OCR Text |
Show Prop 2 dangerous tax proposal In preparation for next month's general election, the Iron County Record is beginning a series of columns on important constitutional revisions and initiatives to appear on the ballot. This week, Earl A. Hanson, secretary of the Cedar City chapter of Utahns for Tax Reform, speaks in opposition of Proposition No. 2, which calls for limitations on property taxation. by EARL A. HANSON Two issues on the Nov. 4 ballot, if approved, would haye an enormous affect on the erosion of the Utah property tax. Proposition B is sheer non-sense and is receiving the editorial criticism and organization opposition that ' it deserves. Pronosition No 2 government costs and that percent is lowered .. whenever states adopt proposals like Proposition No. 2 and Proposition B. In the limited explanations that have been made about Proposition No. 2, much has been said about the option the Legislature would have to exempt primary residences from the property tax. Such exemptions could be total. It is obvious that the burden on business and the burden on non-primary residences and apartments would very substantially increase. To provide that the Legislature may reimburse cities, I counties and school districts for any revenue losses is not realistic when the state general fund does not have a surplus. Even if there would be state surpluses the procedure would be costly and subject to much criticism. No estimates have been provided to show what it would cost to administer such a classified property tax. County assessors should have some input when tax laws are writen to avoid provisions that would make the efficient function of their duties virtually impossible. Of major concern should be the new exemptions that would be mandated by the amendment. The constitution now exempts lots and buildings used exclusively ex-clusively for religious worship or charitable purposes. In the proposed amendment the exemption would apply to non-profit entities used for religious', charitable, hospital, i fiducatlortar, employee representation or welfare purposes. While Utah considers such broad new exemptions, others are looking into the merits of their removal. Wisconsin legislators have been told that the removal of exemptions in the state would result in a 25 percent reduction in property tax rates. The property tax is an important source of revenue for cities, counties and school districts. Revision amendments amend-ments should be prepared with great care and with broad citizen input. Several desirable provisions are contained in the 1980 proposal which should be retained in a 1982 proposal. If voters are well informed about Propositions 2 and B, these issues should be defeated Nov. 4. There ; j should be no "delay in a new program of . , I study and research that will produce the right tax amendment two years j from now. I however, even at this late date has been met with apathy. This is most unfortunate un-fortunate because it is an amendment to Article XIII of the Utah Constitution. Nothing less than it's full publication by the media will assure the kind of consideration con-sideration that is needed for an in-, telligent vote. The present tax article, with its many amendments, is not lucid. The 1980 amendment detracts from, rather than adds to its clarity. Voters in 1982 should be , given the opportunity to approve an amendement that is easily un- derstood and that will meet the needs of the present day. The sunset philosophy should be applied to provisions that are no longer desirable. The long needed reform of phasing out the tax on improvements im-provements and personal property, while increasing the land value tax should be provided. This has been the advise of land economists for many years. When such a proposal was made by Henry George 100 years ago, the tax on land was actually meeting nearly half of the cost of all of our government-local, government-local, state and national. Today the land tax is barely meeting 2 percent of |