The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNiVERSlTY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
FEBUARY 6,1924
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVEKSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS!
VOL. X, NO. 12
L Buardi B, C. Bratjson, 3. H. Hobbs, Jr., L. R. Wilson, E. W. Koisht. D. D. Carroll, J. B. Ballitt, H. W. Odum.
Entered aa Becend-class matter November 14,1914, at the Postofficeat Chapel Hill, N. Cl. under the act of August 24. 1911
TAX BURDENS IN 1922
0U« TOfAL^TAX BURDEN.|
i'lliijlast week’s News Letter "we car
ried a table showing]the total state ex
penditures on a per inhabitant basis of
the various state governments of ther
United States in 1922. The table in
cluded not only the current running ex
penses of the state, but expenditures
from state bond issues.
This week we are^presenting a table
which shows the entire tax burden on
a per inhabitant basis incurred in oper
ating the government of each sta^
and all its subdivisions—county, ci^,
town, and local districts.
For instance, according to the fed
eral Department of Commerce it cost
the people of North Carolina $47,672^^
332 in taxes collected to run the state
government, the one hundred county
governments, the fifty-seven cities with
more than 2,500 people, the four hun
dred and fourteen incorporated towns
with fewer than 2,500 people each, and
a multitude of- special Joeal districts.
The total tax burden for all purposes
amm^nted to $18.01 per inhabitant and
only four states spent less on this
basis.
The entire burden of government,
state, county, and municipal in Nevada
was $82.09 perjnbabitant in 1922. Ala
bama spent less than any state in the
Union, the amount being $12.82 per in
habitant. Ranking along with Ala
bama are three other southern"] states,
South Carolina and Georgia with heavy
negro populations, and Arkansas, poor
and indifferent.
Where Highest
It is clearly evident from the table
presented in this issue that the entire
burden of taxation is heaviest in" two
groups of states, western and urban.
The cost is highest in the far western
states because of the vast outlays for
permanent improvements such as irri
gation, public buildings, roads, and so
on. They have modern schools, with
new buildings and highly paid teachers.
Government comes high in the western
states because of vast outlays, sparsity
of population, and the high cost of liv
ing prevalent in those states.
Along with the sparsely settled west
ern states we find the cost of govern
ment relatively high in the states with
large urban population ratios. This is
naturally to be expected since urban
people spend enormous sums for im
provements, protection, comforts, con
veniences and the like which are not
indulged in by rural people. Therefore
in those states with large urban ratios
the vast additional expenditures inci
dent to urban government cause the
general average of the state to be high.
Expenditures per inhabitant for all
governmental purposes are lowest in
the southern states. The main reasons
for this are (1) large rural population
ratios where county government only
is the main government to be support
ed, (2) large negro ratios which affect
both total and per inhabitant expendi
tures, (3) relatively small taxable
wealth per inhabitant, and (4) our
prevalent tight-fisted notions about
taxation, which is probably the most
important reason of all.
Income Tax Omitted
It is important to explain in this
study that in announcing the tax bur
den by states the Census Bureau does
not include state income and inheri
tance taxes collected by any of the
states. Several states do not levy in
come or inheritance taxes, and the fact
that such taxes are levied by our state
slightly affects our total collections,
and the tax burden per inhabitant is
slightly increased. It is very doubtful
if the addition of these taxes would af
fect the rank of North Carolina.’ We
cannot make corrections for all the
states, but the following shows the ef
fect the corrections have on our state.
Our state income and inheritance taxes
for 1922 amounted to $3,101,237. If
this is added to the census report the
total cost of all government, state,
county, and local, in North Carolina,
becomes $50,773,569, and the total cost
per inhabitant becomes $19.18. It is
possible that if similar corrections were
made for all the states North Carolina
would replace^Tennessee in the table.
Wealth and Taxation
Measuring the total tax burden on a
per inhabitant basis is merely one man
ner of getting at a "comparison. The
real test is the relationship .the tax
burden bears to the volume of taxable
wealth. In 1922 North Carolina.had a-
bout fifty percent more^wealth on the
tax books than any other^state inj^tbe
South, except Texas. Now if the per
inhabitant tax burden is measured in
terms of our ability to pay taxes, that
is in terms of our taxable wealth per
inhabitant, then the tax burden is less
in North Carolina than in any other
state. Our tax burden per inhabitant
for purely state purposes is fairly high
(we rank 33rd) but the cost of all other
forms of government in North Caro
lina, county, city, town, and special tax
districts, is very small in comparison
with other states. We are a rural
state and the bulk^of our people pay
county taxes only.
All of which leads us to say in con
clusion that considering our large in
vestments in roads, school buildings,
teacher salaries, higher education, pub
lic health work, the care of the '[^sick
arid feeble-minded, and so on and on,
government comes very cheap in North
Carolina. The entire tax burden for
all purposes in 1922, state, county, mu
nicipal, and local, was $18.01 per inhab
itant. The cost was less in only four
states. What state can boast equal
service for the cost?—S. H. H., Jr.
