The Barnwell people-sentinel. (Barnwell, S.C.) 1925-current, December 03, 1925, Image 7
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,