Show T I DRAWS V DISTINCTION 1 1 4 A A. distinction must be drawn be between between between be- be tween the projected plan of tax tx re revision revision re- re vision Islon recommended b by the commIssion commission com corn mission and the prop proposed s d constitutional constitutional const const- amendments which the commission ha has presented for your OUt consideration It 1 was necessary sar for forthe forthe forthe the commission to dOt determine upon sOme fait fair and basic system of taxation taxa taxa t tion n In lii lt order orde to haVe a a. consistent aim in its Is Work and while it has proposed constitutional amendments which will make possible th the en enactment of its Is cont contemplated tax plan piaT It should be bc borne in mind that these proposed amendments do da donot donot not limit future legislatures to tho the of revision ledom- ledom particular plan pIh o mended by b the commission n except bj in iii regard to administration The two fundamentals contained In tho the proposed constitutional amendments deal with 1 1 the classIfication classification class class- featon of or Intangible property for taxation purposes and 2 centralIzed centralized centralized central central- administration In addition to these two main points a n pro provision Islon Is ts made that nil all revenue le d derived rye from any income taxes which m may maybe y be bc enacted shall bo ho paid Into the state state- sato district school fund funil There Are some fomo other minor points point contained contained con con- in th these so proposals which appeared appeared ap ap- ap- ap de desirable to the commission feared but which do not directly cly affect ared tho the main Issues issue Involved 1 Experience in various states stales over overa a long period perlo of or years has hs demonstrate demon demon- strate th the Impossibility of ot taxing Intangible property In tho same sahle manner and at the s same saniO ni rates tates as tangible prop property properly rt is taxed Consequently Conse Conse- tho the separation oC of tn tangible property properly front i Intangible property Is a fundamental necessity regardless regard regard- less of oC the enactment of or tho the contemplated contemplated con con- t tAx x revision rc plan Indeed not a single le step te toward Intelligent tax reform can be taken until tho the rule of or uniformity Is g abolished Tho TIm necessity for fo adequate central cen cen- hal supervision ot Of C a ii st stute te tax tux system ys- ys t tern tem m has been shown n again and again throughout th the United States Slates and those states staled which havo the most successful administrative systems SYI- SYI ferns invariably have a a centralized authority with wih resources resource nail and power lower to supervise tho the entire entre tax lax system Tho objection may be he raised In I Isomo some somo quarters that the proposed Centralization of oC tax tax control in a r state tax commission is c of the principle o of local self govern sel go ment The elementary principles bf Of political science do not sustain this objection for tho the power to levy taxes Inheres only In tho the so sovereign Tho The state I Is sovereign and its Is sub subdivisions alb alb- tib- tib dl divisions have vC h no taxing powers ex except EXcept cx- cx EX- EX granted such uch as are expressly to them by hy the thc state pursuant to article XIII XII section 5 5 of oC the constitution Consequent Consequently there can bo ho bono bono hono no such thing as the state encroach encroach- In lag Ing upon the lie rights th of or Its is of or t taxation A In matters maters |