Baltimore Evening Sun (4 April 1912): 6.

THE FREE LANCE

From one wriggling upon the sharp spears of doubt and misgiving:

Is it ever decent for a good citizen to dodge the payment of taxes?

Yes; ever. That is to say, always. And it is not only decent, but highly sagacious and moral. Theoretically, of course, every citizen is bound to pay his due share of the expenses of the State, and that due share is justly calculated by determining the value of his property. But if we proceed from the theory to the facts, we find that the taxes levied upon an individual are sometimes vastly in excess of his due share of the expenses of the State, and that, in consequence, he is brutally robbed if he pays without effort at evasion.

Consider, for example, the case of any taxpayer in Baltimore. If the taxes of the State of Maryland were evenly distributed, he would pay his proportionate share of 58 per cent. of the whole sum raised--that being the fair share of Baltimore city. But as a matter of feet, Baltimore city, by the arbitrary and indefensible fiat of the peasants at Annapolis, is forced to pay 79 per cent. of the State taxes, or nearly 86 per cent. too much, and in consequence each individual taxpayer in Baltimore is robbed of 35 cents every time he pays $1 in State taxes.

What is he to do about it? Submit like a fool, or make resistance? Make resistance, of course. But how? By deducting 35 cents in the dollar from his tax bill? Alas, that would be useless. The sheriff would seize his property and sell it for the unpaid balance. The device of concealing his property remains--not all of it, but 35 per cent. of it. And that is a device practiced by hundreds of Baltimoreans, and with justice, decency and honor. It is the duty of every honest man, to his creditors, his heirs and himself, to conserve his resources. If he wantonly wastes money in paying unjust taxes, his couduct is just as much to be reprehended as if he lavished money upon chorus girls or games of chance.

And beside the obvious overcharge as in this case, there is also, as a rule, a more subtle overcharge. It is represented by the difference between the actual running expenses of the Government and the sum extorted from the taxpayers. For example, the budget of Baltimore for 1912 provides for an expenditure of $23,580,038.95, and of this great sum more than $15,000,000 will have to be raised by direct taxes. But a considerable portion of the money thus raised, it is plain, will be wasted. The lighting department, to begin with, will spend thousands of dollars in an effort to make all Baltimore as hideous as the front of a moving-picture parlor--an indecency opposed instinctively by every truly civilized man. Again, the City Council will gobble $65,000--money for which the taxpayer will get not a cent of return. Yet again, hundreds of thousands of dollars will go into the hands of the work-shirking ward heelers employed in the various departments and on various public works. Yet again, other thousands will be wasted upon political contracts and upon silly schemes for augmenting the glory of this or that politician.

Is it fair to ask the self-respecting property owner to pay for all this debauchery? Of course it isn’t. He is responsible for his just share of the legitimate expenses of the city government, but he is certainly not bound to pay more. When, in violation of his common rights, he is forced to make that extra payment--when, in brief, he is robbed by legal process for the benefit of loafers and parasites--then he is certainly justified in opposing ingenuity to extortion and is thus saving his money. In other words, it is perfectly moral for him, being unable to procure a fair reduction of the tax rate, to procure, by whatever means may be at hand, a reduction of his assessment.

Thus the ethics of it. In practice, the honorable taxpayer is confronted by the difficulty of determining just how much of the money annually raised by taxation is actually needed for the conduct of the government, and how much is merely coveted by political bravos and thimble-riggers. In the case of Maryland State taxes, as we have seen, he is justified in chalking off 35 per cent at the start. But how much of the remainder is really needed? Here opinions must differ widely. One man whom I consulted this morning ventured the view that half is well spent and half is wasted. Another put the well-spent portion at 60 per cent. A third put it at 40 per cent. A fourth insisted that it could not be greater than 30 per cent.

In the case of city taxes the same difficulty arises. There are persons who believe that of every dollar entering the City Hall, 75 cents is wasted, while others hold that a full half of it is well spent. My own opinion, based upon 40 years of close study, is that the proportion of avoidable waste is commonly over-estimated. In some of the city departments, I believe, not 20 per cent. of the money spent to actually thrown away, and in none is the proportion greater than 60 per cent. Perhaps 33⅓ per cent. would be a fair average. That is to say, it is fair to assume that, of every dollar collected in taxes, 66⅔ cents is spent with reasonable honesty and intelligence.

Thus the taxpayer is justified in “swearing off” 33⅓ per cent. of his assessment, or, to be more accurate, in concealing 33⅓ per cent. of his property. So much for city taxes. When it comes to State taxes he is justified in chalking off 35 per cent. at the start, and 33⅓ per cent. afterward--or 68⅓ per cent. in all. But inasmuch as the assessments for city and State taxes are levied together and are identical, he must strike an average between the two reductions. What the average should be I do not profess to determine. My private opinion–a mere opinion, of course–is that 50 per cent. would be about right.

The essential thing is that the taxpayer is under no moral obligation to submit to extortion. If, in the effort to protect himself and his children, he is forced to lie, then that lie is of the purest white. A self-respecting man, of course, prefers to tell the truth, but he is not justified in carrying that inclination to suicidal extremes. If, for example, a lie will save him from the murderous attack of a lunatic, it is not only his right but also his bounden duty to lie like a politician, and by the same token it is his duty to save himself and his property, by artful mendacity, whenever the so-called Government--a band of private individuals seeking their private profit--attempts to rob him.

The kicking lady over the entrance of the Empire Theatre kicks 44 times a minute. And every time she kicks her hoof strikes the crazy bone of the Vice Crusade.