OCR Text |
Show TAXATION Continued from Page One the State Legislature, to raise the multiple to four, five or six times the net annual proceeds. Governor Govern-or Dern and Mr. Gardner are both fully aware of this. During the 1930 special session of the Legislature Legis-lature for example, it was seriously serious-ly considered by a member of the Senate that the multiple should he raised to forty five, and in the January 19.'10 issue of the Utah Educational Review the contention conten-tion is made that mines should be assessed at a multiple of sixteen six-teen times their net annual proceeds. pro-ceeds. Such has been the experience experi-ence of property without constitutional consti-tutional protection, not becau.se the mines are under assessed, as it is generally acknowledged that mining property assessed at three times the net proceeds is assessed at approximately 100 per cent of its actual value, while other property pro-perty throughout the State, generally, gen-erally, is assessed at 50 per cent of its value. The mines asked for constitutional constitu-tional protection in the 1930 session ses-sion of the Legislature, but they received only a compromise provision, pro-vision, (Amendment No. 4), that ;hcre would be no ehange until 191(5, and then the fight would be on again. The result of the proposed amendments would be that every other industry and all income producing pro-ducing property will be confronted confront-ed with the same difficulties and the same problems that have been met by the mines, who have no constitutional protection.' A State Legislature can only be trusted to follow the line of least resistance, and their actions will be guided by political expediency. expe-diency. When the demand for more money comes, and it will surely come from this department or the other when it is so easily available, that class of property or that industry least able to defend de-fend itself will become the legitimate legiti-mate prey of the Legislature in search for additional revenue and will find itself carrying the heaviest heav-iest part of the tax burden. The provision for a state tax commission, .Amendment No. 5), is another example of compromised compro-mised legislation that came out of the last session, and is in fact but an idle gesture. The only way in which such a commission can really be effective Would be to entirely en-tirely eliminate the county taxing unit and to vest a state commission commis-sion with complete power of tax administration. Such a procedure might be very desirable from an economic point of view, as it would save the taxpayers many dundred thousand dollars annunl-ly, annunl-ly, but apparently such a drastic step was not desirable from a political po-litical point of view, for, although it was a specific recommendation of the Tax Revision Commission, 3 it met with vigorous opposition from every countyco mmission in the State, and the result was a compromise that means nothing and isn't worth a second thought. In this entire discussion no one has pointed out definitely where any class of property will be benefitted ben-efitted in the way of tax reductions reduc-tions by the proposed amendments. amend-ments. On the contrary, it has been quite definitely pointed out by the opposiJion that the amendments amend-ments will result in higher taxes on income producing property and additional taxes on wages and salaries, that may be readily reached by reference to payrolls. Now if it is necessary that the State shall have additional revenue, reve-nue, let us be frank about it, give he people the exact facts and in the formulation of tax legislation for such additional revenue let us have adequate constitutional protection pro-tection against exorbiant increas- Ies, and above all let us not levy additional taxes on wages for labor. |