criminal through reluctance for jury service; changing of testimony; and failure to stick with the prosecu tion through delays. The ‘expert testimony’ provision by alienists, physicians and others is abused. There can be no comment when a de fendant does not take the stand. Com ment should be allowed. A year for appeal upon circuit court conviction is unnecessary. A shoddy 'parole system and housing of young prisoners with old criminals increase crime.—Dearborn Independent WHAT PRICE LAUGHTER? On 1,500 farms in the Middle West, says a bulletin of the . United States Department of Agriculture, the average farm family spends for recreation and amusement $24.40 a year. ‘Figuring it down to the basis of one person,’ comments Wallace’s Parmer, ‘we find that the average person on Mid-West farms scatters each week with a prof ligate hand not much less than ten cents for recreation. ’ Ten cents a week for recreation! And on many Southern farms that would be regarded as criminal extrav agance. * That is the outstanding tragedy of American country life. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, even when the work is done under the spur of a gorgeous ambition and with the hope of splendid reward. Uninter rupted toil, made necessary by bitter adversity and without the vision of better things to come, paralyzes the mind and crucifies the body. There is a loneliness in farm life, particularly for the women, which must be relieved if the individual is to grow in mental and spiritual stature. Upon the gray curtain of monotony the light of laughter must be thrown if people are to live the lives of normal human beings. Recreation easy and laughter is cheap, but when the investment in them is less than ten cents a week, ihey are practically unattainable or the people who should have them do not know how to go after them. Students of rural sociology like Dr. E. C. Branson of the University of North Carolina have explained ail this to the State and the country in general time after time. Not only mukt the farmer’s lot be made so that he can have a normal amount of fun and enter tainment, but in some cases he has been so long alien to the lighter side of life that he h^s to be taught how to laugh and play. The South must do more of this teaching than she has done. She has made a fine start in the work, but it must be speeded up. Less than ten cents a week for recreation! Think of that and wonder that the young people of the farms flee the stark tragedy of laughter gone broke.—Asheville CRiz^n, INDIVIDUAL INCOME RETURNS BY CLASSES For North Carolina for the Income Year 1924 The following table, based on Statistics of Income, federal Treasury De partment, shows the number of individual income tax returns filed by North Carolinians by income classes, together with the total net income of all individ uals in each class, and the net tax paid by each income class. The table is for incomes made in 1924 and covers only returns filed by individuals, Corporation returns are not included. The income classes followed by the asterisk (*) paid no tax. Income class Number Net income ' returns ' $1,000* 3,712 $2,687,130.. 1,000 85 46,996 2,000* 10,200 15,816,580 2,000 10,262 14,676.454 3,000* 15,804 38.293,329 3,000 4,175 10,566,222 4,000 4,000 13,3l§,266 4,000 5,713 19,826,357...' 6,000* 1,009.^ 4,479,606 6,000 3,896 ’ 17,620,871 Under Under $1,000 to 1,000 to 2,000 to 2,000 to 3,000 to 3,000 to 4,000 to 4,000 to 5,000 to 5,000 to 6,000 to 6,000 to 7,000 to 7,000 to 8,000 to 8,000 to 9,000 to 9,000 to 10,000 to 11,000 to 12,000 to 13,000 to 14,000 to 15,000 to 20,000 to 25,000 to 30,000 to 40,000 to .50,000 to 60,000 to 70,000 to 80,000 to 90,000 to 100,000 to 160,000 to 200,000 to 250,000 to 300,000 to 400,000 to 600,000 to 750,000 to Above Classes grouped! ' 2,020,873 Net tax paid $426 61,444 52,685 76,203 6,000* 123.. 6,000 1,085 . 7,000* 67,. 7,000 743.. 8,000* 43.. 8,000 525.. 9,000*' 36.. 9,000 372.. 10,000* 29.. 10,000 287.. 11,000 225.. 12,000 191.. 13,000 163.. 14,000 124.. 15,000 117.. 20,000 346.. 26,000 182.. 30,000 97... 83,511 33,306 30,370 34,074 32,984' 31,386 35,076 159,294 ’ 156.538 129 739 40,0d0 104 3,581,795 229’457 675.371.. 5.916.780.. 432,390- 4.803.638.. . 318.818.. 3,926,088.. 305.398.. 3.156.976.. 276.345.. 2,724,084.. 2.350,044.. 2.196.696.. 1.912.956.. 1,652,047.. 1,6$8,640.. 6.946.268.. 4,059,379.. 2.641.827.. 36.370 36.439 36,608 33,706 50,000.. 60,000.. 70,000.. 80,000.. 90,000.. 100,000.. 160,000.. 200,000.. 250,000.. 300,000.. 400,000.. 600,000... 750,000.. 1,000,000... 1,000,000... 46.. 41.. 16.. 13.. 7.. 11.. 20.. 6.. 4.. 4.. 2.. 1.. 1.. 0.. 2,031.141 172,412 2.2^6,016 211,388 902,700 122,'!a2 986,384 123,380 609,197 96,97.5 1,066,'089 183,343 2,421,768.. 894.620.. 905.969.. 1,067,966.. Ct) (t) (t) 480,016 233,107 187.472 222,271 (+) (t) (t) 466,971 Total 63,864 200,888,963 3,777,873 Nontaxable 36,023 76,600,233 - Taxable 28,841...,. 124,288,720 3,777,,873' ♦Nontaxable. Specific exemptions exceed net income. fClasses grouped to conceal net income and identity of taxpayer.
The University of North Carolina News Letter (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 23, 1927, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75