JAMES HJIANCE CAMPUS, 1225-7500 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President ESCLLETILNWNO. 334 September, 1925 DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS TREND OF TAXES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN TEXAS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE FARMER’S TAX-DOLLAR B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF (As of September 25, 1925) ADMINISTRATION: B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CONNER, M. S., Vice-Director R. E. KARPER, B. S., Assistant Director R. E. KARPER, B. S., Acting Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Asst. Chief Clerk J. M. SCHAEDEL, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE: "FM. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief. H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. J. BRAUNER, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY: , G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Asst. Chemist WALDO H. WALKER, Asst. Chemist J. K. BLUM, B. S., Asst. Chemist J. E. TEAGUE, B. S., Asst. Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Asst. Chemist ADAH E. PROCTOR, B. S., Asst. Chemist N. J. VOLK, M. S., Asst. Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Asst. Chemist R. O. BROOKE, M. S., Asst. Chemist HORTICULTURE : W. B. LANHAM, M. A., Chief H. NESS, M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY D. T. KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding R. H. STANSEL, B. S., Asst. in Crops PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief - B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Farm and Ranch Economist V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist **T. L. GASTON, JR., B. S., Asst., Farm Records and Accounts **J. N. TATE, B. S., Asst., Ranch Records and Accounts SOIL SURVEY: **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor T. C. REITCH, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: H. NESS, M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JACKSON, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief J. M. JONES, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat DAIRY HUSBANDRY: Investigations , Chi JAY. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman;POU1-TRY HUSBANDRY: Breeding Investigations FRANK GRAYSON, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist C. S. RUDE, B. S., Chief Foulbrood Inspecto C. E. HEARD, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector S. E. McGREGOR, JR., Apiary Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief A. B. CONNER, M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sorghum Research R. E. KARPER, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain Research No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: V. E_. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell Count-y: H. E. REA, B. S., Superintendent No. 6, Denton. Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Sour. Dickens County: R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JONES, Superintendent R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. McNESS, Superintendent APICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATORY: H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist in Charge A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder rFEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief S. D. PEARCE, Secretary J. H. ROGERS, Feed Inspector W. H. WOOD, Feed Inspector W. C. GAINEY, B. S., Feed Inspector K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector W. D. NORTHCUTT, JR., Feed Inspector W. L. HOHN, B. S., Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. l0, Feeding and Breeding Station, Near College Station, Brazos County R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal Husband- man in Charge of Farm L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H F. MORRIS, M. S., Superintendent “Nb. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent D. H. BENNETT, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist **O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: FRANK GAINES, Irrigationist and Forest W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent Nurseryman No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent E. HOBBS, B. S., Entomologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WILSON, B. S., Superintendent TEACHERS IN THE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE CARRYING COOPERATIVE PROJECTS ON THE STATION G. W. ADRIANCE, M. S., Associate Profes- sor of Horticulture S. W. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Ento- mology F. A. BUECHEL, Ph. D., Professor of Ag- ricultural Economics *Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. G. P. GROUT, M. S., Professor of Dairy Husbandry V. P. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Agricul- tural Economics E. O. POLLOCK, A. M., Assistant Professor of Agronomy **In cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. CONTENTS Page Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Rise in land taxes since 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Average of taxes levied by state, county and local districts . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Variations in percentage of taxes levied by the state, county and districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Variations in percentage of taxes levied for diiferent purposes by the state, county and districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Indiana and Texas tax dollar compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 Distribution of the Texas farmer’s tax dollar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Distinctive geographic areas of Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Trend of tax per acre by crop areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 SYNOPSIS State and local revenues are obtained largely from an ad valorem tax 0n real property, especially land. These taxes have risen greatly since 1914. In Texas the increase in taxes on agricultrral land since this date has been over 120 per cent. N0 such corresponding increase in the re- ceipts from farm land has occurred, especially since the summer of 1920, when the great decline in the price of farm products began. This increase in taxation, then, measures approximately the actual increased burden which farmers, over the greater part of the state must now carry in comparison with pre-war times. This Bulletin shows by means of statistical tables and graphical representations how the farmer’s tax bill has increased, and also what part of his tax dollar is levied by the state, the county, and the local districts. It also shows where the tax goes which is levied by each of these jurisdictions and what percentage of the farmer’s tax dol- lar is levied for each purpose within the jurisdictions. Bulletin N0. 