The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
JULY 13, 1927
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
\'OL. XIII, No. 35
Editorial Board, E. C. Branson, S. H. Hobbs, Jr„ L, E, 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 August 24, 1912,
TAXING PEHSONALTY IN N. C.
PERSONAL PROPERTY
in 1919, the year before the revalua
tion. personal property listed by in
dividuals and corporations amounted
to forty six percent of the total amount
of property listed for taxation. In
1926, despite the rapid urbanization and
industrialization of the state and the
unhealthy state of agriculture, personal
property amounted to only twenty-four
percent of the total. This comparison
deals only with property listed locally;
it does not include property assessed
by the state such as public utilities,
bank stock and corporation excess. If
we include these items, considering
public utilities as real estate (and it is
not entirely so), and bank stock and
corporation excess as personal property,
the ratio becomes forty-three to
twenty-four. Stated differebtly, in six
years real estate (excluding railroads)
increased 266 percent, or including
railroads, 234 percent. Personal prop
erty, in the narrower sense, increased
only thirty-seven percent, or if we
include bank stock and corporation
excess, thirty-eight percent.
Realty Penalized
We must grant that real estate was
undervalued in 1919, but probably no
more so than personal property. In six
years the tax values were increased by
11,647,619,626 and eighty-nine percent
of this increase was imposed on real
estate. Is it reasonable to believe that
eight out of every nine dollars of new
wealth created since 1919 has gone into
real estate? Or is it likely that personal
property was fully and adequately listed
for taxation in 1919 and that its value
has increased only thirty-seven percent
in six years? Neither of these pos-
sibilites is likely. What has happened
is that real estate, enhanced in value
by the growth of towns and factories
and the construction of improved high
ways, has been evaluated higher and
higher for tax purposes. And it is
proper that it should be. But the
swelling volume of personal property
has apparently not got on the tax
books. Intangibles easily escape the
tax assessor. In 1919 solvent credits
represented over eight percent of the
total taxables; in 1925 they represented
less than six percent. Even tangible
personalty has failed to show any
marked increase, although it is ob
vious that there have been huge
amounts spent for furniture, phono-
graph:', radios, automobiles, and other
movable property. These, figures
offer convincing evidence that the best
way to escape taxation under our
present system is to spend one’s in
come rather than to invest it in a
home, or a farm, or a factory. The
general property tax, as it is usually
applied, penalizes thrift and productive
enterprise and encourages e;xtravagant
living.
Counties RanKed
The purpose of the table which ap
pears elsewhere in these columns is to
show the distribution of taxable per
sonalty. The counties are ranked from
high to low on a per inhabitant basis.
As might be expected, the urban
counties have more personalty per
inhabitant on the tax books than the
rural counties, eight of the ten leading
counties being urban. The people in
these ten counties have on the aver
age five and one-half times as much
taxable property as the people in the
ten poorest counties, the two averages
being $398.70 and $73.10 respectively.
Forsyth county leads with $862 per
inhabitant or $4,260 of taxable person
alty for a family of five. This is a
thousand dollars a family more than in
Durham county, its nearest rival, and
$2,626 a family more than its neighbor,
Guilford. Are Forsyth people so much
richer than the rest of the people of the
■state, or does the county’s low tax
rate offer a partial explanation?
As already pointed out, Durham
holds second place with $649 of person
alty per capita. This is almost double
the amount per capita in Mecklenburg,
Gaston, or Guilford. Montgomery’s
position at third place probably is a
mistake. The Commissioner of Rev
enue’s report gives Montgomery county
more than six million dollars of person
al property and. although these figures
are not dissimilar to those of previous
reports, it is probable that some large
j slice of real property is reported under
I the head of personaltv.
i The state average is $211 and there
.are only twenty-two counties above
t this average. Eighteen counties have
i less than $100 of taxable personally
‘ per inhabitant. None of. these counties
j had in 1920 a census-size tbwn. The
j excessively rural counties have little to
I tax except land and buiiaings, or real
I estate. Consequently the lax rate is
j usually high in these counties.
