The Camden chronicle. (Camden, S.C.) 1888-1981, December 05, 1930, Image 2
"A? huiuHry l*ro*l>4r**'So l*ro*p*r IK* I'topl*
INCREASE
IN TAXES
Local Municipal * <
County and School
District
GREENVILLE
j Year Levies In Mills
t'! ? I' S
V ? f & c
slit c '1 i
'?? = 5 -fi A
! _! 'C " M
v) o f- c <u <v
o a; ^ r*
. ,c & Z ~ i
o o o CL,
I f I
J 020 I 9.47.17 294 28
I'
1021 j 9.2814 .'29 4 (26
i ' I !
1022 : 9.00 14 20Ml 26 ,21
'I'll
1023 (11.0218 314 27 21
;
1024 '11.16 23 34 !27 21
| I ( >
1929 11.70(23 ]34 120 (21
I ' ! I
1020 11.34 22 38 29 '21
1027 .... 12.00 22 30 20 (25
( ' . I L
1028 12.45 22 ;4p 29 25
: ' I 1 r j
1920 .... 12.88 22 43 29 '25
; ; ;
1030 .... 17.75 234 43 304 25
Ct!
SPARTANBURG
Year Levies In Mills
? Z U U k? ^~
i a a a.i
V ? X. ,C X) ~
* ? 'Z c c
f. : ? > Z :
, ,L~ g rt Jz
< t. 7. ~ 7 7.
1020 0.02 111 15 14
1021 10.22 17 4 17 15%
1022 11.15 24 21 10
1023 12.09 19 21 21
i
1021 12.8 123 33 '>7
1025 13.33 27 33 21 4
1020 13.07 214 33 21%
. . I
1027 14.42 20i4 37 22 4
1028 15.35 20 4 37 22 4 !
. I
1020 . , 15.81 35 4 37 22 4
: : I
1030 15.33 35 4 41 25 4
UNION
Year Levies In Mills
? 1
<a ?*. - o *? ?x:
7 ~ .c , .V
X. c c c c c
c c o ^
> -f '= c 'c.2
< J. D 2J 2J
]
1 1020 10.07 16 22 18
1021 12.20 13 '22 19
1022 13.10 13 4 27 19 4 !
' i I ;
1023 14.87 154 27 21 j
1024 15 10 27 20
1025 17.11 22 4 27 10
1 1
1020 18.01 23 % 32 10
j 1027 17.70 24 32 21
1028 17.38 20 35 2 0 4
1020 16.48 3*1 35
' I
' 1930 16.02 35 . 35
r
Let Us Economize
Food For Thought on Taxes
ww t' . The burden of governmental cost in Such periods as we are passing through, is ?
Handicapping very discouraging. Local municipal, school district and county budgets, based upon
Prosperity programs which evolved from a wave of prosperity, are a most serious handicap to
the return of better trade conditions.
Local Were such costs at a standstill, the burden would be 'heavy enough, but the ma- j
, jority of the cuonties of the state are contemplating this year an increase in tax levTaX S
ies. Many of the school districts are doing likewise; and some municipalities, regardless
of serious trade conditions, are increasing their tax levies to care for proMounting
gressive sleeps in municipal development. There has been a steady increase in local
taxes over a period of years.
<? '
While, therefore, the legislature is fighting to reduce state levies; while assessments
generally are not being increased; and while local finance, commerce, agriculture
and industry are passing through a depression, the like of which has never before
been experienced, we should all, as citizens, insist upon more economy in local
government.
A group of cotton mills in one South Carolina County paid taxes as follows:
I he Increase in $19,754 in 1919, 38,935 in 1923, 53,232 in 1927, 79,422
In 1916, 21,373 In 1920, 56,530 In 1924, 78,407 In 1928, 83,363
In 1917, 25,439 In 1921, 58,572 In 1925, 75,437 In 1929, 91,867
~In 1918, 30,801 In 1922, 51,760 In 1926, 78,639
and in that same county there is still a further increase in tax levies for 1930. Note
the schedule of increase over the period of 15 years. WITHIN THAT TIME THEIR
TAX BURDEN HAS GROWN NEARLY 400 per cent. Their tax rate has increased
from .14c per spindle to .55c.
