Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-02-21


lege student than a football game?
that the New Mexico law was APP
parently copied from Colorado. Mr.,
Joerns thus fills his report with
men of straw which he proceeds
gloomily to punch to pieces.
Mr.. Joerns quotes eight pages
from, Graton's paper dealing with
the valuation of mines for depletion
purposes under the federal income
tax. This comes from the major
ity's wastebasket for | myself
tossed it there-not because it is
not good sound material. but be-
cause of lack of space. There is
no earthly reason why the Grafton
extract should not have appeared
in the majority report in support
of the majority positions (Which,
| let us remember, Is also Mr..
Joerns' position) if Mr., Joerns had
wanted it there. For example, Mr.
Grafton says in paragraph quoted
by Mr.. Joerns (page 800:
Most coal mines, many iron
mines, the porphyry coppers, some
| Of the lake copper mines. and per-
haps a few others can be valued
directly and satisfactorily by this
method because more of the neces-
sary information is available for
them than for any others. For
them any other method is likely to
be less reliable and less fair"
At the hearings of the commits
sion Mr. Sully of the Chino stated
that about 9S per cent q quote
from memory of the mining prom
erty in New Mexico consisted of
coal and porphyries. Enod erat
demonstatum.
"Pettifogging Eagerness."
My criticism of Mr.. Joerns it will
be seen. is not so much that his
conclusions with respect to the tax
alton of mines are seriously wrong
They are not. They are in fact in
substantial agreement with the
conclusions OF the majority
My criticism is rather that
Mr.. Joerns exhibits petit
Jogging eagerness to appear to diff
fer when he really does not, This
is apt to be miscellaneous in its eff
fects. To the careful reader his
report constantly suggests the
urchin sitting the middle of thC
road tossing dust into the air. Thu:
is no time for dust-tossing.
The foregoing relates to the all
\ important matter of mine taxation
the problem which must be solved
before New Mexico can begin tt
have financial and political peace
The other question about which Z
word should be said is the income
tax. The commission recommend
= an income tax with the following
main characteristics:
= % A low flat rate.
co Restricted to individuals II
its application; and
(S) Accompanied by an eXemp
= ton of intangible personal prop
. erty from the general tax in prop
erty.
Mr. Joerns agrees that Their
should be an income tax and tina
the rate should be a flat one. II
5 insists. however, that If there is 7
: be an income tax it must apply u
! CORPORATIONS and business a
well as to individuals and that in
= tangible personal property shoul'
\ not be exempted from the propert
}. tax,
I An Optimistic Estimate.
Taking up the second point frs
: 1t will be noted that Mr.. Joern
rests his case for the retention Q
y the tax on intangibles upon tn
G mere statement that 100000 @
: such property is now listed for tax
= alton and that in his opinion thi
y amount could be increased to $50
:, 600. 900 If the rate on intangible
I were reduced to three mills, TN
!. rate he suggests. In my oplnlo
Y Mr.. Joerns' estimate is decldedi
7 optimistic. I do not agree Wit
n him and neither do the bankers |
New Mexico to whom | was rf
a ferred as being conversant wit
: conditions bearing on this poin
d BUT suppose for the sake of argr
it ment that s30,o00,OOO could be $
y listed. A three mill tax woul
y Weld only $4,000 revenue. j
i WELD would thus be insignifica1
Is and yet in my opinion the attemI
" to collect 1t would be disastrous
At its effect upon the proposed incon
1t tax. l know of no state with
10 successful income tax which a
TO tempts to tax both intangible prof.
e. erty and the income arising from
e. Under conditions as they exist
ys New Mexico, I do not believe thi
ty 1t can be done and. on grounds
equity. do not think that 1t shou
be done il it could be.
l. Mr.. Joerns' case for the extel
le sion of the income tax to busine
re is scarcely more substantial tha
< his case for the taxation of intall
he gibles. The position taken in Il
s. majority report is that such bus
I. ness income tax would be desirab
ct from the point of view of equi
,e but that as a practical matter
10 would be wise not to attempt
re impose it at this juncture. 1t
NJ not of great importance that tn
ht step. good in itself, should
~ taken now. Six practical reasol
Is for this position are given (pas
is 42-43): IL
Iy # Six Reasons. Ssf
It ~. The competitive disadyal
D ages TO New Mexico busine