Newspapers / The University of North … / March 11, 1925, 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. MARCH 11, 1925 CHAPEL HILL, N. C. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS VOL. XL NO. 17 E. C. Branaon, S. H. Hobbs, Jr.. L. R. Wilson, B. W. Knight, D. D. Carroll. J. B. Bnllftt, H. W. Odum. Enteral u .ecend-clM. nutter N.T.mbor U. 1914, at the Pe.teffleeat Chanel Hill. N. G,. nnder the act of Anan.t HI. I FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS INCOME TAX RETURNS In total taxes paid into the Federal treasury in 1924 North Carolina was surpassed by only four states, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michi gan, in the order named. The North Carolina tax amounted to ?157,973, Greensboro First Manifestly it is impossible to rank cities with absolute accuracy because of differences in suburban residence areas. But, using the 1920iCensus of population, we find that Greensboro •led the cities of the state in the pro- 394, of which the miscellaneous tax portion of her dwellers who filed in- amounted to $139,800,237, and the in come tax to $18,173,157. Tobacco taxes contribute about 99 percent of our miscellaneous tax, or nearly 138 million dollars. In a way our tobacco tax is not properly credited to North Carolina since it is paid by the tobac co consumers of the nation. But the same is true of Federal taxes paid by other states on products which enter into interstate commerce. It is a North Carolina industry that is responsible for the tax, and thus it is North Caro lina’s contribution to the Federal Gov ernment. This study, however, deals with per sonal income taxes and personal re turns filed by .counties. North Caro lina does not rank high in income taxes paid, either to the Federal government or to the state, when ranked on a comparable basis. The total of Federal income taxes paid by individuals and corporations for the income year ending December 3i, 1922, amounted to $16,374,568. Of this total $11,465,957 was paid by 3,486 corpora tions and $4,908,611 was paid by 22,674 individuals. How Counties RanJi The table which appears elsewhere shows how the one hundred counties of the state rank in the ratio of in habitants who filed Federal personal income tax returns for the income year of 1922. New Hanover ranks first with one return filed for every 12.4 inhabitants in the county. Clay ranks last with one .return for every 967.4 inhabitants. Or to state it in an other way. In New Hanover county one return was filed for every two and a half families, upon an average, while in Clay county it required nearly two hundred families to produce one in come taxpayer. The other counties of the state fall between these two ex tremes. As a rule, the urban indus trial counties, with a sprinkling of combination cotton-tobacco counties, lead, while the tidewater, mountain, and rural central state counties lag in the payment of income taxes. come returns, with one return for every 5.7 inhabitants. The following table shows the rank of the thirteen cities of the state, each of which filed more than eight hundred income .tax returns. The table is based on the population as re ported by the census, divided by the number of returns reported for 1922. Rank Cities Returns Inhabs. Per Return Greensboro 3,500 Raleigh 3,440 Charlotte 6,860 Rocky Mount 1,600 Asheville 3,610 Wilmington 3,416 Durham 2,120 Wilson 980 Fayetteville 815 Winston-Salem 3,715 Salisbury 1,010 High Point 980 Gastonia 830 Thirteen cities filed a total of 38,715 returns, or two-thirds of all’ returns filed in the state, and most likely paid more than two-thirds of all personal in come taxes paid to the Federal gov ernment. Yet the census reports that only eleven percent of the population of the state lives in these thirteen cities!