334 September, 1925 TREND OF TAXES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN TEXAS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE FARMER’S ‘TAX DOLLAR F. A. Buechel INTRODUCTION While the question of taxation has always been of great practical in- terest to a large body of our citizenship, this interest has greatly increased in recent years and especially since 1920. The reason for this increased interest is not hard to find. Prior to 1914, when business normally pursued an even keel, taxes tended to rise, it is true, but at a rate which, in general, business could readily absorb on account of the increasing wealth, income, and the general prosperity which prevailed throughout the country. Agri- culture fully shared in this general prosperity when, beginning in the late nineties, prices of farm products took a strong upward swing, which ex- tended on up to the outbreak of the European war. After a temporary lull, in the autumn of 1914 and 1915, especially in the South, this upward swing in agricultural prosperity became even more marked than it had been in the period noted above, taking on the aspects of a “boom” in various local areas scattered over the country. The agricultural industry as a whole expe- rienced a bouyancy which led to the assumption of obligations requiring many years for their liquidation and imposing a considerable immediate addition to the farmer’s tax burden. Many enterprises, such as the ex- tension of hard-surfaced roads, the building of rural high schools and other public buildings, irrigation and drainage projects, etc., were undertaken largely on the basis of borrowed money during these few flush years. Under ordinary circumstances, the making of these improvements would have extended over a period of ten to fifteen years and would have been largely paid for out of current receipts. These enterprises, however, were undertaken on the assumption that war prices would last for many years and that the prices of farm products would never again descend to the pre- war level. We have here then the setting for much of our present tax agi- tation, viz., a high overhead expense in the form of high local bonded in- debtedness on the one hand and a tremendous contraction of farm receipts on the other. This situation, bad enough in itself, is probably greatly aug- mented by certain inherent defects in the administration of the general , property tax, which serves as the main source from which local and state revenues are derived. This is a subject which will be taken up in one of the series of Bulletins of which this is the first. Purpose and Method of the Study This study is designed to set forth the most pertinent facts, together with an analysis of these facts, relative to the taxation of agricultural lands in Texas. It is believed by the writer that only as the facts are collected 5 6 BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION and interpreted in a perfectly objective way, shall we be able to formulate policies for the improvement of the tax system of the State. Since taxa- tion plays such a vital part in the every-day life of the people of the state, and since “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” it follows that thought- ful people have preconceived ideas upon the subject of taxation, often of a very intense character. In order toobviate any possibility of successful criticism of the present work on the ground of its having ulterior motives or is designed for propaganda purposes, no general conclusions will be drawn or remedies proposed. ‘The present writer will adhere strictly to the presentation of figures, which will be set forth in the form of tables and graphs; the text will be confined to an analysis of the figures presented. Sources of Information Most of the data contained in this work were obtained from the fol- lowing sources: the C0mptroller’s reports at the State Capitol in Austin; various records in the Comptroller’s office; and direct questionnaires sent to the county clerks or tax collectors in all of the counties of Texas. The writer wishes to take this opportunity to make acknowledgement to the of- ficials having charge of these sources of information for their generous cooperation. The officers of more than one hundred and seventy-five coun- ties responded to the questionnaire with all or part of the information de- sired. It is a source of deep regret to the writer that out of this number, the data from only one hundred and eight counties were absolutely com- plete; the study is therefore made upon the basis of these counties. For- tunately, however, these counties are well distributed and since they con- stitute over two fifths of the total number of counties in the State, (Figure 1) they should give a fairly accurate picture of the State as a whole. Scope of the Study The present bulletin is the first of a series which the writer is prepar- ing on the subject of taxation of rural land in Texas. One of the later mon- ographs will show the percentage of the income or net rent from rural land which is absorbed by taxes. Another will make a comparison of the State tax burden borne by counties in the different sections of the State. This State tax burden varies as between counties on account of the variation in the ratio between the true value and the assessed value of land in the dif- ' ferent counties of the State. In still another bulletin there will appear a comparison of the tax burden upon rural and urban land, based upon the relative percentage of the income absorbed by taxes in each case. The final bulletin will synthesize the material presented in the entire series. It will also contain summaries of related data obtained upon this subject in other sections of the country, particularly in_ the Southwest. Conclusions and rec- ommendations, based upon the entire study in Texas as well as upon related studies in other states will all be embodied in the final bulletin. TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 6m. 51 a3. B“. ~2- 8... .3. 5. .8. .3. l. S. 3. 8. i. 2. 3. t. 8. _ 92;! 2;». ~83». 09E: t}. 8. -.l anal». 82 152.. He. El»... . e228: =2. Q2 F . 2.. H. @3325. =28. >2: R 3C: gas. 32. 