The Bulk oi the Increase is in Rapidly Growing Levies
For COUNTY, SCHOOL DISTRICT and MUNICIPAL Purposes
During this period assessments have not materially changed. During the same
time state taxes have actually decreased from a levy of 12 mills to one of 5 mills.
0
The taxes paid by this grouf) of mills may be sub-divided as follows:
Ratio of Capital Stock Tax 6?0 School District Tax 41?_ I
State to ~? ? Local
Taxes State Tax . . , 8?? County Tax . . 42?j0
These mills are not located within the limits of an incorporated town.
The percentage allocated with this group of mills are not far from the average
of the state. Through laxness in local government; progressive programs, unwarranted
by the business outlook; unreasonable extension of education, out of proportion
to the income of the state; we as citizens have allowed the cost of local government
to reach high levels that would be burdensome in ordinary times; and
now in a period of depression, the cost is far beyond the ability of the citizens topay;
and far in excess of South Carolina's income.
It is a situation that demands grave consideration. It is a problem that challenges
every citizen of South Carolina.
If our banks, our farms, our stores, our mills, and indeed our individuals must
curtail and safeguard every resource; if all must personally follow the most rigid
economy, then by all means our municipal, school district and county governments
should do likewise.
It is unfortunate that the principal taxpayers in South -Carolina have been -so
Riaid concerned with other matters as to allow enormous increases in local tax levies toV/
pile up over night without a united effort to stem the'tide
Economies
Nece88ary Let us all, as public-spirited citizens, call our local public officials in city
scihool district and county together around the table, and in our mutual interests
encourage a program of efficiency and economy in government that will help lift
this great burden.
.. , The cotton manufacturers are only one class of taxpayers, though THEY ARF
Let the by far the largest as a class in the state. They do not seek special
. favors or 'privileges for themselves that they would not enthusiastically demand for
rliolic speaK others. They do realize, however, that the very life of our state is at stake and believe
that we cannot retprn to stable conditions until local taxes are reduced to a *
basis commensurate with other costs. They stand ready, with all other progressive
South Carolinians, to work to a general solution of this'most stifling nroblem of
South Carolina.
INCREASE I
IN TAXES
H
Municipal H
County and School
District
CHEROKEE I
Ywr Levies In Mill, I
*p ^ <S
. f||| ^
" > rC Of & > g|S
* f. I B
1921 7.39 25 22 16 ff
1922 9.99 22 22 16 ! |
1923 11.57 23% 22 21 i f
1924 10.92 27 V, 22 19 M.
1925 11.67 24% 22 19 f|
' 1926 12.70 25 V, 22 19 I
1927 12.1229 26 17 ff
1928 12.15 29 26 18 j
1929 . 12/28 29"' 26 18 I
1930 13.34130 ^26 18% 1 !
u ! '1
GREENWOOD j
Year Levies In Mills |
I ^ ^
rn if th . S gll 9
mo c-a: C c-*
glj-S It 1
t> O U 0 ' ^ w ..-i 1
; \<M Ju'O OO
1920 20 16 ''M
1921 22% 16 16 ?
i 1922 22% 15 12 Hi
! 1923 7.87 16% 15 16 I
1924 - 8.73 21 15 16%
1925 8.49 20 15 18
1/926 8.29 22 15 20 1
1927 * 8.43 22 20 20 j '
1928 9.24 22 20 19 9
1929 9.76 23 20 20 fl
| 1930 9.36}24%20 23 W
*
- - *-*
LAURENS
, j w*
Year Levies In Mill?B
,11 I ||a
. j- 0 P SJ|'M
if
1920 9.5 16% 20
1921 ... 10.5 16% 25 tf# J
1922 11.0 18% 25 13% I
1923 11.5 21% 25 13% I
1924 12.6 29 % 25 22 M
1925 k;. 12.5 29 SO 23( J..
1926 1/2,5 32% 30 22 j .
1927 ? 12.66 32% 35 2M |
1928 ....... 13 5 32 % 35
A - ; !
1929 ?. 14.6 33 35
1930 14.0 35 35 33 1
cotton manufacture^^^sociation
South Carolina