Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-12-29
OTHER STATES
VIEWS ON TAX
ARE TO BE HAD
Many Commissions Have
Reached Conclusions on
HOosier Law.
NEW YORK REPORT CITED

When the Legislature takes up the sub
ject of tax and bond limits, which prob
ably viii be the principal taxation prob
lem discussed at the coming session, 1t
will have the benefit of the reports OF a
number of committees of other States
which have made a study of the operation
of the Indiana law and reached some In
teresting conclusions.
One of the most recent reports OF this
nature received by the State Board of
Tax Commissioners is from the special
joint committee on taxation and re-
trenchment Of New York State.
The New York committee, after Discus
sing the Ohio plan, has the following TO
say regarding the Indiana law:
"The Indiana tax limitation differs rad
ically from the Ohio method. We were in
formed by the Indiana State Tax Com
mission that It was decided after care
full study of the Ohio situation 1t would
be q mistake to follow the Ohio plan.
Indiana, therefore, adopted the system
Of prohibiting the levy of more taxes
In any year than was levied the pre-
vious year, regardless of the tax rate
except on the approval Of the State Tax
Commission. This plan was adopted CO.
incidentally with system of control
over assessments which was to bring
the assessed values up TO fun value
throughout the State. The tax limit was
adopted to remove the possibility OF
great extravaganza following the ire
mendous increase in assessed values,
which was inevitable.
HOW INDIANA
LAW is LOOKED ON.
THE Indiana law has unquestionably
served to prevent extrlvaganceS which
often follow a large Increase in as
sessed valuations The mayors and
comptrollers of several cities have stat
ed to your committee. and have sub
mitted financial statistics showing very
! considerable reductions in tax rates IN
/ der the combined influence of the tax
/ limit and the full value assessments. In
a number Of cases however. evidence
was submitted to show that cities had
been forced to issue bonds for purposes
I that would have been financed from cur
rent revenues If the city administration
/ had been free TO increase the amount OF
I the tax levy. II is 10 be noted however,
/ that bonds must also receive the APP
prevail Of the tax commission. The
/ feeling was also expressed that after ALI
the cities themselves were In better
position to Judge what was necessary for
their own good than a State commission
+ in distant city. The first year OF ex-
perience under the new Indiana Law
would Indicate that the law has limited
/ the costs of government, that II has en-
couraged bonding. and that the cities
/ have felt the State supervision OF the
| law an intrusion upon the home rule
right 10 fix their own budgets"
/ COMMISSION REACHES
| CONCLUSIONS.
After commenting thus on Indiana and
after commenting on the policies OF sew
eral other States, the commission reaches
The following conclusions. all opposite
to the policies Of the Indiana law:
Il. Tax limits do not limit
g. Tax limitations encourage unsoun1
bonding.
10 debt service.
1. There is no way in n democracy OF
| blocking a genuine popular demand for
increased governmental service through
an arbitrary limitation upon the tax levy
5. The only effective way Of securing a
restriction OF taA leyies Is the establish
ment of a comprehensive and binding
budget system, the enactment Of a com
plete bonding act which viii prevent un-
sound bonding by the municipalities. she
wide distribution among the electorate OF
the direct tax burden.
The commissions report covers vHriouz
other sides of the tax problem. but this
Fart applies most directly to Indiana.