| Show tt tah h Direct Tax Cost During 1935 Over 12 Millions This Huge Sum Covered Only 40 t. t Per Cent of Bill to Citizens for forState's States State's Spending Spree 11 i By JENNiNGS JENNINGS PHILLIPS 1 The state o of Utah levied a direct t tax bill o of its citizens last year to finance a large part of the most r avish vish ish governmental spending spree since statehood I This huge bill paid per cent of the ex- ex I ex-I I ded for state purposes alone in 1935 l t Actually paid consid considerably more since the state indirectly an additional in special fees te terest est on loans and end investments and in other revenue The Hate also received in federal aid to which its cit- cit ns contributed materially in federal income and other taxes r f REP REPRESENTS ONLY SMALL S1 AMOUNT Al J The bill therefore represents only the aunt assessed through direct taxes including property and ecial I levies It covers the amount levied by direct taxation for tare aie tat purposes and nd does not include local taxes for city county nd school district government P This item would have been sufficient to tc instruct four exact duplicates of Utah's beautiful capitol build- build g with enough left over to build sumptuous 3 OO homes for 00 of the states state's citizens It exceeded the value of all gold and silver produced inah in rah ah during the preceding year by more than 4 It would have paid for construction of the proposed Deerr Deer freek r ek and Utah lake reclamation projects leaving enough to toi i d the Great Salt lake project with something to pare hare f PER CAPITA CHARGE 2409 t In brief it represented a charge of 2409 for each of Utah's 5 OO residents an increase in the tax load oad of per cent the past decade in the face of a population growth of less than Oper per cent r Its magnitude perhaps can best be comprehended by com com- irison ison with the states state's tax bills for previous years and in a aTey Tey ey based on official reports of the state auditor The Tele- Tele am am Tuesday revie reviews s the tax trend of the past 10 years with is purpose in mind r Highlights of the survey show that f c BOOST OF The 1935 special and ancl property tax bill reflected a boost in inthe inthe inthe the state charge per capita of over the 1925 figure ligure of T The combined tax load of last year represented represent represent- t ed l an increase of or per cent over the corn com om- om bi NI ed burden of just JO 10 O years ago The special tax load of for 1935 was or per cent larger than the 1925 impost of 3 K The property tax assessment of for 1935 was only or per cen lower than the 1925 property charge of SPECIAL LEVIES INCREASED t The of ot in the coni combined tax fax assess assess- en f 1925 and 1935 is found entirely in the increased yield wf cf th the special levies whose enactment in several instances was meed o on oa the assurance that their revenue would be used to relieve property of its heavy burden 3 I. I Despite the the per cent increase in the special tax yield fa th the past decade property taxes in 1935 were approximately the same as in 1925 t TAX DEMANDS DEl EXPLAINED it If the states state's t tax x demands had been restricted to its lion tion t n growth of of less than 10 per cent in the past decade the 1935 bill would have been approximately instead of 12 l l' If the population increase had kept pace with the mounting I tax Ux load in the same period Utah would have residents Instead of The assessed valuation of taxable property in 1935 was compared the 1925 valuation of 1 a decrease of or 23 per cent I The valuation decrease has been more than offset by in increased in in- creased state levies the levy being 74 14 mills or per 1000 in valuation in 1925 and 95 mills or per 1000 in 1935 ROB PETER PAY PAUL PAULIn In other words the survey discloses Peter the individual with with- it t property has been leen robbed figuratively ely speaking to pay Paul IB e prop property owner But it is shown Paul PauI the supposed bene- bene ciary elary has not been paid II f As a matter of record taxes of ot both have been increased since ul ul also pays his share of the special taxes i The property owner also was saddled with an additional tax b by P he LC e imposition of the school equalization levy in 1932 Under this thi y richer school districts contribute to the support of the thc Ier units The levy was as designed to bring in 1 in 