I $300 Exemption
I One of the most interesting revela-
j tions in the report of the Commissioner
of Revenue is the small amount of
household furniture and personal ef
fects listed for taxation—that is, the
type of personalty which is subject to
three hundred dollars exemption. Few
families ever feel that they have more
than three hundred dollars of this sort
of property. The excess for the whole
state in 1926 was $26,645,269 or about
forty-seven dollars a family. Perhaps
people are not to be criticized for failing
to list consumptive goods of this char
acter, for they do not aid directly in
producing income. Nevertheless, is it
quite fair to exempt the library of a
teacher and the tools of a plumber and
then tax the team and plow of the
farmer? The very nature of the general
property tax leads to heavy taxation
of productive goods and slight or no
taxation of consumptive goo.ds, thus
discouraging enterprise and encouraging
extravagance. It is neither possible nor
I desirable to discontinue the property
1 tax, but it is important that it be,
j skillfullly and fairly applied, and fur-
j thermore that it be supplemented more
i and more by other forms of taxation,
i —Paul W. Wager. !
THE RURAL EXODUS
Growing apprehension over the heavy
movement of population from the farm
to the city is being shown in Washing
ton.
Recent announcement by the Depart
ment. of Agriculture that the farm
population decreased ,649,000 persons
last year, the greatest decrease since
1920, has jarred a good many people
out of I their complacency and forced
them to admit that there is something
radically wrong with the conditions
surrounding agriculture and that it is
high time to seek to remedy these
conditions.
While there may be honest differen
ces of opinion as to the remedies, and
it will take time to work these reme
dies out, it is at least a distinct mark of
progress that responsible officials and
public men are- showing an increasing
disposition not to blink at the facts.
What has occured is that since 1920
the farm population of this country
has suffered a net loss of about 3,000,-
000. And, as the figures just an
nounced show, the rural exodus is not
being checked but is becoming more
pronounced.
The tendency of the farm population
to drift to the city and the nation to
become industrialized is not fully ap
preciated without going back for about
fifty years. In 1880, roughly speaking,
71 percent of the population was rural.
In 1890, the rural population'was about
65 percent. By 1900 it had gone down
to 60 percent and by 1910 to 54 percent.
Even this steady decline did riot com
mand the notice of more than a few
keen observers and students. By 1920,
it was found that only 48 percent of
the population was rural. (Actually
only one-fourth 'of the people of the
United States live on farms.)
It is, of course, recognized that soon
er or later this drift of population will
stop. It will reach the point where
the movement of people back to the
farm and rural districts will equal the
movement away from the rural dis
tricts. Perhaps we shall, before many
years, see a greater movement of
population back to the country than
away from it. But that time is not
yet at hand.
What sort of people are leaving the
farms and going to the cities? That is
something not yet answered satis
factorily. It is a que.sbion in which the
economists are keenly concerned. Is
the cream of the agricultural popula
tion in many communities abandoning
the field of agriculture? If it is, then
FOURTEEN YE^HS OLD
Fourteen years old; he got his man
and is proud of it.
Fourteen years old; he knows how
to make liquor but he never learned
to.read and write.
Fourteen years old; he is familiar
with the courthouse but be has never
been inside a church.
A boy who might pass for 12
years looks through the bars of
Nash county jail and calmly admits
murder. He learned to make
whiskey when he was the veriest
child; he hardly remembers the
time. His father taught him. His
mother died when be wa4 six, but
bis stepmother, the boy says, was
good to him.
Good to him!
Nobody has been good to that
boy. Fate, that robbed him of a
mother who at least had started
him on the way to school, was not
good to him. The father, who
taught him to steal and to make
whiskey, was not good to him.
