On 6/5/2013 10:45 AM, singhals wrote: > roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >> From: Steve Hayes<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> >> >>> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:02 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >>> >>>> Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some >>>> research >>>> in the US censuses..... >>>> >>>> People often complain in this country that the census questions get >>>> more and >>>> more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be >>>> another one >>>> seems to be up in the air at the moment. >>> >>> I'm curious. >>> >>> In this forum you usually argue against those who are concerned about >>> privacy and pooh-pooh their concerns. >>> >>> Have you changed your mind?> >> >> Not in the slightest, Steve! I was merely making the point that I don't >> remember any UK census ever asking how much an individual's house was >> worth and >> how much money they had and I was somewhat surprised to find such >> questions in >> an American census in 1860 and 1870. > > Erm, the Personal Property question didn't involve money in the bank. > MOST folks didn't have any. It was more a "what've you got that we can > tax" question. Generally covered things like horses, cattle, carriages, > grandfather clocks, gold jewelry,slaves. It's humorous to compare the > bragging census data with the poor-mouthing local tax list for the same > year. :) > > Privacy-wise, you were born and raised in one small town, you didn't > have any. The 1850, 60, 70 census were nailed on the wall of the > courthouse for you to correct. But, generally, both your social and > economic status were pretty well known to your neighbors and your > in-laws' in-laws. > > Cheryl > > Interestingly until some time in the late 1970's and early 1980's, North Carolina still collected property tax based on the items and values that you told the county. In looking at the tax documents, you would not believe how poor the people of North Carolina were ;-)