23a. 22M it. 5. O §§§ . hi. at b>=n<~>II 25pm \~0\§ RON fibww. M f: -r-. ii .5. M .5. w _ é #2.. .52. 3. a8. 22.. 3% .23 : ER: :2. n q 2.... é» w . s —. . _ a . t. S» 523 9.52 ~ 22a 52.. Qwonéeza fit. 3.3 33 8.5 =5: l. m _ mgr. - 1 t . l‘ 1-11 I4 |ii .. -\\\. \ 2S2 9.5 n28 “Garza. 2% ti? “ii. ‘>8. v2.1. i: :3 8. 8v =3; a. . {cm u :32 u $$ t. z a s... 2:3 =2... i=n§ s8: it. 93:.» =2 .62. .35.. E m .3 =22» 5a. > E. fi. o. so . 0%‘ W . 2.’. 1747i OMB fissmfi. min.» \\ .\ 2 >93 1281M R5. :5.» St. 22 SR Si. 8;. u >1 <1 HQ~DHUMOI ~Q§§§ \I§. W ww §>GQ m n? .3» I. a w F . rr .. m. £28 aka $53 2%. R23 no»... z w a. 12a a§w u Eu U. . Y‘? ‘Yr? rn AA I . Q- 0 ¢ .1. a r 2 a . ., w o}... a... @3022 2522i its an! a i, sv x a... M u a. a. 38a 2&8 $5; 2 4% s 1% n. . .1. . § .253 zi-R t. 1.? o M w. b§~u§ $3 I 3 . n >a _ 6 i. =§§§L 5253M 0 wtxfiu (a. M 1o . .8. .95 m i... 8 § <2 <§2 Sisafi =3 A ¢ ¢ A.» I E 1 >5: . ta? $52 N00 NU ,ll I. |||l||||. 32> iii; 23!: Q »mx>m - a $2. .2; at 2;»: s §§m 9 /\\4.4. f un>2¢~>~c21=3 u mm.» \ 4 . G n .._ ocawio 507» n%-no I»? Pf.» o 8 8 8 8 as M ail . _ . / . _ 2. 2 2:: .38 3o a A w... w§§t Q w ( 0.. m 4 l ~0- ~o. , . v W 6.. at. 6». §¢. 6... B... 5. 5‘ 3. um. .3. 8. 8.. u‘. u“. w... 3N5» F “momwmurmamfi Eizvnsa: o». $5 Sm Hmwmm nocdimw 9.05 £41m: ooH-uflmnm a»? $.26 ovaaa»? 8 BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Rise in Land Taxes Since 1914 By inspection of Table 1 and Figure 2 it will,be seen that there has been a great increase in the tax upon agricultural land in Texas since 1914. The total tax for all jurisdictions—state, county, and local district-when blended together, more than doubled during this time. When the increase is considered with respect t0 each jurisdiction separately, it is interesting to observe that the tax levied for the local districts increased most rapidly; in 1923 these local taxes on agricultural land were more than two and one- half times as great as in 1914. The amount of tax levied by the state was X __ -§‘ 2.50 ,_?‘§“~‘9T"T'A” _B5<> m i /__3TAT_E.-LA>L.,:ZB5 Lzeléhlfii/ ' y ‘i h! P ¢ocswx.I-’-’>*~~~' R £5 Z . 1,75 " l _ Law's‘! ISO ___ ' - —l5° // THE TREND or" / / THE TAX ‘i? — / 19w - |oo PER CENT —"’"5 loo I" l lQO I91‘? l9l9 I923 i933 Figure 2. General direction in which faim land taxes have been moving in Texas from 1914 to 1923. almost two and one-third times as great in 1923 as in 1914; while that lev- ied by the county was somewhat less than twice as great in 1923 as in 1914. In most parts of Texas the tax burden imposed by the increase in tax on agricultural land has in no wise been mitigated by a corresponding in- crease in the price of farm products. It is true that since 1921 there has been a marked improvement in the purchasing power of a pound of lint cotton; but this has b-een accompanied by subnormal yields over the most of the cotton-producing area of the state for practically every year in which high prices have prevailed. It is, of TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 9 course, well known, on the other hand, that the price of a pound of beef is less today than it was in 1914, tho the general price level of all commodi- ties has risen fifty per cent during that time._ It is clear, therefore, that the increasing taxes on agricultural land have been cutting ever deeper into the farmer’s income during the past few years. TABLE 1 Total Tax on Agricultural Land in 108 Texas Counties and the Amount of Tax Levied by State, County, and LocallDistrict Purposes 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. " 3 ‘ >~ s a l 12 5H2 '55; 151525 ‘s g5 m O .- w O l ._< m o l""@@m I ¢’ ’ g, q, F4 I >49 , w: 1 >DQ v-< > |_(Q) v-i 1w" 62 || I 2562. u l 2022 I n .3868: n 332s s‘ >924‘ 1 :1 2°25“ w: 12,324’ 3 n-q F“ p—1 4 l p. w< ‘ _ |—l 5452 2 l 62221 2 » 6.252 l2 15.2525 2 I I I I 1914 . . . . . . . .. 6,059,205 | 100 2,035,476 100 2,541,927 l 100 | 1,481,802 100 1919 . . . . . 10,856,649 179 4,295,548 210 3,870,515 152 2,690,584 181 1922 . . . . . . . .. 12,937,916 213 4,611,963 226 4,635,594 182 3,690,359 249 1923 . . . . . . . IO‘ 13,296,956 219 4,659,481 I 229 4,843,891 190 I 3,793,584 256 It should be ‘pointed out that the tax levies shown in Table 1 are on agricultural land exclusively. Railroad rights-of-way, personal property of all kinds, and urban property, have been eliminated. AVERAGE OF TAXES LEVIED’ BY STATE, COUNTY, AND LOCAL DISTRICTS Table 2 shows the proportion of the total tax that was levied by each of the jurisdictions. It will be observed that the proportion of the total tax levied by local districts as well as the absolute amount, increased for each year under consideration. Theproportion levied for county purposes was greater in 1914 than in any subsequent year and the proportion levied for state purposes was greater in 1919 than in any of the other years. For each of the jurisdictions there is a fair degree of uniformity in the propor- tions of the tax levied during the period under review. Since these figures are averages of a large number of counties distributed all over the state, a good deal of stability in these proportions would naturally be expected. TABLE 2 The Total Tax on Agricultural Land in 108 Texas Counties and the Percentage Which was Mvied for: State, County, and District Purposes for the Years 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Total‘ Tax % For Year i i ‘70 F“ ‘70 F“ LOCAL (1914: , sTATE COUNTY DISTRICT DOHQYS ‘ * 1 | 5* ‘ I a F“ 1 _ 1914 . . . . . 6.052265 y 10o 1- 35.7 l 42.0 1 24.3 1919 . . . . . ..1 10,856,647 | 179 1 39.6 g 35.6 l 24.8 1922.. . . . . .1 12,965,396 y 214 1 55.5 g 55.9 3 26.6 l923.......; 132971078 II 219 35.0 36.5 {I 29.5 10 BULLETIN NO. s34 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Later in this Bulletin the state will be divided into fairly homogeneous sec- tions and these facts along with others will be shown for each of these sec- tions. Figure 3 shows concretely how the farmer’s tax dollar has been ap- portioned between the state, county, and local districts. As was previously pointed out, there has been no marked change in the proportion of the farmer's taxes that have gone for these different jurisdictions during this period, the increased percentage levied for local district purposes being the most noteworthy. In Table 3 the range of the average taxes paid per acre per county is divided into six classes and the number of counties within each of these classes is indicated for the four years under consideration. This table gives a much better idea of the change in the average tax per acre than would 1.9/4 I9I9 DLSTRICT 24. 