1932 for every school I ild d 2 2 in 1933 3 in 1934 and 4 in 1935 The property levy r Ir r F this purpose increased from 86 mill in 1932 to mills in ir 35 The c 1936 levy will be higher since 5 per capita of the school u abon must be raised Id t Not ot all of the increased out ut fl special tax load of course has come gout 1 or of through though boosting rates or by imposing new levies Nor was ii x r relief it el intended when added to the state tax program for property ti H on Ont the other ner hand from revenue of the levies special rt to u many reo re- re o the 7 te or of e general funeral fund and the state school funds and if the r r J to Peter policy were correct in their the Property tax bill should have been materially re-I re c ted d oy by y this rec re- re n fact The survey shows however that this has not accomplished heft ce Si 1925 new new- the h levies have been added to the states state's tax structure e survey reveals These are the individual income Iii Continued on Pago Two t Column Six Utah's Spending Spree e Cost Cod Over Last Year Continued from irom P Pa Fags K One tax sales tax beer ta tax o oleomargarine tax and le levies ies for regul regula regulation tion of public utilities and for motor vehicle control Three special taxes have been revised to bring in more revenue revenue rev rev- including th the gasoline tax tax corporation franchise tax and the motor transport levy Only one levy imposed by the state in 1925 has been aban aban- Special road taxes levied against property were discontinued discontinued discontinued discon discon- in 1934 Among the largest of the new levies is the 2 per cent sales tax lax which was enacted as an emergency relief measure in 1933 As originally passed the sales tax law Ilaw marked all revenue in excess excess ex ex- ex- ex cess of the estimated n necessary for the relief relie program for lor the thc dis district school fund to r reduce the tho property tax LEGISLATURE AMENDS lENDS LAW V The 1935 legislature however amended that law t to gua guarantee guarante antee schools from Crom sales tax revenue in excess of ot their full 25 per capita district school fund Cund and 5 per capita equalization fund The next of the surplus is given to the governor for use ashe as ashe ashe he sees fit and the balance if any then goes to the school fund to relieve the property tax Revenue from the sale of state taxed liquor after an ari adequate working capital has been set aside for the liquor commission is appropriated appropriated appropriated ap ap- ap- ap to the governor to balance the general fund budget and to match federal funds in programs for the betterment of social and economic conditions 0 of the state None of the revenue is isI I specifically marked ark d for relief of of the pr property perty tax TABLE SHOWS VS TREND The tables tables below reflects the property tax tax trend of ot the decade The assessed val valuation of all taxable property in Utah the mill levy and nd the a amount n of ot taxes charged are listed for tor each of the years from 1925 to 1935 1935 inclusive PROPERTY TAXES Year Assessed Val Mill Levy Taxes Charged 1925 74 1926 74 1927 u. u u. u 73 1928 73 73 1929 72 1930 73 1931 8 82 2 1932 I 1933 96 1934 10 1935 95 Valuation decrease decrease Levy increase 2 increase 21 1 mills or per 1000 o of ot assessed tion hon Following is a comparison of special taxes charged and the amounts collected by th the state for state purposes in 1926 and 1935 with a recapitulation showing the total state tax burden special and property and the increase In the pas past 10 years 1935 Tax 1926 Gasoline Motor l vehicle U Inheritance Insurance Corporation Motor l transport Roads Roads Fish and game Bounty cattle and agri IMp taxes Paid under protest all taxes Individual income Sales Sales Beer 22 Utilities Reff Reg Vehicle le control Totals Payment of f road taxes in arrears arrears none levied since 1933 k k RECAPITULATION i. i 4 J S 60 Sp Special i l tax burden for 1935 E Bv 1 Special tax burden for 1926 to S per cent increase S Prop Property tax load Joad for Cor 1926 Property tax load for 1935 I 1 S or per cent decrease Property Property lev levy however increased from 74 mills to 95 mills or 2837 per cent Combined tax load for 1935 Combined tax load for 1926 I r rS S or per cent increase se 1 Tax load per capita 1935 2409 Tax load per capita 1926 1702 Increase in 10 ye years 5 70 |
