OCR Text |
Show GOVERNOR EXPLAINS HIS POSITION ON MINES AMENDMENT Editor, Salt Lake Tribune: In View of the open clicussion of the proposed mine tax amendment in the columns of the press of the state, t am impelled to offer an explanation of my position In the matter. As a citizen of Utah, a taxpayer interested in-terested in real estate, in various industrial indus-trial enterprises and in mines, I want to know how the mine tax amendment affects af-fects the welfare of the bona fide resident resi-dent taxpayers of the state. To come down to real facts, not one of all the arguments against the amendment amend-ment contains an open declaration that mines producing net proceeds are paying pay-ing their just proportion of taxes. Before the tax law enacted by the 1915 . legislature went Into effect metal mines were taxed on land holdings at the actual purchase price paid to the government, which means five dollars an acre'; on improvements, and on net proceeds, or profits. All other property, such as farms, factories, stores, banks, homes, etc., were assessed, at 10 per cent of their valuation. Under this system there was no complaint that mines were unjustly un-justly taxed. Basis for Taxing. Every taxpayer will remember that the 1915 law raised the assessed valuation on property other than mines from 40 per cent to full valuation of 100 per cent; it did not affect mines only in so far as improvements wene concerned. No change was made in taxing net proceeds of mines; this was fixed by the constitution. consti-tution. In 1915 the tax levy in Salt Lake county coun-ty was 30.7 mills; last year it ws 12.1 mills. Allowing for the normal increase in value of your property, Mr. Home Owner, Mr. Farmer and Mr. Business Man, you are paying the same taxes as you did when mines made no complaint that they were unjustly taxed. The basis ba-sis for taxing metal mines is practically the same now as it was in 1915, but they enjoy the same low levy as you. In other words, mines are paying about 40 per cent of what they should pay to be on, the same basis with you, as they were prior to 3915. Because the mines have not paid their full share of the taxes, the tax levy has been kept around the maximum, for whatever what-ever share the mines fail to pay other taxpayers must pay. Special Privileges. Representatives of mining interests say that mines have paid more in taxes during the past two or three years than ever before. So they have. But no mention is made of the fact that the net profits of mines during the same period were the greatest in the history of the industry profits many times greater than the .ratio of the increase In tax payments. pay-ments. I ask you what home owner, . farmer, manufacturer, merchant, banker or .property .prop-erty holder would not rather pay taxes on net proceeds or profits than to pay on 100 per cent valuation? But this cannot be done. The constitution gives this special privilege to mines alone. If a mine is not productive of profit It is taxed only on its land holdings on a valuation of the actual purchase price paid to the government, and on .improvements .improve-ments at assessed value. The amendment amend-ment under consideration provides no change in this respect. The amendment only enables the state to collect its fair share of profits produced pro-duced by mines. The purpose of -thc amendment is to restore the tax equation equa-tion to where it was prior to the enactment enact-ment of the 1915 law. Furthermore, It is intended to equalize taxation as it relates re-lates to non-residents of the state, who are realizing immense profits from Utah mines and who do not contribute a just proportion toward the maintenance of the commonwealth which protects their Interests. Will Vote "Yes." Taxpayers and citizens of Utah, should we not demand for our state what the citizens of other states collect from theirs? viz., that those interests reaping reap-ing the largest profits from property within their states pay their just share toward the maintenance of the commonwealth common-wealth in which the profits are made? Because of these reasons, I vote yes on the amendment. As governor of the state I feel it my duty to allay the fears of some of the opponents of the amendments who seem imbued with the idea that the state administration ad-ministration intends to deal unjustly with the mines. I plan to recommend to the 1919 legislature that the Amendment Amend-ment be made operative to the end that metalliferous mines be taxed on the basis ba-sis of not to exceed three times the net proceeds, or profits, plus land holdings on the .valuation of the actual purchase price paid to the government, and the improvements. Tours very 1 ruly. SIMON BAMBERGER, Governor. |