The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1916-08-17

mas borne heavily against those who con.
into small estates.
Inc property taxes which have been
ana still are in effect in most states. have
aiscrhninated against urban POPULATIONS
Ihey nave been menace to the <leye,on-
ment OF the state for they make real es-
tate owning hazardous The LARGE n,n,-
per OF tenant jewellers in most large citiex
shows the unwllirgness of the small was.
Garner to put his savings into a home
| stead. Property taxes have been levied
IN an inefficient manner and have nr..ven
/, expensive to collect.
awakening to the deficiencies of tina
pioperly TAX, wisconsin and Massachus-
etts nave adopted the income tax as the
most desirable method of meeting coverr
mental costs While the two systems are
considerably different in their scope. the
purpose is the same; to substitute euu;t-
able and efficient taxes for lhe outworn
property taxes.
The significant feature of both the Wis.,
consin and the Massachusetts taxes !.
mat OF centralizing the taxing power bv
centraliz1ng the assessing methods. In
+" isconsn the state board supervises +bo
collection and settlement Of the tax and
ehe local assessors are under the civil
service regulations This draws the 10.
MN on busness-like basis In Massa.
chusetts the tax commissioner appoints
the assessors with approval of the COVER
nor. While this does not take the assoc.
sor out of politics. 1t centralizes the COL
lection system.
Inc Two tax systems vary greatly in
one respect: The Wisconsin law tayas on
incomes. while the Massachusetts 1.w
aims TO tax only income from intaooih1a
property and to allow the local adn1inia-
tration to tax the tangible pronerty
while the Wisconsin law still maintains a
persoiial property tax, 1t is only supple-
lnentary to the income tax, Whereas i,
Massachusetts,, the income tax is snnn,a'
mentary to the PROPERTY fox
mere the Wisconsin law has , ,r,a
aled scale In taxing incomes, the SIaesa.
chusetts law merely divides Incomes ito
.,iree classes for taxing Purposes. Tbna
the Wisconsin law divides indt,i.i,,a1 T..
eoiil , INTO groups. from $1,0CO 10 s12.Nn0
paying from per cent to 6 per cent TIC
massachusetts, law divides Incomes ;n+s
ttaasiple incomes taxed at 6 per cent an
nultles and incomes from trades and no
LESSONS taxed 13h Per cent and spec,,,a-
tive incomes taxed per cent NT;4h "a
spect to classifications. the Wisconsi,,
resembles the federal income tay n,ht,a
me Massachusetts tax d!scrimiuates m M
source OF the income rather than In ~
amount AZ 'iio
Both laws are similar in respect to manv
OF the exemptions. Under co~tafn g1iy,;ta
n Ss5
itors holders Of government. state ana
municipal bonds, public utility stocl, ~,
bond owners insurance beneflc;arias ana
certain charitable incomes are esan,n.
from taxation. ps
In both states the taxes are ,rnno.ad
upon all resident Inhabitants. wisrnnsir,
taxes all incomes from property within
the state. Thus, corporations are COW
peiled to pay a pro rata tax on all 49,,
erty located In the state even though ~.
stock or bond holders are non-resiIss,,t
massachusetts, taxes foreign corporation
incomes but resident corporations are sx-
empt. They already pay franchise taYea
In distributing the tax receipts the Wis
consin law provides that, of the reyanno
collected In the county, 20 per cent roc.
TO county administration and 70 ,,ar isass
goes to city or town administrator IN
ger the Massachusetts, Law, tho stata vii,
divide the tax on q basis proportional 70
the present local assessment ratea nnt ~
1917. at which time the legisla ,rre ts ~,
detArmine the methods OF distribution
Beyond this point comparison wnnid -
futile. The Massachusetts law dirf.r.
RON the Wisconsin law In that IL IL roors
complicated. moreover and less efrnient
IN many reapect&