Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

EXEMPTION FROM MUNICIPAL TAXATION :

A PLEA FOR ITS ABOLITION.

T

BY W. F. MACLEAN, TORONTO.

AKING the community as a whole, | and speaking somewhat theoretically, Municipal Taxation is a self-imposed burden, supposed to return adequate compensation to the taxpayer, who, in consenting to be rated, retains the right of regulating its imposition and extent. It is an admitted necessity, and, if properly levied and equally distributed, should not be burdensome.

But it is just here that a great evil has its origin. Taxes are not equally distributed or properly levied. And it is for this reason that the great majority of taxpayers consider taxation a huge injustice to which they are forced to submit, and for the removal or amelioration of which they have no resource. None can deny that there is good ground for this opinion, and that great injustice exists. The origin and cause of the greater part of this injustice is directly traceable to the exemption of certain classes and properties from taxation. How numerous these classes and how extensive these properties are the public has had no means of knowing, but an idea may be gained from the following summary :—

The property and persons that escape taxation in Ontario-it is with this Province that it is proposed to deal-may be divided into :

Imperial.-Houses occupied by persons in the service of the Imperial Government; Imperial, naval, and military salaries and pensions.

Federal. Real estate and structures, such as parliament and departmental buildings; post-offices and savings' banks; customhouses and inland revenue offices; emigration sheds; penitentiaries; military colleges and storehouses, barracks, drill-sheds, and forts; ordnance and Indian lands; vacant lots, &c. ; residence and salary of Governor-General; salaries of Dominion officials; pensions under $200.

Provincial-Parliament and departmen

tal buildings; prisons and asylums; universities and colleges; unoccupied lands; law courts and salaries of law officers; pensions under $200.

Municipal.-County, city, town, and township halls; court-houses and gaols; registry offices; exhibition buildings and grounds; water-works, parks, and markets; cemeteries; public schools; poor-houses, hospitals, and houses of correction; pounds; fire halls and police stations; vacant lots, &c.

Sectarian. Churches and church grounds; ministers' salaries to the extent of $1,000, and their dwellings to the extent of $2,000; cemeteries and burying grounds; denominational schools and colleges; convents, monasteries, and abbeys; orphan asylums; infants', boys', and girls' homes; Christian association and benevolent society buildings; hospitals and dispensaries, &c.

Miscellaneous.-Scientific, mechanics', and literary institutes; incomes derived by farmers from their farms; personal property secured by mortgage or invested in Provincial and Municipal Ontario debentures; bank stock (but not the dividends); railroad stock; personal property equal to debts due thereon; personalty under $100; rental from real estate (but not interest on mortgages); household effects, books, and wearing apparel.

To show how great is the injustice that flourishes under this system of exemption, it will be convenient to examine the above enumerated classes and properties under different heads, namely: the exemption of Government and Municipal properties; personal incomes; and sectarian properties and incomes.

GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL EXEMPTIONS.

At first sight it would appear that no in

justice results from the exemption of Government or Municipal properties, since these were called into existence for the public good; but on going below the surface an important anomaly presents itself. Nothing could be more equitable than that these properties, being as they are for the general good, should be purchased and maintained at the public cost. But this is not the case. While the people at large have to furnish the money to secure the site and erect the building, the surrounding improvements quite as necessary as the building itself— such as roads and pavements, water, light, sewers, fire and police protection, &c., have to be provided by a very small fraction of the public, namely, those who happen to be residents of the municipality in which the building is erected. Not only do these people contribute to the general fund, but they are specially taxed for the benefit of institutions from which they, as citizens of the country, derive no greater benefit than their fellow-countrymen who may be many miles removed from the location of the buildings. Take, for instance, the Federal buildings at Ottawa. They are the property of the country at large, and a resident of Vancouver or Halifax derives as much benefit from them as the citizen of the capital. Why then is it that the Ottawa ratepayer is unjustly compelled to provide improvements for the benefit of the residents of British Columbia and Halifax? Or, rather, why is it that the latter escape from paying a just share of the cost of providing these public buildings with necessary improvements? The greater part of the revenue of the Dominion is collected through the customhouses and inland revenue offices. Would it be any other than proper that a portion of this revenue should be set aside to pay for the improvements surrounding these buildings, instead of compelling the residents of the municipality in which they happen to be located to do it? It is the same with Provincial property. Is it just that the people of Toronto should furnish the three million dollars' worth of property in that city, belonging to the Province of Ontario, with all manner of improvements? Do not the people of Essex and Glengarry, as citizens of the Province, derive equal advantages from Osgoode Hall, the Normal School, Central Prison, Lunatic Asylum, University, Legislative Buildings, &c., &c.,

