Show I 1 1 r ll Soak The Rich 4 v Income Tax Law LawI I Soaks The Poor V- V m v Salt Balt Lake City Utah Jan 20 MA UT UP State legislators k who In 1933 1935 advocated and finally p passed assed revised Income tax lax measures as a d c. c soak the rich measure got a an n unpleasant Jolt from an otherwise ise ti t 1 K altogether pleasant tax taz report subI sub- sub I Ii milted milled to Governor Blood by the then n- n State Tax Commission lit t While the reports report's ointment r slowed showed Income tax lax returns upped a j. j more than double 1 1935 35 returns 4 It i. i 1 contained a rather large fly in the thes 1 s statistical fact tact that the measure A not only soaked the rich to an 01 extent but soaked the lower lower-In-j i come-bracket come citizens to the tune of percent as well I Tip The repent snowed showed lax Income ax I I receipts during the fiscal 3 liar tar 1936 r. r totaled as compared to I l fj for tor the same pet period fn n n I t- t 1933 1935 Higher rates lower exemptions I dons were cn credited with more 1 than making UD up for tor a revenue t ji t loss Incurred by repeal of the tha the r 1 Z l. former fl 1 1 filing fee fre It However a table comparing I rates rales of taxation In 1936 with other n A 1 years yeata contained the joker ii It Indicated that in 1931 with witha a rate of t f Hi per cent taxpayers I t ers era paid a total of ot 1250 1250 for their thE J n second thousand dollars of yearly year year- g I ly 11 Income while under the 1936 act with a 2 percent rate taxi taxpayers tax tax- i i payers paid a total of 20 on the th themo same name mo amount jIn In 1931 the tax lax pa r p paid ld 15 15 on his third thousand thou thou- 1 Iti- Iti sand in 1936 1938 he paid 30 I Out But here was 1 the fly on his hise e ninth thousand dollars of yearly J I i r r Income he lie paid 40 0 In 1931 1031 and I f only 50 in 1936 1930 I I I I k S 60 fIo o that taxpayers in lower j brackets saw their taxes tues increase to between bet and 30 yearly while there thore In upper brackets bracke saw I I their taxes faxes increased b b 10 10 or less i nut But commission I I didn't didI did did- I I nt nb n halt there Supposing they figured fig fir I that the man paid pro pro 1 I f pert petty perty taxes tues on worth of pro pro 1 1 I I perty petty In 1931 1031 he paid with hi hit InCome In In- I t Come tax and deductions a net E total of In 1936 1038 he ht paid 3 I f for r the same iame same property property property-an an increase S of ot ISO percent increase On the other hand if H the 1 year man paid property taxes I and others In proportion to his contemporary his hla net tax bill but billin in 1 1931 was feria s 17 11 In 1935 1933 the same a amount n cost him 69 68 1 more or oran oran an increase of percent I I Commissioners made no recommendations recommEnd mEnd ai s to remedies I |