8 I922 I925 DI5TRIC T 2 3. 6 Figure 3. Percentage which was levied by State, county, and district. l=smm-e_ Il4lt“ TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 11 TABLE 3 Distribution of 108 Texas Counties According to the Average Tax per Acre Expressed in Cents 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties Cents Per Acre I I! 1914 1919 1922 1923 ____ ____ _ F H 1- 9 . . . . . . . . . .1! 66 32 24 23 10—~18 . . . . . . . . 26 36 34 84 19-27 . . . . . . . . . . l 11 21 27 23 28-36 . . . . . . . . . m] 5 5 10 18 27-45 . . . . . . . . .. 1 0 s 2 4 Over 45 . . . . . . . . H” 0 6 11 11 ll I Total . . . . 108 ’ 108 108 108 l a simple arithmetic average of the average taxes of the one hundred and eight counties for each of the four years. The reason for this obviously is that the range in the average acreage tax of these counties is so great that no single figure would be significant. The table shows that Whereas two— thirds of these counties paid an average tax of only one to eight cents per acre in 1914, the number in this class was less than a third of the total in 1919 and less than a fourth of the total in the years 1922 and 1923. With each ascending class the year 1914 has a smaller representation in compar- F/U/"lfii/fi of COU/‘f 71!»! ‘ggn, r; ,0“; (‘£1173 l§~247 C511 r: 2a 56 Cs/vm- 37 4505M: Ovsz 4JCtw/jJ‘ Figure 4. Distribution of 108 Texas counties according to the average tax Del‘ acre, expressed in cents, for 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. 12 BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ison with the other three years. In 1914 none of the counties paid an av- erage acreage tax of as much as thirty-seven cents, while in 1919 there were eight counties paying taxes which averaged from thirty-seven to forty-five cents;-' in 1922 two counties came within this range, and in 1923 four were included in this class. Moreover, the average acreage tax was over forty- five cents in six counties in 1919 and in eleven counties in each of the years 1922 and 1923. These facts can be visualized more easily by inspection of Figure 4. VARIATIONS IN PERCENTAGE OF T~AXES LEVIED BY STATE, COUNTY, AND LOCAL DISTRICTS IN 108 TEXAS COUNTIES /Levies by State In Table 2 and Figure 3 the arithmetic average of the percentages of taxes levied by each of the jurisdictions—state, county, and district—was shown. Since there is a very wide range in the percentage of taxes which is levied by each of these jurisdictions in the one hundred and eight coun- ties, a distribution of these counties according to the percentage of the total tax for each of these political subdivisions will throw additional light upon the subject. TABLE 4 Distribution of 108 Texas Counties According to Per- centage of Their Total Taxes Levied by State, 1914, 1919, Total . . . . ..ll 10s 1922, 1923. l Number of Counties Percentage l l . l l 1914 l 1919 l 1922 l 1923 \ ‘ ll l l l 12-21 . . . . . . . . ..ll 5 l 0 l 5 l 3 22-31 . . . . . . . . ..il 31 l 16 17 25 32-41 . . . . . . . . ..ll 52 l 38 I 51 l 51 42-51 . . . . . . . . ..|l 16 l 37 I 23 20 52-61 . . . . . . . . ..ll 4 l 15 l 8 8 Over G1 . . . . . . . ..|l O 2 4 1 ll l l p. ll l l l l 108 l 108 108 Table 4 shows the distribution of the counties according to the num- ber of counties that fall in each of the six classes in which the range of per- centages of the total taxes which are levied for state purposes has been di- vided. It Will be seen from this table as well as Figure 5 that there is a wide range in the percentage of the farmer’s tax dollar which is levied by the state. In some counties the percentage is as low as twelve percent and in a few as much as sixty-one or above. It appears that the percentage of the farmer’s taxes going to the state was higher in 1919 than in either of the other years. TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 13 i raumeira of cou/vr/as‘ c , O 8 ‘zz 11' 111,; P1161" Z113, Pzzcznr 3,2,4, one“: 41.5, Peatznr 51.5, PszCr/vr 0,5,2 5, Pence“? Figure 5. Distribution of 108 Texas counties, according to percentage of total taxes going for State purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. TABLE 5 Distribution 0f 108 Texas (‘ounties According to Per- centage of Their Total Taxes YVhich is Lev.ed by County, 1914,1919,1922,and 1923 Number of Counties Percentage j __ I I I I I ||I 1914 I 1919 I 1922 |I 1923 I I _ ____,__ w, ___,_,'_,_ _____ g_‘7__i_%.____ II I I I ' 10—19 . . . . . . . . . .II 0 I 3 I 4 I 4 20—‘f9 . . . . . . . . ..I| 13 I 20 I 21 I 22 3‘7*——39 . . . . 1 . . . . 22 I 40 I 43 I 33 40—49 . . . . . . . . ..|I 34 I 34 I 27 I 36 50-59 . . . . . . . . .JI 29 I 8 I 10 I 11 Over 59 . . . . . . . . . II 1O I 2 I 3 I 2 II I I I II I I I Total . . . . 108 ‘I 107 f 108 108 I Levies by Counties Table 5 shows the distribution of the counties according to the per- centage of the total tax which is levied by the county. Again a wide vari- ation is shown in the range in the percentage of the total tax Which is levied by this jurisdiction. Figure 6 shows the same facts in more concrete form. A good deal of regularity is shown in the distribution of the counties in these percentage classes, gradually ascending to the 30-39 class and then descending, except in 1914, when they centered around the 410-49 class. 14 BULLETIN N0. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION O NUMBEQ OF COLLNTIES o l0-l9 P"- cam’ zo-zs Peacsw-r 30-59 PtkCsnr 4o~4a Pceccu-r sv-sp 9:1 Csnv 01/5159 PHCMT Figure 6. Distribution of 108 Texas counties, according to percentage of total taxes going for county purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. TABLE 6 Distribution of Approximately 100 Texas Counties Ac- cording to the Percentage of Their Total Taxes Which is Levied by the District, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties Percentage l i 1914 I 1919 i 1922 1923 l I 1—12 . . . . . . . . . d’ 20 I 18 I 10 i 11 13-24 . . . . . . . . . .l 36 ‘ 44 ‘ 37 k 34 25-36 . . . . . . . . . .\| 15 15 28 29 37-48 . . . . . . . . . .]| 16 I 17 l 14 s 16 49-60 . . . . . . . . . 4 i 4 , 7 9 Over 60 . . . . . . . . 2 i 0 l 1 ll O ll 7T9 "H _*” i‘ 98 \ 97 € 99 Total . . . . 