The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1913-11-26
TAXATION Of
INSURANCE Q. K.
Commissioner Taylor Be-
lieves State is Within
its Province
NO HIGHWAY
ROBBERY" THEORY
Maintains That Income is
Just as Legitimate as
Rail Taxation.

That insurance companation taxa
ton is just Is the opinion Of Insur-
ance Commissioner w. G. Taylor Of
North Dakota, and he makes that
point quite clear in q communication
to The Insurance Field. published at
Louisville. Says Mr.. Taylor in that
article: :.
I'm the always sprightly editorial
columns OF your excellent journal I
ind, in a recent. issue the following:
"Oh, Mamma! but the proud COM
monwealth Of Minnesota knows how
to sandbag insurance companies and
take their money away from them.
Stealing? No. indeed; the noble and
robbery"
You then proceed to show that our
surance taxes in 1912 in the sum Of
$413.266. while 1t paid out for super
vision only $21.403, and you designate
the difference between these sums as
net velvet"
Compares Rail Taxation.
During the year 1912 the state Of
North Dakota collected Of railroad
companies owning and operating
properties within her borders the tidy
sum Of $1.890,000, and paid for SUI
pervision Estate railway commission)
the measly sum Of $4,000. And the
railroad companies do not appear to
be greatly perturbed over the situa-
tion, at that.
Clones" Pays the Freight.
1t is true, of course. that railroad
an "agency plant" for instance; but
on the other hand it should be re-
membered that q railroad company
pays perfectly good money for its
right-of-way, road bed, rolling stock,
etc. But is there, after all, an essen
tiaf and fundamental difference be-
tween taxing one company for the
privilege Of operating a railroad and
another company for the privilege Of
Jones--in other words. the people
pay the freight in either case?
just Highway Robbery.
OF III 1 know that insurance
cortpanies-or at any rate insurance
jOurnals-insist that the imposition of
Q tax on insurance premiums in ex-
cess of the cost Of maintaining the
insurance department, Is, as you sug-
gest, not merely plain thievery, but
highway robbery Of the most feudal-
istic sort. And yet, you surely will
not have the hardihood to claim that
the duties II functions Of an insur-
@AASO vi VI AAo NVb0kS
ment are essentially different from
those Of railroad commissioners and
their department.
Tax is Justihable.
I am inclined to believe that q tax
on insurance premiums ID, justifiable
on the ground that the state furnishes
q ready-made market in which to soil
that commodity. Personally, I am
coming to feel that the single-tax
theory offers the best solution Of this
vexatious problem Of taxation; but
under present conditions I have not
been able to accept the dictum Of our
insurance journals that a tax on in
surance premiums is highway rop
berry.
The insurance department is but
one Of many departments. having its
own peculiar functions, but merely .
cog, nevertheless, in the government
al machinery. Its relations toward
the public or the body polite is not
different from that of any other state
department. Why, then, should the
taxes paid by insurance companies be
segregated from the general fund and
used merely to defray the cos Of
maintaining a particular branch Of
the state government? II ask to
know"