> > I'm working some personal property tax lists. I can't find the > > boiler-plate that tells me the tax rates. I've got the one for the > > 1860s, but not the ones for the 1700s. :( > > > > I'm noticing something I think is VERY strange: from information on > > the tax lists, I can deduce the tax rate for a white tithable, for > > one horse, and for one "cattle". However, where the tithable owns > > many horses and/or cattle, the rates multipled by the number of > > animals don't work out to the amount of the tax. > > > > Opinions -- would these be math errors on the part of the assessor, > > ceilings on the number of horses/cattle taxed, variable rates for > > quality of animal, or what? > > > > Cheryl <singhals@erols.com> > > I am familiar with three modern day scenarios that might give you a > clue to the strange tax behavior you reported. > > 1.) Inventories are often reduced or moved before "tax" day. > > 2.) If the taxpayer was responsible for the count, it was often > under reported. It was never over reported. > > 3.) If the tax man came out to the farm to see for himself, he > would often round down. > > But I doubt that any of this kind of thing happened during former > times <g> Nah > > A. John Birkholz (G) I see your point, and I must not have been clear (What? Who? ME!?) The problem is, in several instances, the tax charged didn't cover all the reported assets (nemmind the unreported ones!). Tax rates extrapolated from other listings (where each was the SOLE charge) show the tithable to be a 10-shilling charge; each horse 3 shillings and each cattle 3 pennies. F'instance, if a man was charged one tithable, 24 horses, and 73 cattle tax should have been 5L, but was less than half that. Cheryl singhals@erols.com