93 l Levies by Districts ‘Table 6 shows the distribution of the counties according to the per- centage of the total tax which is levied by the local road and school dis- tricts. An even wider range in the percentages is displayed here than in the two preceding tables. Figure 7 depicts graphically the range in per- centages levied by these jurisdictions, which is seen to be from one to over sixty per cent of the total. It will be observed, however, that a much larger number of counties fall within the 13-24 percentage class than in any of the other classes. TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES i! B’ '22 m ||| l1||||| n IZPznCn-n- is Z4PtACs~r 25 .50 PtRCirvr 37 43 Pr»: CENT 49-60 P59. CEnT Ova/r. 6O P£2CI~Y NLl/"lflfll OI" COUNT/KS 5 Figure 7. Distribution of 100 Texas counties, according to percentage of total taxes going for district purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. VARIATIONS IN PERCENTAGE OF TAXES LEVIED FOR DIF- FERENT PURPOSES BY STATE, COUNTY, AND LOCAL DISTRICTS For State Purposes Let us now analyze the purposes for which the taxes are levied that go to the three jurisdictions already enumerated. Taxes going to the State are levied for three purposes-general, public schools, and pensions. Expendi- tures for general purposes include such items as the administration of the state government, support of penal and charitable institutions, and the maintenance of higher institutions of learning. Table 7 shows the distribution of the counties according to the per- centage of their total taxes which are levied to defray these general state TABLE 7 Distribution of 108 Texas Counties According to Per- centage of Their Total Taxes Levied for General State Purposes 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties Percentage ‘I 1914 1919 1922 1928 ' "n M 4- 7 . . . . . . . . . . 6 0 2 2 8-11 . . . . . . . . . . 50 2 4 6 12-15 . . . . . . . . . . 44 22 23 30 16-19 . . . . . . . . 6 30 45 42 20-23 . . . . . . . . . . 2 35 21 19 Over 23 . . . . . . . . 0 19 13 9 ! Total . . . . .. 108 108 108 108 16 BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION expenses. Of these general state expenses about three-fourths are for the purposes mentioned above, viz., for state administrative expenses, chari- table and penal institutions, and higher education. Of the $40,000,000 (in round numbers) recently appropriated by the legislature for the ensuing biennium, for example, $7,000,000, or about one-sixth, will be used to defray the expenses of the various state administrative departments; $8,000,000. or one-fifth, for the eleemosynary institutions; and $15,000,000, or three- eighths, for the institutions of higher learning. It might be of interest at this point to analyze somewhat more mi- nutely the division of the farmer’s tax dollar according to the purpose for which it was used. Of the 35.1 cents which constituted the portion of the tax dollar levied by the state in 1923 (see Figure 18), 28.1 cents or 65.7 per cent of the state levy went for schools; this included the portion returned to the counties for public schools, which amounted to almost half of the entire state levy, as well as the money expended for the higher educational insti- tutions. Pensions and eleemosynary institutions absorbed 7.4 cents of the tax dollar, or 20 per cent of the state levy; and the administration of the state government, including the judiciary, absorbed 4.3 cents of the tax dol- lar, or 1.4 per cent of the state levy. The remainder of the state levy was used for miscellaneous purposes. COuNT/[J '3 35‘ NUMBER. of 5 4-7 PER Ccnr 8 1| Pn. C5111’ 11/5 Pen Ciur I649 Figure 8. Distribution of 108 Texas countIes, accordnj: to percentajze of total taxes going for general State purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. The county levy amounted to 36.5 cents of the tax dollar, of which 16.2 cents, cr 44.4 per cent, was used for administrative purposes and 20.3 cents, or 55.6 per cent, was used for roads. The district levy constituted 28.4 cents of the tax dollar, of which 16.4 cents, or 58 per cent, was used for district schools and 12 cents, or 42 per cent, was used for roads. Figure 8 shows graphically how the counties distribute themselves in the percentage of the total taxes levied on land that is used for general TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 17 purposes in state expenditures. The reason that in 1914 more counties are associated with the low-percentage groups is that in that year the ad valorem tax for state purposes was twelve and one-half cents on the hundred dollars of valuation for general revenue purposes while in the other three years is was thirty-five cents on the hundred. With the exception of the year 1914, Figure 8 shows a remarkably uniform increase and decrease in the number of counties in the various percentage classes, which cover a fairly wide range. The percentage class having the largest representation of counties is 16 to 19. TABLE 8 Distribution of 108 Texas Counties According to Per- centage of the Total Taxes Which is Levied for Public School Purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties Percentage l _ . 1914 1919 1922 192a ' 4- 7 . . . . . . . . .. 1 0 2 2 8-11 . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 4 e 12-15 . . . . . . . . .. 20 22 23 3o 16-19 . . . . . . . . . . 41 s0 4s 42 20-23 . . . . . . . . . . . 29 as 21 19 Over 1s 19 13 9 Total . . . . .. ‘ 10s 10s 10s 10s Table 8 shows the distribution of the counties according to the per- centage of their total taxes which is returned to the counties for public" school purposes. These figures are presented graphically in Figure 9. It will be seen that in some counties less than five per cent of the total tax dollar is returned to the counties for public school purposes; and on the other extreme, in some counties over twenty-three per cent of the tax dol- lar is levied for public school purposes. Between these extremes it will be seen that with the exception of the year 1919 more counties fall in the class in which from 16 to 19 per cent of the tax dollar is ‘levied for public school purposes than in any other class. In 1919 there were more counties in which 20 to 23 per cent of the farmer’s tax dollar went for public school purposes than in any other class. Figure 9 shows graphically the distribution of the counties according to the percentage of their total taxes which is returned to the counties for public-school purposes. Figure 9 shows, moreover, that there is a fairly nor- mal distribution of counties on the basis of the percentage of the tax dollar paid for public-school purposes. The number of counties increases at a nearly uniform rate for each successive percentage class until the 16 to 19 per- centage class is reached, when the number of counties for each successive class declines. The only exception to this, as noted above, is for the year 1919, in which the distribution is not so nearly normal, and the greater num- ber of counties is found in the 20 to 23 percentage class. 