University of South Carolina Libraries
V ">* ; 'ft**'-- jfu\ f>. > *?. !'.' ; ;' ? I :*-? ;-.":>i "<? ? ? !'" '? <? . ? ? ? ? <?, .v., *?\ ''? ?"?' The man who, owns $10,000 worth of property should be required, to pay ten times as much in state taxes as the man v -ft. : . ... ? > "' ft \ f ,?i ,? j. ..'I.- |.3l" 7 ? * . \ ? - , who owny only $1,000 worth, no matter where the propertfu^aybe located in the state. But in. South Carolina there is no fixed and fair ratio of assessments to actual property values. ? ?? ? ? ?? ? .???? i V i'fi /.y.i +tK- J ? !jfc ?? * . ? ;i THE RESULT IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IN HAMPTOI* COUNTY PAYS NEARLY FIVE TIMES THE PROPERTY TAX THE PROPERTY OWNER IN GREENVILLE COUNTY PAYS, AND MORE THAN TWICE THE TAX THE PROPERTY OWNER IN HIS NEIGHBORING COUNTY, ALLENDALE, PAYS, UNION COUNTY'S RATE IS NEARLY FOUR TIMES THAT OF CHARLESTON COUNTY. The accompanying article and figures showing the. ratio of assessment to actual property values as reflected by sales are reproduced from a recent issue of the South Carolina Gazette, and the facts therein contained are authentic * t q and supported by affidavits of reliable persons in various parts of the state and can be fully substantiated: ' ; <R*3P*0 The South Carolina Gazette) , V-.v / ? GLARING TAX INEQUALITIES REVEALED BY COMPARISON OF VALUES IN 30 COUNTIES The greatest source of the evil of South Carolina's inequitable and unjust tape system is to be found, perhaps, in the ridiculous ratio of assessment of real property to Its actual value. > It is the accepted fact that assessments are far be low market values, but just how far below is reveal ed #nl y by investigation. The accompanying figures, Which are a state raent ? of actual transfers of real estate in 30 South Caro lina counties during the year 1924, show the sales value, assessed value and ratio of sales to assessed valuer In other words, real estate which sold last year for $28,158,538 was assessed Tor- taxation at $4, 593,439, or 17J> percent of its value. If ill real estate ahould be assessed for taxatioh at 17.5 per cent, or at any other fixed ratio, there would be some semblance of equity; but, as will be noted, the ratio of assessment to actual value in the various counties runs from 7.6 percent to as high as 36.6 percent. The ratio of assessnufet to actual value as reflect ed by sales is shown to be the highest in Hampton County (36.6 percent),. Union standing second (29.S percent), followed by Charleston (29.1 percent), with Greenville the lowest (7.6 percent), Greenville being 7 percent lower than Allendale, the next low est, with 14.7 percent. In all the counties the assessed values ?f the smaller properties near a higftfcr ratio to the sales value than the larger properties. Specific instances of .actual sales further reveal the inequity of tax assessments. In Ariewoa Coun ty, for instance, a piece of property assessed #t $900 sold last year for a consideration of $45,00#, while in the same county another piece of property UMW' ed for taxation at $4?540 was feold for $15,000. In GreetavfUe County two of property as sessed at $183.33 each were sold, the sales revealing the value of one piece to be, $15,100 and of the other $25,750. In the same county a piece of property the value of which Was established by actual sales to be $95*000 was assessed for ta*4tion at $2,000. In Charleston County the asqetfsment of a piece of : property that sold for $5,000 Was $150, while the assessment of a piece of property tfce Value of which was only $1,500 as repealed by the sale considera tion, was $500. In the same county two pieces of property selling for $4,000 each Were assessed, the one at $1,200 imd the other at $2^900. Like inequities are commonplace, extending into . every county in the state. Innumerable specific in- ' stances could be cit^d, based on actual sales. Investigation pursued in 30 counties of the. attfte reveal these glaring discrepancies and inequities. In making the investigation to * ascertain the. ratid of property sales to assessed value, the work being done by competent persons employed for this pur pose, and at considerable; cost of time and money, the books in the offices 4>fcthe.Cjprks of Court were carefully searched for real estate transfers,' the con- : sideration ascertained (by means of the amount -of h documentary stamps where the consideration was nqt shown), and the property sold thus located, comparisons were then made with the books 6f the i County Auditors to ascertain the correspond^? M* a sessments. . ji The value of properties shown in the table is based on sales made in 1924, the assessments being for the same year. ?' '.-iV ? ..V. -K. i a* V- .-/i County ' Sales Value Abbeville , ...'.A 257,358 Aiken ^ 789,070 Allendale ... 176,572 Anderson .... 874,065 Bern berg 188,234 219,554 _ 295,983 ?ton 1,805,567 he 458,209 Chaster l * 2130,416 York 743,357 Dorchester 160,981 3(79,319 315,790 5,740,365 -v 704)432 Lancaster .... MjLjjlt Lexington 362,626 gewberry 499,752 Orangeburg 632,391 Pickena ' 554,978 Richland 3,496,540 . .. 210,143 "itirg .. . 5,052,817 464,268 ier Union ........ 204, 779 ! ' TOTAL $26,158,538 Assessment $ 66,136 , 194,760 26,010 169,060 ;#>,680 41,500 73,060 526,735 i74,7 66 f 63,200 157,600 101,870 65,060 436,011 SMS 16,937 186,000 J&647 76,114 102,264 71,535 114,706 ? 62,010 <26,142 SO, 160 837,169 63,340 61,189 $ 4,663,439 Ratio percent) 25.9 14.7 *? 18.2 16.2 18.9 2AAL 29.1 16.3 23.1 18.5 23.5 26.8 . 2015 ~ 7.6 ^ 19.2 36.6 . 28.8 25.3 22.6 21.0 22.7 13.9 18.1 16.6 . 17.9 23.9 16.5 20.1 29.8 17.5 -THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAXABLE WEALTH IN SOUTH CAROLINA (as given by the United States Department of Commerce, 1922) is $2,288,659,000 - - - - ? ?- -?? . ........ . ... ? .. < U ' ' ?' THE TOTAL AMOUNT RETURNED FOR TAXA TION, ( according to the 1924 Report of the South Carolina Tax Commission) was only $428,601,274 It is a significant fact, as stated in the accompany ing- article, that "in'all the counties the assessed Val ues of the smaller properties bear higher ratio to the sales vfelues than the larger properties," It follows that the small property owner is bearing a dispro- - portionately larger shape of the burden of taxation. , As another striking instance of undervaluation :and 'the existing inequities in taxation, the Senator from Lancaster County is authority for the statement* that - recently a cotton mill in that county was sold for. twice as much as all the property in the county is returned .for taxation. TAX EXPEDIENCES * ' . ' ' ' ? V ') ' )? ^ ' S . % ' ? . " . * vl* -'&?.>?' / V:- ; . .>-? : can never cure the evil of tax inequalities and.tax in justices now so^startlingly revealed. Multiplicity Of taxes only serves to aggravate the trouble without remedying it. Special taxes, which are the abomina tion of business and industry, cannot be levied Sgffo ciently to Supply 'the-' deficiencies, even if - and inequalities and iniustices might thus be\y?6ped out. Business and industry? "-which alone is< required to pay on a 42-percent basis ? cannot bear the extra special levies and survive. It. is too much to expect. EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IN SOUTH CARO LINA HAS THE RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITU TION TO DEMAND THAT HIS TAXES SHALL BE LAID ON THE SAME BASIS ON WHICH HIS NEIGHBOR PAYS. , .