OCR Text |
Show MOREEN ANSWERS TAX AMENDMENT PROPONENTS By J. A. Xordan Governor George H. Deru, in his article in the Salt lake Tribune Trib-une of October UGtli, urging adoption adop-tion of the proposed tax amendments, amend-ments, concludes with the most t startling s.atemcnt : ' - "The. owner of tangible proper--ty certainly ought to be willing to lake a chance, he can't lose and he may. win." Such a statement is surprising fo say the least, yet it HeemVtlu wd up the plea of the proponents propon-ents of these measures and it indicates in-dicates that they either do not have any definite idea of what . : he rcHiilt of these proposed a- mendnients will be for they are knowingly misleading us. How can the owner of tangible property whit All of the income, ill of the intangible wealth on which the new taxes are to be lev-;ed lev-;ed are.to be derived from tangi- . ble property. How, may we ask, s tangible property going to ben- efit if in addition to a property iax it must also pay excise tax ir income tax and a tax on all of he papers, stocks, bonds and -- nortgageg issued against it T Pnngibie-property must pay all- if this inevitably, and it cannot , wssibly hope to win it must ' lose. These proposed amendments . ire not based upon definite well ' considered plan of equalization .' i hey were brot forth in the closing clos-ing hours of the extra session of ' 'he last Legislature after a most . 'iresome wrangle, and as a series if compromises, the product of vicious political log-rolling, and , ihey are obviously designed as an effort to add to the revenues of the State from any source that may be reached. The Legislature could not agree on any definite source for such increased revenue, but they ingeniously left the ga'es wide open so that they could tnp whatever pool might -appear most lucrative. lit is pleaded by Governor Deru and Mr. Hamilton Gardner .Salt Lake Tribune October 26th) . that we shall' not, hamper the Legislature in measures for tax ' legislation by constitutional ' re- ' strietions.. ' Governor -Dcrn says that we need a gosped';f. courage' cour-age' , and with this we certainly agree. We not only need effwf ag? ' but " we need blind faith. Mr. Gardner states that Mr. W. W. Ray was incorrect in . stating .Salt Lake Tribune October 19) 1 that constitutional protection was eliminated in these amendments, ; and Mr. Gardner proceeds to ' show that constitutional limitations limita-tions affecting tangible property retained. - Let us not lose sight of the fact that the proposed tax on so called " ' intangibles constitutional protection protec-tion here tangible property would , be wide open to the tender mercy of any legislature. Mr. Ray, in his most careful analysis of this situation, sit-uation, was absolutely correct. Mr. Gardner says further on this point, that "the best test of the j future is to judge by the actions of the" past legislatures". This may be a fair test, so let us go back to see what has happened. The only property in Utah that is not protected by constitution- 'al limitations at the present time n mining property. Both G-overn- -or Dern and Mr. Gardner referred referr-ed to this as an example proper-' ty that is not protected and which has not suffered because of the lack of such constitution protection. pro-tection. What are the fact' with reference to this particular class , ( f property! For several years prior to 1919 an effort was made to reorganize the taxes of the State. At that time the mines were assessed at a multiple of one times the net pro- ' cceds, and all tangible property, generally throughout the State, i was assessed at one-third of its actual value, ti was deemed advisable ad-visable to increase the assessed i value of all property to full cash vlue. The mines were consulted on this proposition and after a thoro study of the problem they ' agreed to the application of : a ; multiple of three times the net proceeds, in other words they 'agreed to triple their valuation, provided the assessed value of all other property would actually be inncreascd to a full 100 per cent' . valuation, r-j an agreement to this effeetas entered into and signed by representatives of both the mines and the Utah State Legislature. It later developed -that the multiple of three whs ; applied to the assessment of mines, but the provision to increase in-crease the assessed value, of all property to 100 per cent- was never nev-er complied with. , . ., The vulnerable position, of mining property without constitutional consti-tutional protection has resulted ' in" the waging of an. almost per- " "'-""" . petual ffort,. both in and out of ' ' f.tinj'd on Page Four . - -. v f-j . .-. |