STATE REVENUES
Revenue Commissioner R. A. Dough-
ton on his return to Raleigh] today
found that the books closing December
31 contained $6,760,000 approximately
as their work for 1923 and Governor
Doughton is highly pleased over the
year’s work.
Incomes and schedule taxes did so
much better than he had guessed, and
his estimate always is regarded as au
thoritative, that he was disposed to be
philosophic about the inheritance tax
shortages, since inheritances reflect
death and incomes and schedules abun
dant life. It was the governor’s first
year as commissioner and the showing
is first rate.
R. A. ^oughton makes public the
collections of the state department of
revenue for the year 1923 from income,
inheritance, license and franchise taxes,
which collections are largely in excess
of the collections of that department
for the previous year, due to the fact
that the income tax shows a very con
siderable increase and to the further
fact that the state department of reve
nue now collects directly certain taxes
which have heretofore been collected
by the other departments and by the
sheriffs of the different counties. The
legislature at its last session trans
ferred the collection of these taxes to
that department and gave it additional
machinery for such collections.
Sources are Detailed
The commissioner reports a total col
lection during the year 1923 of $6,760,-
067.73, from the following sources:
Income tax $3,975,444.68
Inheritance tax 410,492.80
License taxes under sched
ule B bf the revenue
act 418,029.00
Corporation franchise tax,
telephone, telegraph,
express and Pullman
companies’ privilege tax 938,388.75
Interest on bank balances
of the Department 7,712.50
In addition to the above there has
been collected by the department dur
ing the year 1923 $10,220.20 license
taxes which were due to have been paid
prior to June 1, 1923, date on which the
state department of revenue’s began
the collection of this license tax direct,
making a total of $5,760,267,93.
The collections by the department
for the year 1922 were $3,101,946.92,
from the following sources:
Income tax $2,414,726.07
Inheritance tax 686,510.89
Interest on bank balances 709.97
The inheritance tax collections show;
a decrease of $276,000, but there is due
the department a considerable amount
of inheritance tax which is in process
of collection, and when paid into the
TENANCY AND ILLITERACY
Economic and Social Conditions of
North Carolina Farmers is the title
of a recent bulletin based on a sur
vey of 1000 North Carolina farmers
in three typical counties of the
state. The survey was conducted
jointly by the North Carolina Col
lege for Women, the North Caro
lina State College of Agriculture
and Engineering, the State Univer
sity, and the State Department of
Agriculture in cooperation^with the
U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Eco
nomics. The bulletin is mainly sta
tistical, containing 184 tables of eco
nomic and social data. A copy may
be secured from Dr. B. F. Brown,
College Station, Raleigh, or from
the Department of Rural Social Eco
nomics, Chapel Hill, N. C.
From time to time we will present
some of the interesting facts
brought out by the survey. One of
the objects of the survey was to se-
cureaccurate data showing the effect
of farm ownership and of tenancy
on education. The information se
cured has been compiled in a series
of tables printed in the bulletin. The
following table shows the average
school grade reached by the four
classes of farmers, for both races.
The average for North Carolina
would be practically the same as
the average for these 1,000 farmers
in three typical counties of the state,
Edgecombe, Chatham, and Madison.
Class Average
grade
reached
White operator landlords .... 6.40
White owner operators 4.33
White tenants 3.97
White croppers 3.07
Negro owner operators 2.96
Negro owner landlords 2.00
Negro tenants 1.55
Negro croppers 98
If these 1,000 farmers are typical
of the state then the average white
farm owner in the state has about a
fifth grade education, while the
average white tenant has finished
less than three and a half grades,
since the bulk of our tenants are
croppers. The average negro owner
has about two and a half grades of
schooling while the average negro
tenant has barely more than finished
the first grade, since the great ma
jority of them are croppers. Farm
tenancy and illiteracy are twin-born
social menaces.
publication of the classified balance
sheet in a recent number of the
Mountaineer-Courier. I have read
ihe home paper ever since it was
first established with its unintelligible
yearly statement by the county com
missioners, but this is the'first time I
have seen a statement that gave one
any idea of the condition of county af
fairs. Such a statement was inaugur
ated for town affairs some 15 years ago
when Mr. George W. Maslin was a
member of the board of aldermen, and
now w‘e have seen the county commis
sioners make the same progressive step.
This statement looks good to me, but
at the risk of appearing in the role of
a captious critic I wish to suggest that
this excellent presentation would look
even better if it had at the bottom the
certificate of audit of a certified public
accountant. For a number of years I
was treasurer of the State Audubon!
Society, and had the handling of some ■
j $12,000 to $15,000, and every year my ,
• balance siieet to the board of directors !
j bore the certificate of audit of a certi-,
i fied public accountant who had no con-
I nection whatever with the Audubon !
Society. This I did as much for my'
own protection as for the satisfaction
of the directors and members of the
society. In this connection I may say
that a number of interesting studies in
the matter of county audits have' been
made at the state university. These
have thrown a flood of light on the
handling of county affairs in North Ca
rolina.—E. W. Gudger, in the Caroli
na Mountaineer.
