University of South Carolina Libraries
r- \ THURSDAY, DECRMBER S, l»25. • » BARNWSLL PROPLS-SKNTINEL. BARNWBLL, SOUTH CAROLINA ■r“ 1/ V/ '■'V T. I’., *v- k\ 1 /«■ ‘*V'“*w* Jv The man who owns $10,000 worth of property should be required to pay ten times as much in State taxes as the man who ■x>wns only $1,000 worth, no matter where the property may be located in die State. But in South Carolina there is no fixed and ^ y V ' ' • fair ratio of assessments to actual property values. THE*ESULT IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWN^R IN HAMPTON 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. ,• ' ' ’ * * I T t , V> ■ ■ . * - y l _ A , • ^ • • • \ ^ . The accompanying article and figure?, 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 and supported by affidavits of reliable persons in various parts of the State and can be fully substantiated: i From The South Carolina Gazette) Glaring Tax Inequalities Revealed by . Comparison of Values in 30 Counties The greatest source of the eell of South Carothta’a inequitable and unjust tax system is to be found, per* haps, 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 juyt how far below is revealed >nly by investigation. he accompanying figures, which are a statement of ifeHial transfers of real estate in 30 South Carolina county during the year 1924, show the sales value, assessed * alue and ratio of sales to assessed value. In other 'Words, real estate which sold last year for 028.158,538 wa.s assessed for taxation at $4,593,439, or 17.5 percent ol its value. . If all real estate should be assessed for taxation at 17.5 percent, or at any other fixed ratio, there would be some semblance of equity; but, as will he noted, the ratio of assessment to actual vahie in.the-various counties runs from 7.6 percent to as high as 36.6 percent. The ratio of assessment to actual value as reflected by* sales is shown to be the highest in Hampton County (36.6 percent), Union standing second (29.8 percent), followed by Charleston (29.1 percent), with Greenville the lowest (7.6 percent), Greenville being 7 percent lower than Allendale, the next lowest, with 14.7 percent. . In all the counties the assessed values of the small* er properties bear a higher ratio to the sales value than the larger properties. Specific instances of actual sales further r«veal the inequity of tax assessments. In Anderson County, for instance, a piece of property assessed at $900 sold last year for a consideration of $45,000. while in the same county another piece of property assessed for taxation at $4,540 was sold for $15,000. In Greenville County two pieces of property assessed 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 as sessed for taxation at $2,000. s , * In Charleston Count# the assessment of a piece of property that nfiUf for $5,000 was $150. while the as sessment of a piece of property the value of which was only $1,500, as revealed by the sale consideration, was $500. In the same county two pieces of property selling for $4,000 each were assessed, the one at $1,200 and theather at $2,900. Like inequities are commonplace, extending into ev* ery county in the State.* Innumerable specific instances could be cited, based on actual sales. Investigation pursued in 30 counties of State reveal these glaring discrepancies and inequities. In making the investigation to ascertain the ratio .of property sales to assess'd value, the work being done by competent persons employed for this purpose, and at considerable cost of time and moitvj, the books in the offices of the Clerks of Court were carefully searched for real estate transfers, me considerations ascertain'd (by means of the amount of documentary stamps where the consideration was not shown), and fbe- property sold thup located, comparisons were then made with the books of the County Auditors to ascer tain the corr'sponding assessments. The value of properties shown in the table is based on sales made in 1924, the assessments being for the same year: I'ounty » Abbeville Aiken .• Allendale Anderson • Bamberg ' , Barnwell ... Calhoun Charleston 1,805,587 Cherokee _■ : Chester York Dorchester __-l_ Edgefield Fairfield Gr'enville „* 5,740,365 Greenwood. ' Hampton ... , 268,438 Jasper Kershaw j Lancaster Lexington __ Newberry .... ... Oconee r -—_. ... .... Orangeburg .... Pickens ... Richland ... .... 3,496,540 Saluda ...— Spartanburg Sumter Union • * r TOTALS-— ilvs Yalut* .Ass'ssment Ratio p.c. 257,358 $ 66,135 25.7 789,076 194,750 25.9 - 176,672 26,01<l 14.7 874,065 - 159,050.. — 18-2 188,234 1 - *0,580 ' 16.2 219,554 41,500 295,983 73.080 24.6"" 1,805,587 i 52b,<.l.> . 29.1 458,209 747766 16.3 230,410 53,200 23.1 . 743,357 >3f?S00 185 160,981 37,947 23.5 379,319 101,870 26.8 315,790 205 ’ 5,740,365 - 436,011 7.6 474,816 91,418 49.2 268,438 98,525 36.6 55,372 . 15,937 28.8 * 704,432 186,000 25.3 232,354 52,647 22.6 3§2,626 76,114 21.0 499,752 102,264 22.7 359,825 71,535 19.9 632,391 114,705 18.1 554,978 92,010 ~4&6 3,496,540 626,142 17.9 210,143 ^ . 50,160 23.9 5,052,817 837,159 16.5 464,288 > 93,340 20.1 • .204,779 61,189 29.8 .$26,158,538 f 4,593,459 17.5 - . .— . THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAXABLE WEALTH IN SOUTH CAROLINA (at given by the United States De partment of Commerce, 1922) it $2,288,659,000 THE TOTAL AMOUNT RETURNED FOR TAX A- TION, (According to the 1924 Report of the South Carolina Tax Committion) was only '— . $428,601,274 It is a significant fact, as st ated in the accompanying ar ticle, that "In all the counties the assessed values of the smaller properties bear higher ratio to the sales values than * the larger properties." * It follows that the small property owner is bearing a disproportionately larger share 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 retu rned for taxation. TAX EXPEDIENCES . # • «_! r . - - or ‘ ^ ’ can never cure the evil of tax inequities and tax injustices now so startingly revealed. Multiplicity of taxes only • serves to aggravate the troub le . without remedying it. Special taxes, which are the abomination of business and industry, cannot be levied sufficiently to supply thfe de- • fihainces, even if inequities and inequalities and injustices might thus be wiped out. Business and industry—which alone is required to pay on a 42 percent basis—cannot bear the extra special levies and sur vive. It is too much to expect. EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IN SOUTH CAROLINA HAS THE RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO DEMAND THAT HIS TAXES SHALL BE LAID ON THE SAME BASIS ON WHICH HIS NEIGHBOR PAYS. t . CITIZENS ■ . OF SOUTH CAROUNA ; ... V • ’ at -K f in dPflsr ii t M,