OCR Text |
Show UNFAIR TO TAXPAYERS When large industries can be attacked in no other way an agitation is started for public ownership. Seldom if ever are the facts most vital to the public discussed. The one argument above all others today to-day against public ownership is the lost tax revenue resulting to the community involved. Particularly is this true in the case of public utilities. San Francisco offers of-fers a perfect illustration. It has two street car systems, one municipal, one private. pri-vate. The private line pays nearly five ie cent of its gross income as taxes besides be-sides maintaining various public obligations. obliga-tions. The city lme pavs no taxes and assumes as-sumes none of the obligations of a private pri-vate company for the benefit of the com-iity. com-iity. Both lines charge the same fare Hence the San Francisco taxpayers are being robbed annually of hundreds of thousnds of dollars tax money by the municipal line or they are naying a much higher street car fare than they should. Not once in a hundred times is municipal ownership fair to the taxpayer or com-eting com-eting inudstries and the general public always pays the loss whether it be to the private or municipal plant. But the hundredth time may bring a worthy case, and it is often that the exception ex-ception proves the rule. In Utah it is claimed that there is a cement rush, and indications are that this trust is riding a fancy steed. If the belieivers in public ownership would get busy and promote an, interstate inter-state cement plant, built primarily to furnish fur-nish cement for the public roads municipal munici-pal ownership might prove a worthy benefactor. ben-efactor. If Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho and Wyoming would unite in a venture of this kind indications are that under successful suc-cessful oieration large sums could be saved to the taxpayers. |