18 since 1913. tion. BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 2' _NLI/"\B£P- 0f‘ COUNTIES <> s; Ovz; lb Pin Ctr/1- 5'17" ZO-ZJ Pr»! C1717‘ 4»7 Pr; Cz~r 6-H PER Can Figure 9. Distribution of 108 Texas counties, according to percentage of total taxes going for public school purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. TABLE 9 vDistribution of 108 Texas Counties According to the Percentage of Their Total Taxes Which is Levied for Pension Purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties Percentage 4| 1914 l 1919 1922 1923 I 1— 2 . . . . . . . . . . 3 39 62 63 3- 4 . . . . . . . . . . 45 68 46 45 5- 6 . . . . . . . . . . 54 1 0 0 7- 8 . . . . . . . . . . 5 l O O 0 Over 8 . . . . . . . . . .l 1 | 0 0 0 l I I Total . . . . . . 108 108 108 108 Table 9 shows the distribution of the counties according to the percent- age of their taxes that is levied by the state for pensions. for pensions has been five cents on the hundred dollars of valuation ever In 1914, therefore, it represented a larger proportion of the total state tax levy than it has in the subsequent years under considera- In the first-named year the state rate was thirty-seven and one-half cents; in the other three years it has been seventy-five cents on the hundred dollars of assessed valuation. Figure 10 shows more clearly the facts presented in Table 9. The rate of tax TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 19 70 — E ‘s’ Ngfil BEIZ OF COUNT/CS o Eur .50 P52 Cfnr 7.5 PnaCnvr Ovcr: dPsa CK/vr Figure 10. Distribution of 108 Texas counties, according to percentage of total taxes going for pension purposes ,1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Distribution of Taxes for County Purposes‘ We have just seen how the counties tend to arrange themselves in ac- cordance with the percentage of the total tax which is levied by the state- for general, public-school, and pension purposes. We shall now examine the distribution of the counties according to the percentage of the total tax. which goes for general county purposes,’ county roads and bridges, county‘ and sinking funds. In Table 2 it was shown that over a third of the farm-v er’s tax dollar was retained by the county. Table 10 shows that in 1914 there was a strong tendency for a larger’ proportion of the farmer’s tax dollar to be retained by the county unit for general county purposes than in any of the subsequent years. In that year a larger number of counties are found in the 21 to 24 percentage class than in any other year. In the other three years there were more counties in the courthouse, jury, jail, and public improvements, and county bonds, interest. ‘The practices of the various counties, with regard to the division of the county levy, for the various purposes are not altogether uniform. The distribution of the farmer’s- tax dollar for the various items within the county jurisdiction is therefore only a close approximation. ‘County general expenditures include such items as salaries of county ofificers andJ employees, ofiice expenses, fuel, water and light, and miscellaneous expenses. 20 BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 10 Distribution of 108 Texas Counties According to Per- centage of Their Total Taxes Levied for General County Purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties Percentage 1 M l 11 1914 1 1919 1 1922 1923 u W 1 1 5- 8 . . . . . . . . .¢1 2 5 1 12 14 9-12 . . . . . . . . ..11 18 45 | 49 46 19-16 11 26 1 35 1 30 34 17-20 . . . . . . . . ..11 23 1 19 1 13 9 21-24 . . . . . . . . .11 25 1 3 1 2 4 Over 24 . . . . . . . . 14 1 1 1 2 1 L- _- L_ ,_._1_1.. r 1 1 __ ‘H 1 1 Total . . . . .11 108 I 108 1 108 10s 1 l 9 t0 12 percentage class than in any other class. This indicates a decided tendency toward relatively lower county expenditures in comparison with state and district expenditures, since most of the other items of county ex~ penditure show a similar decline. This is clearly shown in Figure 15. Figure 11 portrays graphically the figures shown in Table 10. S‘ ‘s’ 8 mta/Mes/a OF cou/WWEJ 5a Pm Co” -9*ll PER CENT 157/6 PmCz/vr. n-zo Pen CE/vr 1.1724 P54: Cavr OYEQ llPncCz/vr Figure 11. Distribution of 108 Texas counties, according to percentage of total taxes going for general county purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Table 11 shows the distribution of the counties according to the per- centage of their‘ taxes which is levied for public roads. In almost half of the counties from eight to thirteen cents out of the farmer’s tax dollar is levied for this purpose. In a large number of counties the proportion was as small as from two to seven cents in the dollar; and in a few counties as TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 21 much as thirty-one cents. It is evident that in 1914 a larger percentage of the farmer's tax dollar was levied for county roads than in the subsequent years. TABLE 11 Distribution of a Number of Texas Counties According to the Percentage of the Total Taxes Which is Levied for Road Purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties I I I 1 Percentage ‘ I I 1 I I 1914 I] 1919 I 1922 I 1923 W i__ I I H I I I 2- 1 . . . . . . . . .¢| 7 27 I 36 35 8~13 . . . . . . . . . 45 I 51 I 42 44 14-19 .........¢l 30 I 21 | 22 I 16 20-25 . . . . . . . . . .II 1O I 7 I 5 I 9 26-31 . . . . . . . . . »| 7 1 0 I 1 I 1 Over 31 . . . . . . . . . jI 5 ; 1 I 1 l 2 ~11 1 I s|_ ‘ I 1; I 107 I 10? I 107 1 1 8 is‘ NUMBER. OF- COUNT/ES N a l4 I19 21 23 z 1 PEI! Cnvr 8-1.1 PtRCrNT 14-19 Pr: Czrvr 20-2: Pr: c5111‘ 16-51 Peach” OVER 61 P11: C£Nr Figure 12. Distribution of a number of Texas counties, according to the per- centage 0f total taxes going for county road purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923, In Table 12 we have the counties arranged according to the percentage of their total tax used for court house and sundry purposes. While in the majority of counties the percentage of thQtotal used for this purpose ranges from one to eight per cent of the farmer’s tax dollar, there are a few in- stances, notably in the year 1914, in which the proportion levied for this, purpose is more than twenty per cent of the total. Figure 13 shows in graphical form the figures given in Table 12. 