The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-10

not be. too carly begun or too thoroughly
pursued by cur. thoughtful citizens.
CHAPTER XIII.
Enforcement of State From Local
Taxation.
The commission was early impressed
with the Importance of arriving at some
method of taxation whereby taxes for
state, as distinguished from local pur-
poses, could be raised otherwise than by
a general property tax: Many reasons
support such enforcement. Chiefly, 1t is
desired because it would permit the rele-
cation to local government OF many ques-
lions of taxation, and completely elm
mate equalization by state board. 1t
would then be matter of Indifference to
one county whether the assessment in
another was high or low, or whether
a certain class of property was taxed or
exempted in such other county.
The history Of the state board OF equal
ization shows a constant tendency to de-
press valuations. sort OF local Jealousy
or zeal for local interests begets a spirit
on the part of each member of the board
to keep down the valuations of his own
district This influence is largely re-
sponsible for the departure from the con-
erty, as is more fully shown under the
topic estate Board Of Review
It is obvious that such division can be
accomplished only by one of two methods.
l.. The raising Of revenue for state pur-
poses by other means than an ad valorem
taxation; or
| 2 The distribution upon an equitable
| basis Of the burden Of such revenue among
! the several counties of the state.
Neither of these methods is now avail
able under our present constitution: and
hence no attempt has been made in the
commissions bill to elaborate provisions
suitable therefor. In view Of the import
ance Of the subject as bearing upon future
legislation, under an amended constitu-
ton, it received careful consideration
by the commission. "a
1t may be questionable whether in the
present industrial development of the
state, the first method is now practicable.
1t is best adapted to conditions where COR
porate interests have attained great de-
velopment and many valuable corporate
| franchises have been granted. Revenue
under such a method would be largely
collected from corporate interests, either
| in the form of excise, license, or fran
| chise exactions. It might be derived also
! in part from the taxation of inheritances,
| legacies, requests, gifts and incomes. 1t
seems clear that If the attempt were to
| be made to early adopt such a method,
| the taxation of incomes would be unavoid-
able. Doubtless, a considerable revenue
| could be raised by a general license tax
| imposed on all Industrial corporations, if
wisely adjusted to their nature and capt.
| ital; but to now rely greatly upon such
| sources of income, would not only be OPP
pressive to the interests taxed but re-
pressive in it's Influences upon the indus
| trial development Of the state. Further
! more, it is questionable at best, whether
| ic a
stitution. E>
| The second method is beset with diff
| ficulties. What is a proper basis whereby
| the amount of revenues for state purposes
| to be contributed by given county may
! be ascertained? Neither population nor
| territorial area would perhaps afford a
| just basis. ~ .-
Perhaps the least Objectionable one is
| that which received the Endorsement of
| the Chamber of Commerce of New York
| and known as the "Purdy Method" A
| bill was introduced into the legislature
| Of New York at its last session. whereby
! it was sought to put that method into
! actual operation as part of the revenue
system of the state; but the bill failed
/ to become law. .,.,, ,..
| The Purdy system, in brief, is this: The
whole amount of revenue raised by tax
alton, aside from assessments for local
| improvements, is made the denomination
| and the amount of revenue so raised in
| any county is made the numerator of a
| fraction which determines the amount OF
revenue for state purposes to be contrib
uted by the county. In other words, the
total amount Of money necessary to be
| raised for state purposes for given year
| is apportioned among the respective coun-
| ties of the state according to the fractions
so obtained.
! That system went further and provided
| that the local governing bodies might de-
| clare what property should be free from
| taxation, or subject to taxation at a re
| duced rate. That system also contem-
plates its application to each county as
| we'll as to the state. Taxes for state OF
county purpose may be apportioned tC
| the various municipalities and townships
| in a manner similar to that provided fol
| the apportionment of the state tax among
! counties.
1t is asserted that from so general ar
! adoption of the system, the friction now
existing between counties, with respect
to the state tax, and between the politica
| divisions OF county with respect tt
I county taxes, would be wholly eliminated
This would be so, because the amount Of
! the assessment of property in one town,
ship would concern no other township il
the state. Great stress was placed upor
| the fact that, under such measure, the
be applied.
! In the report Of the committee to the
Chamber of Commerce, touching tn.
merits Of the Purdy bill, it was, amons
other things, said: Local option in taxa
tion has been satisfactory part of tn.
tax system in New Zealand since 1896
and for longer time has been enjoyed b,
British Columbia and the Northwestern
Territories Of Canada. In New Hampshire
| South Carolina, Vermont and some othe
states, towns have the power to exemp
! from taxation new industries for tern
Of years, and this power is freely exer
cised. In Pennsylvania and New Jerse.
mortgages are exempt from local taxation
in some counties. Local option bill
have passed one house in each of the fol
lowing states: Ohio Michigan. California
and Colorado. In Washington such bill
passed both houses but failed on refer
ence to the people Glasgow, in Scotland
and over 266 municipalities in Great Brit
tain have recently petitioned parliamen
for local taxing powers. The case in ia
- mt ar, si,u,rna lin