—S. H. H., Jr. 6.7 7.1 7.9 8.0 8.1 9.8 10.2 10.8 10.9 i 13.0 13.9 14.6 15.4 North Carolina averages one return for every 46.7 inhabitants, or one re turn for every nine families upon an average, and only twenty counties rank above the state average. More than two-thirds of all the income tax payers jire in the twenty counties that rank highest in the table, and only one-third in the other eighty counties. City People Pay A stijdy of the accompanying table shows clearly that income and profit taxes are paid largely by urban peo ple, almost exclusively by people, who, for all practical purposes, might be classed as urban. It is reliably re ported ■ that of the quarter-million farmers of the state, probably not more than one hundred, strictly farm ers, paid an income tax, either Federal or State, last year. All the counties which rank high in the table have large towns, or factories, or both. On the other hand, the counties that rank low are ail strictly rural and agricultural. Even in the cotton and tobacco belt a county does not rank well unless it has a fairly large town with tradesmen and professional • workers. To illustrate, Greene is per haps as productive as Wilson but Greene, with no important town, ranks low, while Wilson ranks high, A classification of the returns shows that exactly two-thirds of all income tax payers live in 27 towns of the state with more than 6,000 inhabitants each. The remaining one-third live largely in the 444 towns with fewer than 6,000 inhabitants. Mecklenburg leads the counties of the state in total personal income tax returns filed, while Guilford, Bun combe, Forsyth, and Wake follow in She order named, all urban counties. 1 FARM LIFE AND LEADERS Contending that poor schools do not produce leaders, a study by the Na tional Education Association, published in a research bulletin, says: “This fact supported by evidence given Who’s Who. The census of 1870 is nearest the birth of most of the people now included in this publication. At the time of this census 26,962,301 peo ple were living on farms in the United States and 11,606,070 were living in cities, towns, and villages. “Since nearly 70 percent of our peo ple were living on farms in 1870, and since most of the people listed in Who’s Who were born around 1870, we would expect to find that most of those listed in Who’s Who were born on farms. Just the opposite is the case. “Although 70 percent of our people were living on farms in 1870, but 6,288, or 25.9 percent of the people , listed in Who’s Who were born on farms. Al though only 30 percent of our popula tion in 1870 was living in cities, towns, and villages, this 30 percent has pro duced 17,990 notables or 74.1 percent of those listed in Who’s Who. “Stated differently, we may say: “Each 1,000,000 people living in ru ral sections produced 233 notable mei and women. “Each 1,000,000 people living in ur ban sections produced 1,660 notable men and women. “In proportion to population, over six times as many notable people are born in urban as in rural communities. “The farm falls far short of contrib uting its proportionate share of the nation’s leaders. It is popularly as sumed that the rural environment is the most favorable for the development of greatness. The facts stamp this as an other popular fallacy. It is in the towns and cities and villages that our leaders are born and educated. The handicap of the miserable educational facilities provided in many rural sec tions is too great for country children to overcome. Genius may. ‘out’, but few of us are geniuses. Most of us need a good education to bring out the best that is in us. “On the other hand, urban children enjoying the advantages of superior schools have had more than an equal opportunity to develop their talents and have claimed a lion’s share of the places of leadership in the nation.” —Information Service. KNOW NORTH CAROLINA Resort Resources Nature has given North Carolina abundant possibilities for becoming a great resort state. The variety of altitudes, climate and scenery, and the location of the state make it sought by the tourist, while its salubrious climate attracts thou sands of sick and overworked peo ple who are seeking restoration to health and recuperated energies. With its ocean for the summer bathers, its sounds and rivers team ing with game and fish for the win ter sportsman, its Sand Hill Coun try for the winter tourist, its moun tain country, unsurpassed in seen-* ery and salubrious climate, and open practically the year round, and lastly, with its system of highways, North Carolina offers to the tour ist, the pleasure seeker, and the health seeker all that can be de sired. It is very probable that North Carolina will develop into the foremost resort state of the Union. —From