OCR Text |
Show endment was adopted by the voters at the general election in l'J20. The elfect of this was to remove the constitutional con-stitutional limit on state levy for district dist-rict school purposes, and see what followed. ' Prior to that time the state levy for all purposes could not exceed five mills. This amendment which was made operative through an act of the 1(121 legislature authorized a state levy eual to ?25 fur each person of school age. The elfect of this was to increase enormously the state tax levy, which jumped to six and nine-tenths in 1921, and to seven and one-tenth mills in 1922, and increase of almost fifty per cent in the short period of two years. The people were promised that with the adoption of this amendment and a law enacted to limit school levies for district purposes, the effect would be a re-distribution or the tax burdens, bur-dens, but under no circumstances an increase. This promise, was not kept and there is no limit on the local levy for district purposes, and the consequences consequen-ces is taxes are mounting higher and higher. The promise of redistribution redistribu-tion of taxation is again made by advocates ad-vocates of state income taxation. The increased school revenues are going into elaborate and palatial school buildings more than into teachers' salaries or to furnish better bet-ter instruction for the children of the state. STATE TAXATION INCREASED The people of Utah are learniig that they should proceed slowly in enacting en-acting proposed new legislation affecting af-fecting taxation, as the net result is usually a new hoist in the tax rates, and once up they are slow to come down. For instance, a constitutional am- |