The Saint Paul globe., 1902-01-24
FLAWS IN TAX CODE
MANY OBJECTIONS BEING RAISED
TO NEW PROPOSE
TIONS
MANY AMENDMENTS Likely
Objection Made to Proposed system
of Taxing Bank DepOsits-Lay-
bOurn Is Opposed to
Section 3.

| When the new code was first published
| its many good points were so apparent
/ that it was received with a wave OF en-
! thUs:asm. For the first week or so II
was the general sentiment that it ought
| to be passed as q whole, just as it stood
and many members Of the legislature
favored a ve-y short session and a rap
/ id disposition of the law. The sober judg-
ment of the people has, however, dis
| covered several Objectionable features tc
the law, and the public opinion has un-
| dergone a radical change, and there is
now a feeling that the legislature Should
so slow in acting on the new law, lest
] a grave mistake be made by too hasty
| action.
| An authority on the subject, after care
| full study of rhe law, says:
| The feeling is strong. and 1t is re-
| ceiving free expression, that If the State
| of Minnesota is to have new tax code,
/ it should have enc framed without any
/ such restrictions as the commission ad-
| mitS now exist. If the proposed amend
raent to the constitution were passed, or
| some proper amendment in It's place, then
| the tax commission would be unhamper-
ed and could frame code containing
all that the most enlightened thought
has evolved in the line Of equality and
foolish to pass d makeshift, TO be used
until the constitution is amended, and
then start IN again to patch up the code
iE accordance with the greater freedom
then allowed. That attempt to patch up
an unsatisfactory law is the cause of
much of the dissatisfaction with the
/ present code.
A great mistake was undoubtedly made
by the tax commission in leaving un-
touched the present system of taxing
railroads on their. gross earnings. Per
haps it would have been impossible to
Cba1ge the system of taxation, but 1t
wculd have been possible to p15vide that
the receipts from this source should be
arportioned to the places where they be-
long, that is, the places where the rail-
&c ad property is located. The present
r4ethod of giving the state all of the
receipts is grossly unjust and prejudi-
cial to the community where much rail-
ROAD property lies, involving a great eX-
pense to local government.
another thing that has been suggested
may prove to he a sorry measure. The
new law provides that every bank deposit
shall be listed on April Of each year.
Bank deposits are easily moved, more SO
than any other personal property. -Ex-
perienCe shows that they would be. re-
moved in time to escape the assessor.
They would either be boarded up in old
stockings for safe keeping or removed
I'd neighboring cities. There seem to
be great possibilities toward the crea-
ton of annual panics in this. The banks
would be obliged to call in an equal
amount of loans. business men, VINO de-
renGed upon bank accommodations, small
meI chants, aS well as large ones, might
b. crowded to the wall. The result about
ass essment time each year might be dis
astrouS in the extreme.
Daugherty Picks Another.
Senator Daugherty, of st. Louis coun-
ty, has also discovered what he thinks
is an important fault in the law. The
commission provides for the assessing of
all property at its full value, and the
} ms t6T0Ilo
this is the power that it will give boards
of aldermen and county boards to levy
a certain number of mills on the as
sessed valuation of city or county. He
says:
81 am not positive that the tax com
mission has erred in this particular, but
it is something worthy of investigation.
The report provides for the assessing or
all property at its full value. and if the
city charter provides that the board of
aldermen may levy up to certain fixed
| number of mills on the assessed valua-
tion it would look at first glance, at
least, as if the board would have the
power under the proposed law to ma
terially increase the amount of taxes for
the various departments with the same
number of mills. Fer example, If, by
the Ievying of 1 mill for a certain depart
ment. on an assessed valuation of about
40 or so per cent of the actual valuation,
which is practically the system now in
|
as much money with l mill on the same
property assessed at its full value. Oh
| course it does not follow that any board
| of aldermen or conmiss oners would take
| advantage of the situation. but the power
would be in their hands nevertheless. /
| think it is matter worth calling atten-
/ ton to- especially as it has been the
| policy of the legislature to leave nc
| loopholes, and of cities to limit the pow
| er of it's officials to raise money"
| LaybOura Has Kick
Representative Laybourn does not ap-
| prove of the item described as section
| OF the proposed amendments TO the cor
| stitution which reads: ''The legislature
may by general laws provide for the ap-
| portionment to counties of the amount OF
revenues to be raised therein for state
| purposes. and may, in any law provided
| for such apportionment, authorize coun-
ties to select the subjects on which reve.
/ nue. is to be raised therein for state OF
county purposes, and to apportion such
revenue among the cities, villages and
| townships Of the county"
| Mr. Laybourn says: THAT section is
! dangerous one, and savors much OF
| the single tax theory. Under it the state
/ and county tax might be raised on lum-
/ Der and real estate, and everything else
| escape Or the tax might be raised or
| iron ore and some other class Of property
/ to the exclusion of lumber, real estate
/ pine and other valuable properties. The
more the members Of the legislature
! probe the tax commission, the more un-
desirable legislation they find.
1.-THE question Of exemptions has beer
| touched on before, but in the minds OF
many it is one of the most important
/ questions connected with the discussion
| The present exemption Of personal prop
! erty is 800, and the tax code proposed
! would reduce this to $25. The tax CON-
| mission in it's report says that were ii
| not for the constitutional provision tc
| the contrary it would have elimina TED
| the exemption altogether. This appears
| to be an unfortunate inconsistency in a
| law that the commission proudly says Is
| designed to relieve the poor man and
| shift some Of his burden upon the stur-
| dier shoulders of the rich man. A small
! exemption means nothing to the man
with millions. 1t means perhaps % OF
| so per cent to the man of small holdings
| The removal of the exemption means
| that man with a hovel full Of cheap
furniture, who has been escaping any
l tax whatever in the past because his
| stuff was not worth taxing, would be
| called upon to pay share