Know Your Own State- North Carolina, A Program for Women’s Clubs issued by the Uni versity Extension Division. CHILDREN OF OLD CAROLINA Many bulletins on many varied .sub jects have been issued by the Exten sion Division of the University of North Carolina but its most recent issue is of a very different type in many ways from any of its previous publications. The title of this new bulletin is Children of Old Carolina, an Histori cal Drama for Children, by Miss ELhel T. Rockwell of the Bureau of Community Drama. This booklet is attractively bound in blue covers and is illustrated. In her preface Miss Rockwell states that she has written Children of Old Carolina in order to meet an ever-growing demand for historical drama for large groups of children below high-school age. The Bureau of Community Drama has found it most; difficult to supply this demand, for most pageants have been written for adult casts and are therefore utterly unsuited for production by children of high-school age, although again and again one witnesses the usually pa thetic attempt to present the great personages of history. As a class ex ercise in the schoolroom it may be of considerable educational and inspira tional value but as a bigvout-door en tertainment it falls far short of being either. Children of Old Carolina on the other hand has been written for children to enjoy and to be staged by them. Always the author has kept in mind that the cast is to be composed of children and has tried to have them do the things that children of the various periods depicted would naturally have done. They sing the songs of the period, dance the dances, play the folkgames, work at typical tasks, and talk about the great events of the day as they would have seen them through their childish eyes and have interpreted them. TJie pageant is offered with the earnest hope that it may help to fulfill some of the needs for worthwhile children’s dramas. The historical play is divided into eight parts, viz: The Children of the Lost Colony, of Primeval Days, of Old Colonial Days, of Westward Ho, of the Revolution, of Old Plantation Days, of the Confederacy, and of the New Freedom that was usheredjin by Chas. B. Aycock. Each of these groups is introduced by the spirit of a dominant hero of the period, as Raleigh, Manteo, Moseley, Archdale, Graffenried, Wad dell, Flora McDonald, Spangenberg, Boone, Harnett, Davie, Graham, Vance, and Aycock. There is also a Pro logue and an Epilogue depicting the Children of Today. AFFILIATION OF STUDENTS ( The Christian Education Magazine gives the number of colleges belonging to each of the leading denominations in .North Carolina, the number of students enrolled from the several churches’and the relative percentages in state and church schools. The figures follow: Institutions: Baptist, 2; Methodist, 6; Presbyterian, 6; Disciples, 2; Lutheran, 1; Friends, 1; Moravian, 1; State, 5; Independent, 1; total, 23. Enrollment: Total, 10,587. Baptists, 2,746; Methodists, 3,680; Presbyterians, 1,867; Disciples, 457; Episcopalians, 513; Roman Catholics, 36; Lutherans, 327; Friends, 98; Moravians, 42. Distribution: Baptists—in State in stitutions, 53 percent; in Baptist col leges, 31 percent; in all other colleges, 16 percent. Methodists—In State insti tutions, 50 percent; in Methodist col leges, 38 percent; in all other col leges, 22 percent. Presbyterians- In State institutions, 43 percent; in Presbyterian colleges, 46 percent, in all other colleges, 11 percent. Disciples —In State institutions, 33 percent, in Disciples colleges, 62 percent, in all other colleges, 16 percent. In the Baptist colleges of this state 79 percent of the students are Baptists; in the Methodist colleges 73 percent are Methodists; in the Presbyterian colleges 77 percent are Presbyterians; in the Disciples colleges 61 percent are Disciples; in Friends colleges 40 per cent are Friends; in the Lutheran col lege 72 percent are Lutherans; and in the Moravian , college only 13 percent are Moravians. FATHERS OF GREAT MEN Mr. S. S. Visher, the geographer, has taken the trouble to determine the occupations of the fathers of 18,400 persons who figure in the last issue of Who’s Who in America. According to him, men of abijity are born much more frequently in the families of