OCR Text |
Show Communication Editor The Pyramid, Mount Pleasant, Utah. Dear Sir: Arguments for and against the adoption of the proposed tax amendments amend-ments to the constitution of the State of Utah have been published in the press. It is to be regretted that much misrepresentation of fact has appeared. The motives of taxing officials of-ficials in their recommendations have been assailed and appeal has been made to the prejudices of the people, and not to their judgment and reason. rea-son. While at present T am not a state official, it was my duty some four years ago, as a member of the State Board of Tax Commissioners to study and investigate the tax laws of this state, make comparison with the laws of other states, and recommend to the Legislature the necessary changes in our laws so that the tax burden of the state should be more equitably distributed. The recommendations which the State Tax Commissioners made four years ago were essentially the same, so far as the changes in the Constitution Consti-tution are concerned, as those passed by more than two-thirds of the last Legislature and signed by Governor William Spry. That there are real and honest objections to these recommendations recom-mendations no one denies, but when I saw that a large sum of money was being expended by the Utah Chapter American Mining Congress to defeat this amendment, and when I further saw that nowhere in their literature, or that no newspapei, 3X-;epr The Pyramid, which was defending the position they took, told the people frankly and honestly that tlu dcTea' of this amendment would sav-3 them in taxes from one-half million to a million dollars each year, I felt that the public should know this, and that, because of my former position as an official of the State, this duty rested upon me. The following facts I hope the newspapers of the State of Utah will publish, and a copy of these facts will be sent to every newspaper of the State, with a request that they be published with or without any credit given to me. First The State Board of Equalization, Equal-ization, which is a non-partisan body, composed of two Democrats and two Republicans, did not pass this amendment. It was passed by more than a two-thirds majority of the last Legislature and signed by the Governor. It is their duty, under the law, to recommend to the Legislature Leg-islature necessary changes in the constitution and law as affecting taxation. tax-ation. Second This proposed amendment amend-ment does not increase their power nor their salaries. However, if this amendment is adopted, the Legislature Legisla-ture could give the State Board one additional power, and one additional power only, as follows: The Board could be given the power to raise or lower the assessed value of the property prop-erty of an individual tax payer within with-in the county, while at present they can only raise or lower the assessed value of classes of property between counties. The State Tax Commissioners Commis-sioners recommended that this power pow-er be given to the Board of Equalization. Equali-zation. The powers and salary and the number of the members and the length of office of this Board is fixed by the Legislature and not by the Constitution. Third The proposed tax amendment amend-ment does not change or affect in any way the maximum tax levies or the appropriation powers of the Legislature. Leg-islature. All these limitations in the Constitution are contained in the amendment. There is no citizen so dense to his rights as to recommend any such change in the Constitution. Fourth This amendment does strike from the Constitution the provision pro-vision that all property in the state be taxed in proportion to its value and substitutes therefor a provision that all taxes must be uniform upon classes of property. Honest objoc-tion objoc-tion can and should be raised to this change. It gives to the Legislature the power to tax one class of property prop-erty at a higher rate than another class, but, as the Constitution puts a limit upon the tax levy, no class of property could be increased in taxes more than six-tenths of a mill for state purposes. About one-half of the states of the Union have this provision pro-vision in their Constitutions, and it is used in order to put a low rate of atxes on the homes of the citizens which is non-prod'iicing property, and also a low rate on money, credits, bonds, securities, etc. It is just as unjust to overtax the home owner by putting the same rate on his home, as upon producing property as it is to put as high a rate on money, credits, i notes, etc., of the rich man, as unon jollier classes of property which : should pay more. Under our prefenl ! constitution and the laws that follow it, the home owner has been taxed on ' all his property and practically none of the above described property of the rich man has been taxed. Under our present Constitution no reduction reduc-tion can be made in favor of the owner of the small home. The opponents of this recommendation recommen-dation of the National Tax Association Associa-tion which is designed to meet these two evils in our present Constitution, Constitu-tion, should now propose a better ', method. . i Fifth The specific guarantee of the constitMtion that the stock of a corporation in the hands of the owner own-er shall not be taxed providing the physical property of that corpora- Hon has been taxed, is omitted in the amendment. This- provision could well have been retained in the amendment for, so far as I am aware, no law has yet been passed in the United States so absolutely unjust and unfair as to thus tax property , twice. Double taxation is void under the constitution of the United Stales and under our constitution. There ; is possibility, however; of the Legis- iature passing such an unjust law, but the courts would declare is 'unconstitutional 'un-constitutional is the judgment of those whom I have consulted, j Sixth This amendment provides : that mines must be assessed on the 1 price paid the Government for their lands and on their machinery and improvements, and on producing mines an additional amount not to . exceed three times their net pro-' pro-' ceeds. Were the mines of the State of Utah taxed this year on three times their net proceeds, including their other values set out above, the entire assessed value of all the mines of this state would be $75,000,-000.00. $75,000,-000.00. The market price of the Utah Copper Mine alone today is $175,000,000.00. The argument that the value of a mine is only about one and one-half times its net proceeds, pro-ceeds, which is the basis of the assessment as-sessment of the mines this year, seems so void of good reason that it requires no answer. All property in the State unless exempt, excel.' mines, is repaired by tho Constitution Constitu-tion ard the law to be assessed at it' fuU cash value, not at one and one-halMimes one-halMimes its net proceeds. Tax of ficials do not ask you what you' home will rent for, then deduct the necessary cost of maintenance during dur-ing the year and upon the small sum that remains multiply it hy ono and one-half times to find the value of your home upon which you are tr pay taxes. Mines have not paid their true proportion of taxes in the past Producing mines have paid, however more fully the amount subscribed our Constitution than any other clasr of property but still have not pal'' but a small fraction of their vnlue With this reduction of nearly two thirds which they obtained by thr reduction of levies, their burden c taxes becomes so small, as compare'' with other property in the State ths to continue such an inequality woul-' he an outrage upon justice. No enr desires to overtax the mine'5. It i'. very difficult to determine the valur of a mine, but a mine, as other producing pro-ducing property, should pay in proportion pro-portion to its value. The prospec and the non-producing mine shoulc' be practically exempt of any taxation Let the people vote according it their judgment, but let the facts br known so that as soon as possible anr' in the beet way possible, let ua give to the home owner some reduction lr his taxes, and let all property pay ir such a way as will be as nearly jus' and fair as possible. , FRANCIS W. KIRKHAM, Formerly Secretary of the Stat-Board Stat-Board of Commissioners on Revenue Reve-nue and Taxation. |