22 - BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 12 Distribution of a Number of Texas Counties According to the Percentage of the Total Taxes which is Levied for Courthouse Purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties Percentage 1914 1919 1922 1923 1- 4 . . . . . . . . . . 23 35 36 35 5- 8 . . . . . . . . . . 18 _26 26 24 9-12 . . . . . . . . .. 13 15 13 16 13-16 . . . . . . . . . . 12 9 8 8 17-20 . . . . . . . . .. 5 1 3 3 Over 20 . . . . . . . .. 7 1 1 0 Total . . . . . . 78 87 86 86 fin- 19 i" z: "7 ‘i’ s» l a U U a gm Q U Q b-v ~ F I R C2111 5'8 91K C041 .941. Pen fun is u, P02 CEMT H-LoPze 5p" o"; zopng¢ny Figure 13. Distribution of a number of Texas counties, according to per- centage of total taxes going for county courthouse purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. TABLE 13 Distribution of a Number of Texas Counties According to the Percentage of the Total Taxes Which is Levied for Bond Purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties I I Percentage i 1914 1919 1922 1923 l 1— 6 . . . . . . . . . 22 29 26 32 7—12 . . . . . . . . . 16 10 16 7 13-18 . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 9 11 19-24 . . . . . . . . . 3 8 9 12 25-30 . . . . . . . . . . 0 2 6 5 Over 30 . . . . . . . . .l 1 3 4 4 I Total . . . . . . 46 61 70 71 g TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 23 Table 13 shows the distribution of the counties according to the per cent of the farmer's total tax which is levied for the payment of county bonded indebtedness. This does not take account of the indebtedness in- curred by local districts. By inspection of Figure 14 it will be seen at a glance that in the years 1919, 1922, and 1923, a larger percentage of the farmer’s tax dollar was absorbed for this purpose than in 1914. l 49L- NUP4DIQ OF Cour/r/c-X‘ 11> Psx czrvr 7420:: Cnn 1:18 Psn Czur 1.91.4 PtnCfnr 2,5~30P£e (‘n/r Ovse éoPczcsnr Figure 14. Distribution of a. number of Texas counties, according to per- centaze of total taxes going for county bond purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. . Distribution of Taxes for District Purposes TABLE 14 Distribution of Approximately 100 Texas Counties Ac- cording to the Percentage of Their Total Taxes Which is Levied by the Local School District, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. z Number of Counties Percentage ) 1914 1919 .1922 1923 l 1—— 6 . . . . . . . . . . 17 12 7 9 7-12 . . . . . . . . .. 15 28 20 19 13-18 . . . . . . . . .. 24 32 29 25 19-24 . . . . . . . . . . 19 22 24 27 25-30 . . . . . . . . . 9 0 11 16 Over 30 . . . . . . . ..l 11 1 1 2 l ll Total. . . . . . l 95 95 92 98 Table 14 shows the distribution of the counties according to the per- centages of taxes levied for local district school purposes. A very wide range in the proportion spent for this purpose is at once discernible. Some counties spend as little as one cent of each tax dollar for this purpose, while a few spend as much as thirty cents. More counties are to be found in the class paying from 13 to 18 per cent than in any other class for each year except 1923, when the 19-24 group contained the largest number of counties. 24 BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ___ %_ H8 ‘Q ‘:1 \ Z D 1 8 M14 1L 1 ‘e 1 v9 M Q 141° ‘Q Z D Z 0 1c P52 Cru-r 712. Pr! C5041‘ I518 PzeCmr l9 MP5! (‘n11 ZJ soPreCnn 01102301’: ILCENI Figure 15. Distribution of approximately 100 Texas counties, according to pgiégentage of total taxes going for district school purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and Figure 15 shows how the counties distribute themselves over a wide range with relatively little regularity. Table 15 and Figure 16 show the distribution of the counties according to the percentage of taxes paid for district road purposes. AHere again there is a wide range in the proportion of the farmers tax dollar that is levied for this purpose. In some counties as little as one cent on the dollar goes for district roads and on the other extreme as much as thirty cents or more. It appears that in the later years there has been a tendency for a larger proportion of the tax money to be levied for this purpose. TABLE 15 Distribution of a Number of Texas Counties According to the Percentage of the Total Taxes Which is Levied for Road Purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. Number of Counties H U H H Percentage _ I ‘ 1 1 1 I 1 1' 1914 1 1919 1 1922 1 1923 H 1 ' 1 1- 6 . . . . . . . . ..11 10 1 15 | 9 1 14 7-12 . . . . . . . . .11 12 1 17 1 20 1 16 13-18 . . . . . . . . ..11 4 1 4 1 9 1 10 19-24 . . . . . . . . .J1 7 1 7 1 5 1 5 25-30 . . . . . . . . .J1 4 1 8 1 5 1 5 Over 3O . . . . . . . 3 i 9 12 1 12 11 1 _ 1 1 Total . . . . ..H 40 1 60 .1 60 1 62 INDIANA AND TEXAS TAX-DOLLAR COMPARED It will be of interest to compare the distribution of the farmer’s tax dol- lar in Indiana with its distribution in Texas, according to levying jurisdic- tions and according to purposes of levy. This is shown graphically in Fig- ures 17 and 18. The local levy in Indiana constitutes 47.2 cents of the tax TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES . 25 B‘ mumgfk, ‘OF COL/N PIES O O ... w . ‘ C wePreCLm v/zpmcnw 1.; /5/1:R.CENT wzflhefn/r ZJJOP£RCENT Ovse QOPz-k s”: Figure 16. Distribution of a number of Texas counties, according to the per- centage of total taxes going for district road purposes, 1914, 1919, 1922, and 1923. dollar while in Texas it is only 28.6 cents. The State levy in Indiana is 16.3 cents compared with 35.1 cents in Texas. The county levy is seen t0 be 36.5 cents in Indiana and also 36.5 cents in Texas. The two states differ widely in the state and local levies. This may be accounted for by the fact that in Texas a large proportion of the state levy is returned to the counties for’ public school purposes while in Indiana the public schools are maintained primarily by local levy. Again, by inspecting the lower diagrams in Figures 17 and 18 a com- parison of the distribution of the tax dollar may be made between the two states, according to the purposes for which the levy was made. In Indiana 49.3 cents of the tax dollar was expended for education compared Wtih 39.7 cents in Texas; 15.6 cents for administration in Indiana and 20.5 cents in Texas; and 26.8 cents for highways in the former state to 32.3 cents in the latter. The remainder of the tax dollar was expended for benevolent and miscellaneous purposes and was about the same in the two states. It will be noted that the figures for Indiana are for 1923 while those for Texas are for 1925. Since no change in the basis for levying taxes has been made in Texas