The Camden chronicle. (Camden, S.C.) 1888-1981, December 18, 1925, Image 15
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. , .