The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1907-05-23

=
The tar commission of Missouri, in
line with other progressive taxation or
ganizatlons recommends an amend
ment to the constitution that will per-
NIT of the classification of property for
taxation and will give local option in
taxation. The report follows
We have been greatly assisted by
the report of the commission appoint
ed under the Act of April II, 1901
We concur in the conclusion Of that
commission, that no change can be
made in our revenue system correct
ing the existing inequalities without
amending the constitution of the
state.
In the language of that report: "The
legislature is SO hedged about and
hemmed in by the limitations in the
fundamental law of the state, that as
the constitution stands, no statutory
change can be made in the general
taxing system now in force" In other
words, the general property tax as.
seSsed by both the state and counties
and municipalities upon the assess
ment made by local assessors upon real
and personal property is so generally
recognized in the state constitution
that nothing short of a constitutional
change, either by a new constitution
or a constitutional amendment, can
open the door to the establishment of
any other system
I'VE are satisfied from careful study
OF our revenue sytem that change is
required to remedy existing defects
and to secure equality to our citizens
in bearing the public burdens of the
state. The commission of 1908 report.
ed that the assessments were not uni.
form in the different counties, and
that determinations were made even
in the same county between different
kinds Of property. Unequal taxation
IS unjust taxation.
I'VE all agreed that the first step in
any tax reform is the separation of
the sources of state and local revenue.
This change would not require the
exemption of any class of property
from taxation. The proposed change
may be effected by the submission
and adoption of single constitutional
amendment.
THE general features of this sep
aration Of the sources of state and
local revenues may be briefly sum
married.. The state would discontinue
the levy of general property tax
upon the real and personal property
of the state, leaving the assessment
and collection of this tax to the coun-
ties and municipalities for local pur-
poses. This would make saving of
the large expense incident to the
present dual system. 1t would also
dispense with the work of the State
Board of Equalization connected with
the attempted equalization of assess
ments OF real and personal property
among the counties of the state.
THE state would thereafter derive
its revenue through it's inherent gen.
eral power of taxation upon general
subjects Of taxation, as by licenses,
corporation taxes, inspection fees and
such other forms of taxation as the
general assembly may, from time to
time. determine.
THE different rates Of assessment in
the different counties, enforced by the
different demands for local revenue,
would no longer produce inequality in
taxation with reference to the state
tax. The remedy proposed is, in our
opinion, the only effective remedy
On the other hand, the proposed sys-
TEN would give the people of the
counties and cities of the state the
largest measure of home rule n the
matter of taxation. Each community
could fix its own rate of valuation as
its local needs may require, without
subjecting it's citizens to the injustice
of being compelled to pay an undue
share OF state taxation. Furthermore
each locality could adopt, subject tC
the constitutional requirement of uni
formity, such notifications of tht
general property tax upon real ant
personal property as would be found
most effective and best suited to the
needs of that locality. We would thus
have home rule in this Fundamental
function of government, and we be
lieve that tGis development Of home
rule in taxation would be in accort
with the highest dictates of public
policy.
There is now certain kind o.
home rule in taxation, which consists
in the variation of the rates of assess
ment upon property according to th'
local needs of the community, somt
counties paying taxes on 70 or 30 pei
cent of the real value of property, ant
others only 20 or 30 per cent. The
report OF the Tax Commission Of 100;
says that the reports from the differ
ent counties in this matter would bt
indeed startling, il some Of the facts
stated therein had not been previousl.
known, and that they showed a condi
tion of affairs that should no Longer
be permitted to continue, adding: 4
IS within the bounds Of truth to say
that no two counties of the state have
the same rule for the assessment o
all classes of property, and, general!
speaking, there is absolutely no uni
formity Is to the proportion OF thi