since 1923 it may be assumed that the figures given are strictly comparable. DISTRIBUTION OF THE TEXAS FARMERiS TAX DOLLAR Figure 19 shows the distribution of the Texas farmer’s tax dollar for each of the years under consideration. The larger segments of the circle showing the proportion of the farmer’s tax dollar which is levied by each jurisdiction in each of the four years under consideration are subdivided into smaller segments showing the relative part of the state, county, and dis- trict levies that are levied for specific purposes. = Attention is called to the fact that the percentages given in Figure 19 are averages for all of the counties included in this study. In previous diagrams it has been seen that there is, in the main, a rather wide range in the percentage of the farmer’s tax dollar which is levied by the various jurisdictions; and also a wide range in the percentage which is levied for 26 BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION INDIANA FARM TAX DOLLAR OF I923 ANALYZED ACCORDING TO LEVYING JURISDICTIONS SCHOOL l+l.2¢ TQWNSHIPQ72 ' ¢ MISC ELLANEOUS a4‘ IMISCEIELANEOUS C ACCORDING TO PURPOSES OF LEVY TOWNSHIP 4+I.2¢ m O’ C O ‘A ’o ¢ Y Q0 fiToWNSHlP .3: P‘ ADMINIS‘ TRATION |I.9¢ HIGHWAY 22.24! Indiana farm tax-dollar of 1923 analyzed according to levyindg (Courtesy of Bureau of Figure 1'7. jurisdictions and according to purpose of jurisdiction. Agricultural Economics, U. S. Dept. Agr.) TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 27 TEXAS FARM TAX-DOLLAR OF 1925 ANALYZED ACCORDING T0 LEVYING JURISDICTIONS FL QwTfO/WN” i MIJCELLANEOl/b .5 f ACCORDING TO PURPOSES OF LEVY f 5TATC"H:szn/. 43¢ Figure 18. The Texas farm tax-dollar of 1923 analyzed ac. cording to levying jurisdiction and according to purposes of levy. 28 BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the various purposes within each jurisdiction. This fact diminishes the value of the arithmetic average derived from these figures. On the other hand the frequency distributions mentioned show that in most cases the big majority of counties were clustered about a relatively narrow range, which tends to enhance the significance of the figures. An inspection of the diagram reveals the fact that there was a rel— ative increase in the amount levied for (a) state general purposes, (from 11 per cent in 1914 to 16.4 per cent in 1923); (b) county bond purposes, (from 5 per cent in 1914 to 8.8 per cent in 1923); (c) and for district roads purposes, (from 8 per cent in 1914 to 12 per cent in 1923). On the other hand there was a relative decrease in the amount levied for: (a) pensions‘ (from 4 per cent in 1914 to 2.3 per cent in 1923); (b) country general, (from 17 per cent in 1914 to 11.7 per cent in 1923); and (c) for county roads, (from 15 per cent in 1914 to 11.5 per cent in 1923). Some of the other items show some variation during the period under consideration but those men- tioned above show the greatest variation. As stated above, the proportion of the state, county, and local school district taxes which is levied for specific purposes is shown by subdivisions IS/ll /_9/_9 5.6 § I u h 2 4 Q 2 \ _ Figure 19. Distribution of the Texas farm tax-dollar according to jurisdictions and purposes. TREND AND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 29 of the three large segments of the circle. A comparison is thus readily made between the relative proportion of the farmer’s tax dollar that went to the state, the county, and the local districts, in these four years. It should be kept in mind that the portion of the state taxes called “public schools” was re-apportioned back to the county. Attention was also previously called to the fact that a large portion of the “general” state revenue is used for the maintenance of penal, charitable, and higher educational institutions and not, as some may suppose, merely for defraying the cost of administer- ing the state government. DISTINCTIVE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF TEXAS The facts portrayed in Figure 19 give a general picture of the distribu- tion of the farmer’s tax dollar both by jurisdictions and With respect to pur- poses for which the mo_ney is levied. But a careful study -of the preceding series of frequency tables and diagrams has made it clear that there is a wide variation in the different counties in the distribution of the tax dollar in both these respects. It is therefore desirable to divide the state up into more nearly similar sections in each of which the apportionment of the farmer’s tax dollar will be fairly uniform. Figure 20 shows the state di- vided into six sections, the basis of division being the relative uniformity in land values according to the 1920 census. The range in the percentages of the farmer’s tax dollar which are levied by the various jurisdictions and for the various purposes within the jurisdiction, will be much less for these smaller groups of more uniform counties than for the one hundred and eight counties covering the entire state. The averages of the percentages thus taken in these groups of more uniform counties will thus approximate more closely to the true situation in each county. The following series of charts represent graphically the distribution of the farmer’s tax dollar for each of the divisions shown in Figre 20. District One Figure 21 shows the distribution of the farmer’s tax dollar in District 1 (see Figure 2-0), which includes the following counties: Bell, Collin, Ellis, Grayson, Gaudalupe, Fannin, Hunt Johnson, Lamar, Red River, Tarrant and Travis. It will be observed that these counties all lie within the black land area of the State. The average land value for these counties is over ninety; three dollars per acre and is the highest in the State. There has been a continuous increase in the relative amount of the farmer’s tax dollar which is levied by school and road districts. In 1914 twenty-three cents out of the farmer’s tax dollar went for these purposes; in 1923 twenty-nine cents out of the dollar was spent for district schools and roads. The proportion of the farmer’s taxes which is levied for county purposes decreased almost the same amount that the district taxes increased. The proportion that went for state purposes remained almost the same throughout the period but showed a slight tendency to decrease in the later years. 30 BULLETIN NO. 334 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION $5.8. mo .393 fiwusfisompua wiwoflmunmfi .8 in .2 . m» ~09 . § u ~9 .3 055E“ .3 .8‘ QQQQQQQQQNQ “t; E3 t? 3x3. m