The stepmother, who saw no need
for school or church, was not good
to him. The community, which had
abundant opportunity to see this
menace in the making, was not
good to him. The school, that
noted his absence with indifference,
was not good to him. The church,
where neighbors worshipped in
sight of this ‘violation of God’s
handiwork, was not good to him.
Nobody has been good to Andrew
Denton, murderer at 14. And now
the Siate—humane, advanced, pros
perous-can think of no greater
good for him than to kill him.
Who is going to answer for
Andrew Denton?
“I put him away. I protected
society,”, the State may say, wheth
er it thrusts him behind iron bars or
sends his soul into eternity.
That is the Law. The State is
jealous of tne Law, stands back
of the Law, fights for the Law.
Andrew Denton isn’t a law. Yet
her-his immortal soul, his God-given
right to life, growth, happiness,
achievernent—has been violated.
Who is going to answer for that?—
News and Observer.
direction deteriorates the business
capacity and morale of the producers.
This is the unsurmountable objection
to progress of farm relief which is
not based on the greater development
of co operative marketing. Efficient
marketing is as much the farmers’ job
as efficient production.
Co-operative marketing must begin
with production. It implies economical
production; ‘improvement and stand
ardization of varieties of crops and
breeds of livestock, and must eliminate
waste. —From address by W. M. Jar-
dine.
A PRIZE WINNER |
Following is the 200-word article
with which Fred W. Vaughan, editor^
of the People’s Advocate, of Fayette-1
ville, won the first prize, $100, in a |
contest staged by the National Farm j
News for the best article giving a ’
plan by which the farm problem might
be solved: j
Farming, like every other productive ■
enterprise, cannot be successful with- ^
out sound business management. The !
lack of this is the chief handicap of I
the great maje-rity of farmers. Inas- I
much as the farmer has to sell his
products in an unprotected market i
and buy his supplies in a protected'
market, he must overcome this dif- ^
fii^ulty as far as possible by living at
home. That is, he must produce on,
his^farm to the extent of his ability ’
what he consumes. He will thus have
less to buy.
The farmer must learn that the price
for which a product is sold does not
determine profit or loss eJicept when
considered in connection with the cost
of production. He must give due at
tention to the details that come under
the head of management, such as
acreage of various crops, choice of soil,
selection of seed, methods of cultiva
tion, harvesting, and last, but not’least,
marketing
Intelligent diversification has saved
many farmers from bankruptcy.
The farmer must realize that his
crop surpluses may be converted into
milk and meat products through hjs
livestock. He must be brought to a
realization of the fact that organiza
tion affords protection in giving him
a voice in fixing the prices at which his
products shall be sold.—News and
Observer.
OUR STATE DEBT
The funded or bonded debt of the
state government of North Carolina
on May 31, 1927, was officially reported
to amount to $143,093,600. The debt
has been incurred for the following
outlay purposes: highway bonds $84,-
999,t00; general fund bonds $34,221,-
000; special school building bonds $14,-
836,000; and general fund notes $9,-
038,000.
The special school building bonds were
sold in order to secure funds to lend to
counties to enable them more econom
ically to build school houses. While the
state incurred the debt and stands
responsible for it, it really is county
debt.
There is a current debt of $5,300,-
000 that will in time be funded. Five
millions of this represents highway
notes anticipating bond sales, and$300,-
OCO Chowan River bridge notes anti
cipating bond sales.
VALUE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
Per inhabitant in North Carolina in 1925
Based on 1925 report of the State I^epartment of Revenue and estimated
population for 1926. The figures are arrived at by dividing the value of persona!
property listed for taxation in each county by the estimated population. These
amounts; do not include the $300 exemption, nor the bank stock and corporation
excess reported by the State Board of Assessment.
Forsyth county Feads with $852 of personal property per inhabitant listed
for taxation; Dare county trails with $63. The state average is $211; in 1921 it
was $252. Only twenty-two counties are above tlie state average.
