Semi-weekly herald., 1913-09-11

crease OF . per cent is allowed and |
unless the law is changed there is no
telling where the increase will end as
each legislature seems to be more ex-
travagant and mere money required |
and with permission given to increase
the state tax levy per cent every
year, where is it to end?
All who know Assessor Chubb have
every reason to believe that he made
assessments strictly in compliance
with the law, and he should not be
criticised for doing this but rather
commended. But how about some of
the other counties? 1t is for the state
tax commission to ascertain and it
| should have power to equalize where
assessors have failed to do their duty. \
| According to members of the state
tax commission Denver's assessor
failed to comply with the law, the
valuations being in the neighborhood
of one hundred million below what
| 1t should be, In another column we
give space to lengthy article from
the Denver Times which should be
read by every taxpayer. The Times
upholds the assessor for the low val
uation on the ground that it means
saving of about 100000 in the
amount of state tax. The Times
states the same as we do, that with
so much revenue for local purposes
to be raised it is only necessary to
levy accordingly no matter what the
valuation, hence a low valuation
saves Denver taxpayers state tax and
this is the real milk in the coacoa-
nut. The contention is over state
taxes, not only in La Plata but over
the state and accounts for the low
valuation in many of the counties and
why Denver's assessment lacks about
one hundred million of being what it
should be compared with the past.
Here, again, is where the state tax
commission comes in and the only
real benefit of the tax commission
law is for that body to equalize as
sessments in every county.
If the state must have more money
let each county pay its just proper
tion. The Herald, in behalf Of every
taxpayer, protests against this coun-
ty paying into the state treasury.
according to real values, more than
Denver and some of the other coun-
ties, because with 5 per cent in
crease allowed under the new law it
Is easy to see what it means in
lew years. This is not partisan
question. Every farmer, every mer-
chant, every property holder, wheth-
er Democrat, Republican, Socialist or
whatever his political creed, is equal
ly interested.
Under the full cash valuation of
property for taxation purposes the
state of Colorado is to reap an in
crease OF 10 per cent in its general
and SPECIAL revenues from taxation,
. d )
on the 1913 assessment roll
| Under the 4: sessed ealuarion of
Denver pro 3ertv certified to the state
tax commission, Denver's share wou. Il
be approximately three -elevenths or
over 27 f'r cent of the Increase, or
l$1O,0S6.65; under the valuation of
S4o1 100000 declared by the state tax
commission to be Denyer's correct
assessed valuation, this city would
pay to the state SS5, ,e6492 Of the TO.
tai increase of S2G,os4 IS. or ,opr.x-
imately one-third or 30 1-3 rer cen.
Denver is the wealthiest county in
the state, but the mass of taxpayecs
are loath to give more than The s7O,-
900 of increased taxes to The state
and are incline to back Assessor
Clair j. Pitcher Is against the state
tax commission, when Pitcher de-
ciares that his figures give the true
valuation of Denver properties, out
side of the utilities corporations
which are to be assessed by the tax
commission.
When the utilities corporation as
sessments have been fixed and added
to the total of Denver's taxation, it
is believed the ratio of Denver's burd
en- of increased taxation would be
even greater when compared to that
of the remainder of the state.
| Status of Denver.
The new law passed by the nine
teenth general assembly provides that
the states revenue shall be Is per
cent greater on the 1918 assessment
rolls than on 1912 assessment rolls,
and that each succeeding year an in
crease of 5 per cent over the pre-
ceding years revenue shall be per-
missable.
On the 1912 tax rolls, the taxes
charged against the counties of the
state aggregate s1,7l3,231.96. A Isl
per cent increase would be $780,
1854 IS or n total of SI O-n Ole y