The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1920-04-10
THE TONNAGE TAX.

THE TONNAGE TAX.
The Labor World is in receipt Of a
letter from, G.. j.. Buell. Of St. Paul, we'll
known to most Minnesotans as an ad~
vocste Of" the single tax. Mr.. Buell.
writes in favor Sf the tonnage tax bill
vetoed by Governor Burnquist:
81 am sure," says Mr.. Buell., "that
there is very general misunderstand~
ing Of the Tonnage Tax bill passed
at the extra session Of the legislature
and vetoed by Governor Burnquist.
"Both that bill and the one that
failed by one or two votes in the general
session were In no sense tax On the
business of mining ore. Neither bill
taxed at all the labor employed nor the
capital invested in the mining of ore.
'Eaeh bill taxed only that part Of
the value of the ore due to location or
quality. In other words; each bill was
ball to tax the ::1and value in The
;ore--nat the, labor value. !
"All this-is also true Of the bill to
tax mining royalties. -. -
'*Those two bills, the royalty bill and
the bin to levy a 10 per cent tax on the
net, or land value of the, ore would have
brought into the state, Treasury shout.
seven and one-half millions a year tor
years. -.
Vas. a result. Of the failure Of those
Two bills every workingma1,' home,
every farm and every business will :be
taxed for STATE purpose about five
mills, moro on each :aoflsr Of assessed
valuation.
"J ust. what will this cost you!
"Find out your assessed valuation of
all your taxable, property. Figure :$5
on each thousand Of th&t value and you
have the answer.
That is che amount it will cost you
each year FOR the next two years for:
tho next two years anywav-and then
| two years more if the next LEGISLATURE
fails again to pass them. =
~ challenge anyone to refute these
statements.
| What Mr.. Buell. says Of the tonnage
tax bill vetoed by Governor ;;Barnquist
may be true. But the people Of North
eastern Minnesota, at least sueh ct
them as are free from influence :and
! who are concerned about the future Of
this section Of the state, are opposed
to any kind of sur-tax on iroc Ore that
contemPiates the. expenditure. for cur
rent: expenses Of state government Of
any portion Of the :l-oney derived there.
! from.
! Mining companies are now paying
more than their share. Of the cost Of
government in Minnesota as compared
with all other taxable property in the
state. The only reason for the passage
Of a: sur.tax law, known generally as a
tonnage tax, is that the iron ore is be-
ing taken from the ground. never to be
replaced, and the state should levy an
increased tax on all ore after it has
been mined in order that the people may
ge: little more benefit from that vast
store-house Of natural: wealth that is
fast being depleted. "seme day. ad-
vocates Of this sur,tax hold, "there. will
be nothing left in this northern country
but great holes in the ground in dis
graceful memory Of i careless and
wasteful guardianship Of a people g her
itage. "Then," they ask, 'twho is tn
finance the local governments in north.
ern Minnesota! Who is to build roads,
drain lands and otherwise maintain the
country? Where will tho money then
come from2''
That is just the question. And be-
cause we are: concerned about the tu.
ture we are unalterably opposed to any
kind Of sur:tax on iron ore that ha.
for its object the immediate dissipation
of the money derived therefrom. The
state government Of this generation
under our system Of private ownership
is getting all it is entitled to in tin
form Of taxes from iron ore. Othe,
J sections want a tonnage tax so thai
their people may. be relieved in part o!
their share Of the burden Of govern.
: rnent- II they once enjoy reduce "a tax
f'ation under tonnage tax law that viii
permit tic: immediate expenditure 9,
; the monies derived therefrom they will
i: be loathe to vote for a. law. that viii
/ conserve any Of this money for. the pso
pie to epns after us. who surely wi,