The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1894-08-18
1T Is NOT POPULAR.
The Occupation Tax as Offensive
as It Ever Was.
TIE NATTER UNDER DISCUSSION

the POLES Department.
The occupation tax ordinance which is
now being considered by the Committee
on licenses of the city council. is causing
great deal Of talk in opposition TO it,
and the old fight will undoubtedly be
renewed when the ordinance comes up
for passage.
The committee has taken no decided
action farther than 10 agree that an &C.
cupatiOn tax would be recommended 10
the council
The city attorney has been given in
structIOns to draw up the ordnance,
placing the schedules Of various business
d they appear on tie rejected ordinance,
but 10 leave the amount OF the Tax blank.
The committee viii have a meeting
soon TO cons der the different items of
tax 10 be inserted, and this will be done
with a lead pencil 50 that the council
may take action upon the tax on each
separate occupation.
he cOmmltIes estimates that several
thousand dollars can he collected in this
way without any one feeling the burden.
he mem Oers say that with the License Or
dInance adopted a short time ago the
burden falls too heavily upon some
classes while others escape the tax en-
tirely.
Councilman Ettlinger said that twice
in the last ten years had an occupation
ordinance been submitted to the council
and had been defeated both times. He
would not express an opinion about the
probable success of the new ordinance.
The old occupation ordinance was con-
sidered by the council Of 1881 and after
a long discussion was passed r. L. Cof-
ran was then mayor and he vetoed the
ordinance and it was not again called UP.
It taxed grocery stores and dry goods
$50 annually; lumber yards $1JO; aud so
Oh.
Councilman Stephenson who is chair
mau Of the license committee says that
these provisions of the ordinance Of 1887
were all unreasonable and will be mate
rally reduced before the pending ordi-
nance is adopted ssWhy, auctIoneers
were taxed So under the old ordinance
aud most other things were prOpOrtIon-
ately unreasonable" said he
would Occu patton tax ordinance
be conStltu iOna.!" asked JOURNAL re-
pOr er of Councilman :. B. Bradford.
yes, il can be made So" he replied
at can be done by placing d tax on every
business of wha,ev nature. If, how
ever. tax was put upon grocery stures
and banks we're not taxed the ordinance
would not be constitutional; but if every
kind of business is reached the ordinance
will stand We do not propose 10 levy
heavy occupation tax. 1t Will be SO small
that it might be called merely nominal
1t seems to be the only way out for the
Councilman GrIggs said: Il dOn't like
ii. The men who own the property
ought to pay the tax. At the last meet
ing the council voted to reduce the levy
for the general improvement fund from
six to five mills, and the increased tax
would have fallen on those who own the
property. Now they propose to lax a
man on his business when everything in
his store has already been assessed for
taxation. II does not seem to me that the
tax is justified"
Mr. +. q. Noel SAYS: ssWe have enough
tax now and the people are not ready for
any more There is some prop
erty in Topeka which is already
taxed the full limit of per cent,
and now when they can not he
reuched any other way the council
proposes an occupation tax to increase
the burden. An occupation tax is never
a popular tax. 1t Is never equal tax
because IN OrIinHucs can not be made
which will tax firm according to the
business done, and the man VINO is IN tk-
ing barely enough 10 keep up expenses
on "A small business Will have 10 pay as
much lax the man VINO has an i'm
mense store and vino. does thousands Of
dollars Of business every N NTH"
Elk Councilman John Z lIott said: can
occupation tax is bad thing and should
never be ad 1pted If the city is behind
financially let then lake some other
means TO ecOnOm q. ILe council can
cut the salaries, aud that should be done
with he heads Of departments 1 think
with Councilman Ful.on mat those who
&c. mJre than 5 ,SOJ IA year should be
reduced 10 that sum. while The mayors
salary should be reduced 500, AMI IN
this way enough can be saved 10 make
up the deficit The council tried once TO
adopt an occupation Tx ordinance, and l
fOu. nj it then and would Ii gut 1t again
if 1 were IN me cJulciL There are
great many firms IN To- eka now who
are having all they can d. to keep up ex-
pe1ses aud an adI.tI1nal tax, however
small, would be OdlOus."
}. II. Dennis Of the Topeka Grocery
company: Il opposed TO Occupa-
tIon Tax. The business Lleu are always
the first who are asked to donate for al
purposes, aud they are always expected
to give. | do NOT think an occupation
tax would hold or b. constitutional, any
how"