with the ratepayers of Toronto? Why, then, should they not bear a share in the cost of the civic improvements with which these institutions are surrounded? Again, take the City of Hamilton. Why are its ratepayers expected to provide roads, walks, lights, sewers, &c., for the court-house, registry office, county buildings, gaol, &c., of the County of Wentworth, all situated within the city's limits? The people of the county number twice as many as the residents of the city, and to them accrue most of the advantages conferred by these buildings; yet by an anomaly in the law they are provided with improvements by those who use the buildings least-the people of Hamilton. A similar state of affairs will be found in all county towns. Let us even go a step lower. All the townships have town-halls and fair-grounds in some one of the little villages within their bounds. By the system of exemption a very small section of the ratepayers of the township those who happen to reside in the village in which this township property is located—are unjustly charged with providing improvements around property owned and used for the benefit of every resident in the township.

These exemptions probably had their rise in the belief that to tax public property would merely be taking money from one pocket to put it in the other. But such belief is error. Were all this public property taxed, and all made to bear a share in it, the injustice at present witnessed, of a few having to pay, would be abolished. The only set-off to all this exemption, from federal property down to township halls, is the argument that these buildings and lands confer special advantages on those living near them; in other words, that the population is increased, and that a great deal of custom is drawn to the store and hotelkeepers, &c., by outsiders having to come to the municipality to transact business at the public buildings which may be situated within it. The people of Ottawa will be told that Parliament draws a great many to that city who leave considerable money behind them, and that if the departments were not there they would be so much poorer. To see how fallacious this argument is, it has only to be remembered that the person called there on business; if he spends money, he gets value in return; that he would be at similar outlay no matter where

[ocr errors]

the buildings were located; that if an extra amount of "business" is done, there is a corresponding rush from outside places to participate in it; and that the great majority of the ratepayers-the labourer, the mechanic, the clerk, the schoolmaster, &c.— are not one cent better off because these buildings happen to be in their city than if they were in Winnipeg. They only make a living, and that they could do in any place. A man keeping an attractive hotel might just as well claim exemption because his house draws strangers who spend money among the storekeepers, and that if it were not there the people would not come. And as it is with the Federal property, so is it with the Provincial, county, and township exemptions. The only persons who reap advantages from the location of public buildings within a municipality are the owners of the land at the time the site is selected.

There is only one class of public property which, if exempted, causes no injustice. This is the purely local municipal property of cities, towns, and villages. It embraces city and town halls, fire halls, police stations, public local schools, houses of refuge, hospitals, markets, parks, vacant lots, &c. These are held only for the benefit of the residents of the particular municipality in which they happen to be. No one outside the limits derives the least advantage from them. Hence the people within the limits, and for whose use alone they exist, should and do provide the improvements with which they are encircled. It is only in this class of public property that to tax would be to take money from one pocket to put it in the other. But in doing this no injustice would be committed, and, at the same time, the principle that all property should be taxed would be vindicated.

PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS.

The persons classed as exempted under this head may be divided into those who pay no taxes because of their calling, and those who pay no taxes because of the source from which their incomes are derived. In the first division we have clergymen, monks, nuns, and Imperial officers; and in the second, Dominion officials, including lieutenant-governors, judges, civil service employees, and those receiving federal pensions. Why this numerous class

is exempt from paying a just portion of the cost of the comforts that municipal government supplies, has never been explained. It has yet to be demonstrated that a clergyman works harder for his salary than the merchant and the mechanic, or that the public business would not be effectually conducted if judges, departmental clerks, revenue collectors, and postal officials were not exempted from municipal taxation. All these derive advantages from advantages from the roads, pavements, light, and means provided by the municipality for protection from thieves and fire, and should bear a share in the cost. People are taxed, not because of their calling or of the source from which they receive their incomes, but in order to provide certain conveniences in which all share, and which assist all to earn a livelihood and the better to enjoy their incomes, whatever they may be. Consequently, if a man shares-and all must necessarily share—in the advantages conferred by municipal expenditure, he should also share in the cost.

