The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1908-03-03
Opposed to Tax Reduction.

Because of the large amount of railroad
tax that has been brought into the state
school fund this year, by reason of the
recent decision of the court on the Perkins
act, the question has been raised of the
wisdom and equity of reducing the state
school tax to one mill. so as to give the
taxpayers of the state the benefit of the
great increase of taxes from the railroads
under that act. State Treasurer Voorhees,
and some other high officials advocate
such reduction, and Senator Avis, of
Gloucester county, has introduced bill
providing for one mill school tax. But
]. Brognard Belts, assistant state superin-
tendent of public instruction, Is opposed
to the proposal. Last Saturday Mr.. Belts
said
''The total cost OF maintaining our
schools last year, excluding amounts raised
for building and repairing school houses
and for bonds and interest, was about
s., 0OO,O 900. AS the average increase has
been over ten per cent. per annum the
expenses this year will be about $40. OOO,-
900. The state school tax for the current
year is So, 1928. 558.28 and the state appro-
priation made to reduce the state school
tax was $1,079, 51942 These two sums
make for the legal state school tax the
rate of two and three-fourths mills. In
addition TO this there was appropriated
the increased tax on first class railroad |
property, amounting to $3.50, 1851. So, also
$500, 900 from the income of the state |
school fund. The total amount appro- |
priated by the state from all sources is, |
therefore, $7,O4s, 945 O5. You will see
that this is So, 900, 900 less than the current
expenses of our schools for the present
school year.
Had the constitutionality of the Per-
kins law been determined before the local |
appropriations for school purposes were
made last spring the local tax required |
for current expenses would have been
$1,000 900. As there was so much uncer-
taintY regarding the law the districts were
unable to count on the railroad tax, and |
therefore did not reduce their local appro- |
priations for current expenses. Con-
sequently the benefit of the law to the |
taxpayer has not become evident With |
the increase in our population and the in |
crease in the cost of maintaining our
schools, it seems unwise to reduce the |
state school tax for school purposes. |
believe that more satisfactory results |
would be gained, and also greater relief to
the taxpayer, by retaining the state school
tax and leaving it to the districts to re-
duce their local appropriations. l feel
quite sure that if this be done we shall |
find, after the appropriations are made |
this spring. that there has been a very
substantial reduction of local tax for
school purposes.
To reduce the state school tax to one |
mill would leave US in worse condition |
than we have been in In years. If there |
is no change in the law the amount of |
state school tax to be assessed for the COM |
ing school year will be $685., 200 40. |
Should the rate of tax be reduced to one
mill it would amount to $1,S41, 527. AZ, or
loss in the state school tax of 81, 222,-
o729S. Deducting from this sum the
amount of railroad tax, $2,254, 500 10,
there would be net loss to the schools
from state moneys of $96s, 1888.
Another reason why it seems to me
wise to leave the state tax as it is and
reduce the local tax is that in many of |
our municipalities it is difficult to keep
within the maximum tax rate. In fgur- |
ing the maximum tax rate the state school
tax is not included"