St. Paul daily globe., 1895-12-01
THE ASSESSMENT QUESTION.

There seems to be some confusion
of ideas, and an eXaggeration of a
matter of only minor Importance, in
the discussion of assessed valuation
as related to taxation. There are
three factors in taxation, one of
which is fixed and the others mov-s
able. The fixed, inevitable and inn
movable factor is the amount of
revenue to be raised. The other
two are the valuation and the rate.
The amount to be collected by tax
alton is the pivot on which the other
two see-saw. If the valuation of prop
erty goes down, the rate of taxation
goes up, and vice versa. If taxes
could be reduced by simply lower
ing the valuation, it would be an
easy matter to get rid of them al
together by rating all property at
zero. This idea is akin to that of
the man who, when dealer as
sured him that the stove he had for
sale would save half the coal ordinar-
lily consumed. said that he would buy
two stoves and save it all.
There is but single light in which
a change in assessed valuations, sup
posing them to be equable in one
section of the city as compared with
others, can be of Importance. This is
in the difference made in the sum
paid to the state in taxes. If the val
uation were lowered, it would not
lessen the amount required to be
raised for city purposes by a cent.
Only as the valuation of city prop
erty attracts or repels investors does
1t affect the interests of the own
ers. The state tax being fixed for
all, the total paid by any community
depends upon it's assessment figures.
The state tax is usually about one
ninth to one-tenth of the entire levy.
If the valuation were reduced by
$4,000, 900, the amount taken by the
state on a two-mill rate would be
decreased by only 100000 This is
something; and, if it is just, it ought
to be saved. But it is not, after all,
big element in the tax problem.
1t has to be remembered, too, that.
this question of assessed valuations,
fnr. fIn tot TO fS il
not wholly within the direction of
local authorities. 1t is dealt with
always, in the last resort, by the
state board of equalization. Any
changes that we could make would,
if approved, affect only the tribute
paid to the state, and leave our prop
erty to pay the amount required by
the city without diminution. 1t
would appear that relief on these
lines should be secured by the adop-
ton of a more uniform system of
valuation throughout, and by making
personal property pay the share it
now evades successfully; a reform Of
which, we must confess, we have
very little hope. The practice, how
ever, of levying taxes on valuations
which, in different communities, have
no proper relation to one another, is
all wrong. 1t would be by far the
best plan if all taxes, state and local,
could be collected on the basis of
the actual selling value of the prop
erty taxed. 1t seems to be the case,
from facts obtained and before the
public, that property in this city is
valued higher for purposes of tax
alton than in other cities of the state.
This should be studied and
remedied. A uniformly fair val
uation is one of the most
difficult factors to deal with in the
whole complicated problem of just
taxation, toward solving which
neither cities nor nations have yet
made satisfactory progress.