OCR Text |
Show A TAX BOOST EXTEAORDINARY. There is pondinc in the Utah State Senate a bill which can be described properly only as tho biggest tax booster boost-er that has cvor been Introduced into the Legislature of this Stato. The bill is understood to bo the lax commission bill. It was introduced by Senator Bonner X. Smith on Januaiy 27th and referred to a special .-joint committee of six, three from oach houso, Wc refer to Senate bill No. 01. This bill makes tho Stato Board of Equalization tho most drastic, the most powerful, the most far.roaching, the most searching engine of tax oppression that was ever introduced into a State Legislature. Thoro seems to bo hardly anj- limit to tho powers conferred upon the Stale Board of .Equalization in this bill, and hardly a limit to the extent to which that Board may go in searching search-ing for property on which taxes may be cxac.lod. It is inquisitorial to an oxtremo degree, and under it the State Board would necessarily cost tho taxpayers tax-payers of this State enormously more than it does at present. That Board nndor this bill would have tho power practically to supersede the work done by tho county assosBors, to raise assessments in general and in particular, and to require statements, examinations, nnd make searching Inquiries In-quiries into property of all kinds without with-out limit and without tho leaBt regard for the work whioh is dono by the county coun-ty assessors, and invasive of tho personal per-sonal rights of tho taxpayer in most ex-asperating ex-asperating degree. On this particular branch of tho bill wo rofer to page 00,-subdivislon 00,-subdivislon 10 of section 251. It is provided pro-vided in that subdivision that the State Board of Equalization is empowerod "to do and perform ovcry act and thing necessary to a complelo supervision of taxation matters in this State, including includ-ing tho power to order a reassessment of any individual assessment in any county, and any such reassessment or any original assessment mado on the order of tho State Board shall be legal and of the same force and effect as if made in tho regular course of procedure for assessment." This, as we are informed, is in direct di-rect violation of tho Constitution as declared de-clared a number of years ago by the State Supreme Court in the case of Salt Lako county ngainst tho State Board. It is clear that if such a provision pro-vision as this should bo enactod and held to be constitutional, there would bo no need of any county assessors, for the State Board would have tho authority au-thority to do it all. The county assessors as-sessors would be moroly at the order or mercy of the State Board, having no power or authority except as the Stato Board allowed. Tho provisions in regard to appeals to courts as carried throughout this bill are dosignod and expressed to deprive de-prive courts of jurisdiction and tax-paj'ers tax-paj'ers of their remedies at' law. This purpose creeps out constantly throughout through-out the bill, and there aro classifications, classifica-tions, as on page 61, section 172, whero there is a special classification made and noted on enforcing the collection of taxes on any levy amounting to $300 or more. The provisions for the taxing of mines aro exceedingly searching, and they involve double taxation, as wo pointed out in. our objection to the tax commission report last fall; they disallow dis-allow all credits on account of development devel-opment work, levying on the credits and not allowing the debits. Tho mines aro taxed on everything in sight and they are required besides to pay taxes on their not profits, this being double taxation. The mining interests of this Stato, for their own preservation, must necessarily rally in opposition to this bill. There seems to bo an idea in the minds of those who drew this bill that tho mines aro fair game for any sort of duplicato or exorbitant, taxation that may be proposed. The only protection that tho mining mon of tho Stato can provide for themselves is to fight this bill to its defeat. Tho attempt to enact en-act this sort of legislation after tho people have defeated tho Constitutional amendment upon which it Vas supposed to rest, must be classed as wholly unjustifiable. unjus-tifiable. The tax on transient herds as laid down in this bill would require the presence pres-ence of an army of clerks to keep track of tho movements of tho hundreds hun-dreds of herds of sheop in this Stato, for their location as to the different counties must bo reported constantly and a record kopfc of how long a time the different herds graze In one county or another. The effort in that particular, particu-lar, as In so many others evidenced in the bill, is clearly to crento a hugo bureau bu-reau which would omploy largo numbers num-bers of clerks and bo an engine of oppression op-pression upon tho taxpayers of this State, unprecedented in any Stato in the Union. And what is this Board of Equalization, Equaliza-tion, and how is it made np? Rcforring to page 85 of the bill, section 246, we learn that this autocratic and inquisitorial inquisi-torial board of unlimited power is to "consist of three residents of tho State-of State-of Utah, not mon than two of whom shall bolong to the same political party, and shal bo nominated by the Govornor and confirmed by tho Scuato, and shall each hold office for a term of bIx years," tho adjustment to be gradually grad-ually mado so that when tho bill is in full operation each member will hold for six years, but somo torms to bo shorter until that adjustment is made. Tho salary of each member is to be $3600 u year, and the board shall havo a secretary to bo paid $1500 a year in addition to tho $300 annually allowed to tho secretary for tho collection of tax. from oar companies. Tho secretary, secre-tary, therefore, would havo half tho Balary of each of tho throo members of tho Board; but as a mattor of fact, ho fhould have double the salary if any difference is made, sinco he would- bo the one upon whom the Chief labor would rost. But tho main point is thai the Board would by this bill bo made a partisan board, two Republicans and ono Democrat. Demo-crat. As it is ngw tho Board is nonpartisan, non-partisan, beiug equally divided betwoou the parties, two of oach. the Board being be-ing composed of four members; and nonpartisan such a board should always bo. It is clear that a body of such enormous enor-mous ongiuery nnd tremendous power ns the Board of Equalization would bo ag created and defined in this bill should be, composed of a groator number num-ber than throe members, and it should never bo partisan as it would bo in this bill. Thoro should bo representation iu it from all over tho Stato in order to secure justice. As it is now, the Board of Equalization is practically a Salt Lako board exclusively, and is objectionable ob-jectionable on that score, for tho taxpayers tax-payers throughout tlio Stato are entitled en-titled to fair representation on a board such as this. The concentration of power pow-er in one localit3 and 'Iu the hands, of a few men always leads to abuses, and this bill is drawn with peculiar fitness for such concentration and abuse. But the final, the overwhelming, objection ob-jection to this bill is that it ombrnoes, for tho most part, those provisions of tlio tax commission report mado last fall which were intended to bo put in effect in case the Constitutional amendments amend-ments which woro roliod upon by tho tax commission as a foundation for tho recommendations mado, had been adoptod; but tho pcoplo of this Stato, scenting the danger of adopting those amendments, and fearing the increased taxation that was expected to result therefrom, overwholmingly defeated thorn. In defoating those amondmonts which were drawn up -by the tax commission, com-mission, and woro in effect part of their report, the people expressed in no uncertain torms their disapproval of tho wholo scheme embodied in the commission's programmo, of which this bill is plainly a revival. We conclude, therefore, that the people peo-ple of this State having so emphatically expressed their disapproval of the work of the tax commission as embodied in thoso amendments, and those amendments amend-ments having failed, it would be an imposition im-position upon tho pooplo on the part of tho Legislature to tako up a bill like this and onact it in the faco of tho popular disapnroval of the tax commission commis-sion amendments as so emphatically expressed. ex-pressed. We earnestly commend this whole subject to tho attention of tho Legislature, Legis-lature, confident that when the fiold is looked ovor fairty- and ' squaroly, tho Legislature will seo its plain dutr in tho emphatic defeat of this wholo proposition. |