The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-06
He Favors the New Tax Law


To the Editor of The Journal.
An editorial in a Sunday paper on Pub
lie Service Corporation is disappointing and
misleading. Ostensibly it is an argument for
the interests of the small property owner .
ringing in the widow and orphan argument
1t says that the man from Saltwater, who
sent in a communication against the new tax
law, writes more like a lawyer than a motor
man, which suggests that the letter may have
been, possibly was, written by a Twin City
Rapid Transit lawyer.
The editor says that the new tax law will
be hard on the corporations and On everybody.
Why? Is it not right that each one, in
dividual or corporation shall pay taxes upon
his property and upon all of his property :?
Why should not l, a ''small property owner,
pay a tax upon my $500 in the bank? If 1
take that money out. and buy lot with
it, / have to pay taxes on it. Here are two
men, each with $1,000. One purchases lot,
builds a house, and makes improvements with
his money; the other places his 900 in the
bank to draw interest. Why should the first
pay taxes and the second not? The argu-
ment is absurd. II there is to be any remis-
sion of taxes in either Of these cases it should
be to the man who put his money into the
house, and became public benefactor by
helping to- build up the town.
Then the point is advanced that to tax the
street railway company, or public service cor
porations, would not be just because it would
cut into the dividend. That is what tax
always does. Why should not the street rail-
way pay the same rate of tax upon its privi-
lege to do business in the streets as Coffee
John does to do business on First avenue
near the postof1ce? Both have advantageous
locations, which enhance the value of their
property and each ought to pay the regular
rate Of tax upon that enhanced value.
franchise is a special privilege to do BUSH
ness, of the street railway, 10 monopolize a
certain part Of the public highway and there
carry on business, privilege which is valu-
able, worth money, and can be turned into
cash any day. Why should not such property
be taxed at its full value, as well as the
widows and orphans lot on Riverside
avenue? Is it not the height Of ingratitude
for those to whom such privileges have been
granted to be continually attempting TO evade
the rate of taxation that other people have to
bear?
The editorial continues, that 'the corpora
ton side of the case is attracting mighty little
interest and causing mighty little discussion y
This is adroit. 1t Is apprehended that the
facts really are. as the editor says later, that
1.-THE corporations can take care of them
Selves and are taking care Of themselves.
They are doing just that by using the small
property. owner as "pusher.''
Again, the editor says that the s.small
property owner cannot take care of himself
J ri
as the corporations can, hence, he will have
to pay taxes upon all of his property, as he
has always done, and will continue to do.
And this is right. The tax law proposes
to have public service corporations do the
same, which they have never done.
One is almost appalled, at the estimate
placed upon the moral fibre of the men in
public service corporations in this editorial
when it says that the new tax law would
breed a riot Of perjury, bribery and corrup-
! ton Are these men really so bad? If this
estimate is correct, and they really have II
in their hearts to do such things, then II
would be well to watch them closely.
AS small property owner / favor the
new tax law It is an honest attempt tt
equalize taxes Every paragraph Of Il
breathes honesty, equality and fairness; and
| if it becomes law, as I hope it will, it will
! do as much towards nphold!ng the arm O.
| justice and righteousness as any law thai
has ever been passed by the legislature o.
Minnesota. Small Property Owner.