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
Unj^rthe rule of farmers, Denmark
has sought to make life on the farm a
good life. The results include unique
diffusion of prosperity, the lowest per
centage of illiteracy among nations,
and a civilization that is not measured
by literacy merely. The chief agency
in the progress has been the rural folk
schools. From these schools is elimi
nated every vestige of the whole ma
chinery of examinations, credits, di
plomas, and external supervision and
control. Service to its rural commun
ity is the endeavor of the folk school,
and the education it offers is not limit
ed by a curriculum or a building but
keeps contact with the whole life of
every member of the community, by no
means excluding the marketing of his
products. —Survey Graphic.
department will very materially reduce
this decrease as compared with the
previous year.
There also remained uncollected $22,-
791.97 franchise corporation tax, which
tax is now in the hands of the sheriffs
of the different counties in which the
corporations are located for collection..
It is the opinion of this department
that the license taxes of $418,029, col
lected by the department under schedule
B of the revenue act, are materially in
excess of the amount of this license tax
which has heretofore been collected by
the sheriffs of the counties. The amount
of $418,029 covers the tax collected by
the department from June 1, 1923, to
December 31, 1923, only, the tax col
lected from January 1 to J’.me 1,
1923, having ^been collected by the
sheriffs of the counties.
It is also tb=’opinion .>f the depart
ment that the corporation franchise
and public service'corporation privilege
tax collected for the year 1923 is in
excess of the amount collected for the
year 1922.
The collections of the department
Save been made at a coat of two and
one half percent exclusive of printing
and stationery.—Greensboro News.
HAYWOOD'S BALANCE SHEET
My hearty congratulations to Hay
wood county’s commissioners on the
ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAX LEVIES
In North Carolina
The assessed valuation of all property subject to general property taxes
was $2,521,115,274 in 1922 as compared with $747,500,632 in 1912. An increase
of 237 percent. The per capita assessed valuation increased from $323.90 in
1912 to $952.46 in 1922. The per capita tax levy increased from $4.33 in 1912 to
$13.98 in 1922. The following tabl^ shows the assessed valuation and tax levies
of the state, counties, cities, towns, and all subdivisions.
1922 1912 1902
Assessed valuation of all property (ex
pressed in thousands) $2,621,116 $747,601 $346,879
Per capita assessed valuation of all prop
erty 962.46 323.90 177.98
Assessed valuation of real property and
improvements ("expressed in thousands) 1,672,640 382,776 178,898
Total levies of general property taxes
(expressed in thousands) 37,017 9,989 3,975
Per capita levies of general property
taxes 13.98 4.33 2.94
Average rate per $100 of assessed valua
tion 1.47 1.34 1.16
TAX BURDEN PER INHABITANT IN 1922
For All Purposes, State, County, Municipal, and Local
The following table shows the entire tax burden per inhabitant for all
state, county, city, town, and local purposes for each state in the Union. 1b
Nevada it cost $82.09 per inhabitant to run the state and all subdivisions of the
state. In Alabama the cost was only $12.82.
The entire tax burden in North Carolina for all purposes, state, county,
and local was $47,672,332. It was $18.01 per inhabitant, and the burden was
smaller in only four states, all southern with big negro population ratios.
(Income and inheritance taxes are not. included for any state. Such taxes
amounted to $3,101,237 for North Carolina in 1922. If added, the tax burden
•becomes $19.18 per inhabitant.)
Average for all states $38.90 per inhabitant.
S. H. Hobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina
Bank
State
Tax Burden per
Inhabitant, State,
County, Local
Rank
State
Tax Burden per
Inhabitant, State
County, Local
1
Nevada
$82.09
25
Kansas
$42.62
2
Oregon
61.64
26
Utah
41.46
3
California ....
59.86
27
Illinois
40.78
4
Arizona
68.76
28
Maine.
36.35
6
New York...
57.63
29
Florida
35.32
6
Rhode Island.
66.17
30
Vermont
34.29
7
Washington..
.54.80
31
Pennsylvania.
34.04
8
Massachusetts
64.37
32
New Mexico..
31.92
9
Minnesota,...
63.40
33
Delaware
33.50
10
Colorado
62.82
34
Maryland
33.47
11
Iowa
62.72
35
Louisiana
29.20
12
Michigan
61.44
36
Missouri
29.06
13
South Dakota
60.07
37
West Virginia
28.11
14
New Jersey .,
49.01
38
Oklahoma ....
26.11
16
Wisconsin....
47.48
39
Texas
22.76
16
North Dakota
47.06
40
Mississippi ...
21.60
17
Nebraska
46.02
41 ■
Virginia
19.78
18
Wyoming
46.01
42
Kentucky ....
19.40
19
Ohio
46.62
43
Tennessee....
18.67
20
Idaho
45.42
44
North Carolina.
18.01
21
Connecticut ..
45.22
45
Georgia
14.39
22
Montana
46.04
46
South Carolina 14.15
23
Indiana
43.69
47
Arkansas ....
18.91
24
New Hampshire 43.48
48
Alabama
12.82