professional men than in any other. Differentiating among professions he found that one hundred fathers in each of the following groups average a certain number of distinguished sons thus: Engineers q Physicians iq Methodist clergy i.o Lawyers jg Baptist clergy 2.3 Sea captains and pilots 2.4 Universalist clergy 7.0 Presbyterian clergy 9.0 Episcopal clergy 11,7 Congregational ^clergy 12.5 Unitarian clergy 15.0 —Current Opinion. SAVINGS Savings represent much more than mere money value. They are the proof that the sav'hr is worth something in himself. Any fool can waste, any fool can meddle; but it takes something of a man to save and the more he saves the more of a man does it make of him. Waste and extravagance unsettle a man’s mind for every crisis; thrift, which means some form of self-re straint, steadies it—Rudyard Kipling. FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS In North Carolina for the Income Year 1922 Based on Statistics of Income for 1922, Federal Treasury Department, and the 1922 census estimate of population, showing (1) the number of inhabitants per Federal income tax return for each county in the state for the income year of 1922, and (2) the total number of returns filed for each county. New Hanover ranks first with one return for every 12.4 inhabitants, while Mecklenburg leads in total number of returns filed, 6,956. Clay ranks last both in total number of returns, five, and in inhabitants per return, 967.4, As a rule the urban, industrial, and cotton-tobacco counties lead, while the Tide water, Mountain, and rural Piedmont counties rank poor. State average one return for every 46.7 inhabitants, or one for every nine families. Only twenty counties rank above the state average, while eighty counties rank below the state average. Hill Yarborough, Franklin county Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina Rank Counties Total No. No. Inhab. Rank Counties Total No. No. Inhah Returns Per Return Returns Per Return 1 New Hanover.... 3,430 12.4 61 Caldwell . 210 2 Mecklenburg .... 6,956 14.1 52 Person . 200 Q 3 Buncombe 3,930 17.2 53 Martin 210 1091 Q 4 Guilford 4,810 17.4 64 Rutherford . 300 107 S 5 Edgecombe 2,070 19.J 54 Swain . 130 107 .3 6 Durham 2,200 20.0 56 Randolph . 280 111.4 7 Wake 3,760 20,8 67 Johnston . 440 116 8 8 Forsyth 3,860 22.0 58 Duplin 260 120 9 9 Pasquotank 610 29.3 69 Anson . 240 191 1 10 Richmond 910 29.7 60 Harnett .... . 240 124 6 11 Rowan 1,470 31.1 61 Hertford 130 127.0 12 Wilson 1,140 34.2 62 Pamlico 70 *129 4 13 Craven 860 34.8 63 Hoke.. . 90 1.34 Q 14 Cumberland 950 38.2 64 Northampton.... . 160 156.0 15 Alamance 860 39.2 66 Tyrrell 30 *161.6 16 Vance 600 39.4 66 Mitchell 70 163 0 17 Lenoir 760 41.1 67 Jackson 80 168 7 18 Chowan 266 *41.8 68 Franklin . 160 169 8 19 Lee 330 42.1 69 Davie., .. 80 170 3 20 Gaston 1,270 43.2 70 ‘ Bertie . 140 171 7 21 Henderson 370 60.7 71 Cherokee 90 172 22 Wayne 880 51.9 72 Dare 30 172 Q 23 Halifax 840 ^3.9 73 Lincoln 100 180 ft 24 Carteret 290 64.4 74 Brunswick.... 80 187 9. 26 Beaufort 670 64.6 76 Sampson 200 187.7 26 Rockingham 840 64.9 76 Wilkes 170 19R 6 27 Davidson 640 57.3 77 Alexander 60 206 0 28 Moore 390 67.7 78 Avery 60 210,2 29 Pitt 840 67.8 79 Onslow 70 212 1 30 Cabarrus 590 60.3 80 Chatham 110 219 2 31 Iredell 640 60.7 81 Nash 190 226 0 32 Catawba 680 60.9 82 Stokes 90 22Q 8 33 McDowell 270 66.1 83 Currituck... , 30 *242 2 34 Orange 280 66.5 84 Pender 60 *246 4 36 Scotland 230 68.0 86 Madison 80 0 36 Haywood 330 ’ 73.1 86 Bladen 80 2R2 6 37 Warren 280 78.3 87 Jones 40 2.66 4 38 Surry 420 78.9 88 Camden 20 *269 1 39 Stanly 340 86.3 89 Watauga 60 274.2 40 Granville 310 88.0 90 Yancey 60 317.4 41 Robeson 640 88.5 91 Macon 40 39.6 6 42 Washington 130 88.6 92 Gates 3D 0 43 Transylvania.... no 89.6 93 Ashe 60 368 3 44 Union 410 89.6 94 Hyde 20 *419 3 46 Montgomery 160 *91.2 96 Greene 40 426 4 46 Polk 100 91.3 96 Graham 10 490 3 47 Columbus 330 92.9 97 Caswell 30 633 0 47 Perquimans 120 92.9 98 Yadkin 30 49 Burke 260 96.1 99 Alleghany 10 *740.3 60 Cleveland 370 96.9 100 Clay 6 967.4 Miscellaneous 43 *Population figure of 1920 U. Si Census used.
The University of North Carolina News Letter (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 11, 1925, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75