Show FOSTER IS OPPOSED TO NO 2 constitutional I 1 no 2 as proposed by the last laal legit Legisla and to be voted an e n at the coming election elect provides to the eod end that the burden of taxation may mav be equit able upon all property the lofela ture tore is empei empowered red to divide all pro perty perry including moneys and credith as well as physical properly into classes clashes ind and to determine what class or classes of property properly 5 6 tail lall be sub hect to taxation and what property if any snail not be subject to taxation taxes shall be uniform upon all pro perty of the same eta class etc the same mine section I 1 of the Cons titu tion iron at the present time read mad thus all property in the state not ex empt u under let the laws of tire tile united states or under tins this constitution shall be taxed in proportion to its value to be ascertained as provided pro bled bv law the legislature shall po pio vide by law a uniform and equal rate ot or assessment and taxation on all property in the state according to lalu its value in miney and shall pre enbody cube by ih liw such reg as hhall hall secure a lost valuation for tax aton atoa of all proper property tv etc the a bow bove recites the essential changes change made by the proposed amendment and the part of the constitution changed what motive prompted the logis legis lature to make tho this proposal does nut not ap apgear oear in the notice except as shown iq L the first few lines above but ho hoffa 9 a more equitable distribution of the bur burden denof 0 ta taxation kation will w lh result from this amendment I 1 fail to see it looks quite clear that it the legis lature attempts to classify all forem of 0 f property into classes which shall be uniformly taxed it will run into endless difficulty and the upshot of the whole affair will be anything but equitable suppose for instance that all farm lands are put in the same elms class and taxed the same per acre to ox 01 suppose they are divided in to different elates classes and the lands of each class taxed the tame same per acre how many classes of these lands bould old ve a have we all know that there them are no two farms in the of exacts exactly the same value slue per acre the next question arising sing is ib who tilde the classifying will vill it be local men or some one appoint appointed cd in S salt a it like L ike I 1 1 he classification of the property of the state atone would on en tall tail great expense and it ticks as if there have hae to be a reclassify ifil batum awry ever year if it was the intent of the laios lature to frame a law which would exempt homes flom taxation and it have the property producing ith carry the burden which I 1 under stand st ind was one of the chief biff purposes the he result alt would not net be equitable hoines mav mac produce as much wealth as mr an other form of property if the owner bes to rent salt lake has claimed for a long time that it is carr ing more the than its proportion ro portion tb ea rac without of the t tax a burden without going into a discussion of this matter fully 1 I will tam that their taxes are arc far lower than ours per dollar valuation atio it is III quite apparent that a great d dal 1 of the taxable property cities ties consists of homes so the net result of the amendment would be a saving to salt take italic and ogden which of course means BE an increased burden calls on the II farms E i toi k and business houses the tax problem is of course a hard one to adjust and at the pre sent ent c time 0 the method d of rising raising re venue vb v is inequitable but this amend it in auit I 1 it to me is going in from bad to worse so fir far as we vie etc are LOR an ierard I 1 bell believe that a tire pro properly per perl I 1 abed income tax will 11 come far nearer to solving the tax problem ill than this proposed amendment J M fi ste don deal 1 t liml 0 oui ill political III inel cal pi ill maru marne |