Had Parliament, when it was so anxious about its officials that it provided for their exemption from municipal taxation, given them their tea, coffee, tobacco, spirits, and other taxable articles, free from custom or excise duties, it would have at least shown a consistent principle. But it took good care not to be out of pocket itself, and placed the burden on the municipalities. If Parliament thinks it is wrong to tax Dominion officials, is not a greater injustice perpetrated when it taxes them itself? This furnishes an illustration of the saw, "What you do is wrong; what I do is right."

Personal exemptions create privileged classes, and privileged classes have often been the cause of revolution. All men are equal, and whatever tends to clash with this principle (and certainly exemption does) is injurious, and should be speedily corrected. Mechanics and farmers are just as necessary to the community as judges and clergymen, and both should stand on the same ground. But the farmer and mechanic, under the present system of taxation, suffer a double injustice. They have not only to pay taxes while the minister and the civil service employee are exempt, but they have also to pay the taxes of these latter.

The moral status of the clergyman or

Government official is not enlarged by his being a pauper on those who should be his fellow-citizens. Both would be more respected if they paid their way like other people.

SECTARIAN EXEMPTIONS.

Of all the abuses that flourish under the present system of taxation, that of the exemption of sectarian institutions and incomes is the most iniquitous. In support of this statement, the following arguments, showing the unconstitutionality, the injustice, and the demoralizing effect of the exemption of sectarian property and incomes, are advanced. In Ontario, the Constitution demands recognition of only one sect, and that in only one respect-the Separate Schools of the Roman Catholics. All others are unknown to it. Hence a violation of its spirit is witnessed in the Legislature compelling the ratepayers of the municipality to recognise several classes and all creeds by stipulating that the property and incomes of these shall be exempt from local taxation. thermore, under our system of government, and in accord with the genius of our people, it is an admitted principle that all should bear a share in its cost. Taxation was not intended to be, and is not, tribute, but a common fund for the general good, to which all should give according to their ability or the benefit derived. The Constitution never intended that a privileged class in this or any other respect should exist. But such a breach has been committed, for it cannot be denied that those exempted form a privileged class.

Fur

Again, liberty of conscience is secured to all. To assail it would be to attack the most sacred of all our civil rights. But is not a man's pocket and conscience unjustly assaulted when the Legislature compels him to recognise all creeds, by forcing him to provide municipal improvements for the property of the bodies which hold and support such beliefs?

The law, in sanctioning local taxation, indicates that it shall bring compensation. But it cannot be affirmed that the ratepayer derives benefit from this or that church or sectarian institution being surrounded, at his cost, with all manner of civic improvements and conveniences. If he had his own way these institutions would

never

have been there, unless their supporters or owners agreed to pay a just share of the municipal improvements, as their presence only increases the area to be kept in order, and prevents a greater degree of compactness-probably a convenience to him-in the arrangement of the dwellings and places of business of his fellow-ratepayers. These examples could be multiplied, did space permit, in proof of the assertion that exemption is unconstitutional and out of harmony with the democratic sentiments of the people of Canada.

That sectarian exemptions, besides being unconstitutional, are also unjust, may be most easily exemplified. A man may be priest to his own household, and his only altar the family one; yet he is unjustly compelled to find improvements for institutions from which he derives no benefit, spiritual or otherwise. He may consider churches unnecessary. One denomination gets along very well without a minister, its members preaching their own sermons, and visiting their own sick and poor; but this does not save them from having to pay the taxes of the ministers of other creeds which consider them a necessity. The same lot be- . falls the man who has no religion. His right not to entertain a belief or creed cannot be questioned; yet he is forced to pay the taxes of those engaged in preaching doctrines, and of educational corporations disseminating teachings, which he considers false and calculated to contract his mental freedom. Again, a congregation may not be given to display, its members being content with a plain church and sufficient ground to set it on; the one opposite has massive towers or a far-reaching steeple, and occupies a block in the centre of a populous city: yet the former has no protection from having to pay towards the improvements encompassing the costly edifice and the extensive grounds (from which the public are excluded) of the latter.

A common case is that of a husband dying leaving a young family unprovided for. The father has The father has paid a portion of the taxes of every charitable institution to the municipality; yet when the bereaved widow offers her offspring to the managers of a sectarian orphanage, the answer is that the children cannot be received, or that "extra" money will have to be paid, because she is not an adherent of the denomination

« AnteriorContinua »