Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1912-10-09
MINE TAXATION
IN MICHIGAN
Agreement Seems TO Be
Fixed on Ad Valorem
Tax for the Mines
of That State
TONNAGE TAX UNFAIR


an equitable method of taxing the
mines in the state the following writ
ten by a staff CORE spondent of the
Mining World win be of interest
here:
The taxation OF mineral properties
and particularly the iron mines. has
been a subject of much discussion in
the state of Michigan and especially
during recent sessions OF legislature
when the Grange proposition of levy
ing tonnage assessments has been de-
batsd. Now that the mines are on
the roll at greatly increased figures
as the result of the expert inyestiga-
ton made two years ago for the
state tax commission, and since both
Woodbridge N Gerris. Democratic,
and Amos Musselman, republican
nominee for governor. have declared
for the retention of the ad yalorem
system, Il is the belief in the mining
country that there is no immediate
prospect of the tonnage tax plan be-
/ ing enacted in Michigan. even should
| the state law-making body give the
scheme its approval.
THE agitation. OF the tonnage tax
proposal has come about, Ii is be-
! lieved, largely because the mines are
mostly owned by corporations and be-
cause, being somewhat distant from
| the bulk OF the population of the state,
! they are comparatively little known
Whether the large assessments now
carried By mining property are unjust,
a. is claimed by those who own prop
critics. or are fair, as is argued by
others, il is held in the upper PENN
sula that they demonstrate that the
present ad valcrem plan is not only
| the best system so far devised for the
taxation OF fixed tangible property,
but it is as readily adjusted to the as
sessment of mining property as to
the assessment of any other property
in the state. Under the tonnage-tax
law proposed to the last two legislat-
ures. the iron and copper mines would
have been forced TO pay into the state
treasury an amount sufficient to pay
the greater part OF the expenses OF
the state. so that little, If any. state
taxes would have been required from
any other property in the common
wealth. This fact is stated as prOoIol
the unfairness OF such a system. II
goes without mentioning that practi-
out Of business.
A tonnage tax is unfair also as be-
tween the mines themselves. Refer
ring particularly % the iron mines,
there are rich ores and lean ores,
hard ores and soft ores that carry ex-
cessive amounts Of phosphorus, sui
phur and moisture. and ores that car
~ only traces Of any of these. ores
that work so web in blast furnaces
that they are always in demand, and
ores that are so little desired that
they can be disposed of only in years
of great activity in the iron business.
These ores come from mines that are
deep and mines that are shallow,
mines that are isolated, from under
ground workings and from opeE pits.
from mines that are so wet that one
Of the most serious problems is the
pumping cost, and from mines that
are so dry that water for the boilers
must be brought from neighboring
lakes. These ores are extracted at
costs per ton that vary into almost
as many different cost results as
there are mines in operation. They
are sold at prices which scale Up or
down, depending on metallic contents
sulphur. phosphorus, mOistures and
other factors which increase or de-
| crease their value for blasting pur-
oses To tax all these ores OF such
different values at the same price per
ton is. therefore, manifestly unfair
as between the mines themselves
| Similar discrimination would exist in
the copper mining country.
Furthermore, under any tonnage tax
| system only the active producing
mines are reached. In every mining
| region there is a considerable area
of so-called mineral property, run
ming all the way from known depos-
| its of ore, which are not wrought
| for Yarious reasons. TO properties