Paul W. Wager
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
this movement of population becomes
extremely serious! If the poor or
mediocre farmers are going to the city,
that is one thing. If the best farmers
are going, that is quite another thing.
‘‘A good farmer,” said a prominent
official recently is not made in a day.
The loss qf a good farmer from a
community is not easy to replace. T(^
develop a good farmer out of a poor
one is a slow process, if not an im
possible one.”
This official made the point that if
the best farmers of America are drift
ing from the farm then this country
stands face to face with a grave prob
lem of threatened agricultural decay.
England has had this problem on her
hands for generations and has failed to
deal with it.—Extracts from a recent
A. C. L. Agricultural News Article.
COOPERATIVE MARKETING
If co-operative marketing is to be
come the accepted method of disposing
of farm products it must be taught
in rural schools—there must be a
generation trained in its principles and
practices.
With a background of early syste
matic instruction we can hope that the
farmers of the future will accept co
operation not only as an efficient meth
od of marketing products but'as a
type of organization which integrates
and harmonizes the whole business of
farming.
It then will be accepted as a way of
living which wij! give rural life the
satisfaction and dignity which it should
enjoy.
Farm co-operative marketing implies
control of the organizations by their
producer members. An organization
is not co-operative if controlled by an
agency of the government; nor is it
co-operative if set up and operated by
semi-philanthropic organizations.
The weakness of an organization
set up and operated for farmers by
others is that it smothers rural initia
tive and self-help. Dependence on the
government .or on other agencies for
Rank County
Personal
property
Rank County
Personal
property
1
Forsyth
per person
852
51
Bertie
per person
141
2
Durham
649
52
Pitt
J38
3
Montgomery
420
63
McDowell
136
4
Mecklenburg
373
63
Craven
136
' 6
Gaston
327
63
Alexander ....
136
6
Guilford
327
63
Chatham
136
i 7
Buncombe
294
67
Yadkin
136
i 8
Anson
266
57
Polk
136
: 9
Wilson
248
69
Burke
134 -
10
Pasquotank
242
60
Union
132
i 10
Scotland
242
61
Warren
131
! 12
Chowan
236
62
Alleghany
130
1 12
Halifax
236
63
Perquimans..
127
14
Alamance
233
64
Beaufort
122
15
Richmond
226
64
Hyde
122
16
Cabarrus
225
66
Carteret
120
17
Iredell
224
67
Martin
119
18
Stanly
223
68
Swain
118
19
Davie
221
69
Robeson
116
20
Cleveland
218
70
Graham
114
21
Rockingham
216
71
Greene
112
22
Rowan
2)6
71
Camden
112
23
New Hanover
210
73
Ashe
108
23
Surrv
210
73
Franklin
108 '
25
Vance
206
75
Tyrrell
107
26
Transylvania .
205
76
Cumberland..
104
27
Catawba
204
76
Onslow
104
28
Henderson
203
76
Watauga
104
29
Lincoln
199
76
Wilkes
104
30
Randolph
189
80
Lenoir
103
31
Rutherford
187
81
Cherokee
101
32
Caldwell
186
82
Duplin
100
33
Davidson
184
83
Gates
99
34
Wayne
180
84
Columbus
97
36
Moore
178
84
Currituck
97
36
Johnston
174
86
Bladen
95
37
Wake
167
87
Washington...
94
38
Person
169
87
Avery
94
39
Orange
166
89
Madison
92
40
Lee
166
89
Sampson
92
41
Jackson
162
91
Macon
84
42
Hertford
161
92
Caswell
80
43
Stokes
150
92
Brunswick....
80
43
Haywood
150
94
Mitchell
79
46
Edgecombe
147
96
Clay
76
46
Harnett
145
96
Jones
73
46
Hoke
146
97
Yancey
66
48
Nash
143
97
Pender
66
49
Granville
142
99
Pamlico
66
49
Northampton
142
100
Dare
63