The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1922-02-03
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES

down to his tlme-serv1ng ex-Demo-
Gratis, who cling to their jobs, on state
boards, to fool people about taxes,
there should be one primary fact re-
membered, and that is that the bal
ance in the revenue fund on January
/, 1921, was $4,901 ,354.73.
This is more than was collected in
state taxes in 1920, and more than
will be collected for 1921. An eco
nomical administration, disposed to
consider the needs of the people, dur
ing this period of depression, could
have dispensed with ALL STATE
TAXES for 1921, and have met the
obligations of the state---if appropri-
ations this year had been kept with
in the limit of the appropriations dur
ing the last year of Gardner's admin
istratiOn.
Bear this in mind, and every other
contention of the Republicans falls to
the ground.
Then, consider that the State
Board of Equalization acted prema-
turely in imposing fiat increases up
on the various counties, according to
an arbitrary scale, without first ascer-
tanning whether inequalities existed To-
cally. The adjustment Of local assess
ments could have been brought about,
without levelling a general increase,
averaging about 80 per cent, outside
Of the City of st. Louis, and running
as high as 260 per cent in at least one
county, greater than the valuations of
1920 The natural consequences of
this blind policy is to continue high as
sessments, such as those obtaining in
the City of st. Louis, and imposing
disproportionate burdens upon the
people of the counties.
Exclusive of railroads, telephones,
telegraphs, etc, the assessed valua-
ton in 1920 was approximately ST.
478,579,809, which was increased to
approximately $4,267 ,947,636. 1t is
possible to compute the present levies
for state purposes, including revenue,
capitol bonds and blind pensions,
against the new assessment and make
artificial comparisons, and bring an
astounding result to the taxpayer
who has just paid twice or thrice as
much as he did in 1920. For instance,
the total state revenues from these
three levies for 1921 will be about
$4,267 ,947.63, as against 81 ,458, 935. 90
in 1920, which looks like Slight re-
duction of $4,000, taking the state
as whole. But, take the counties
outside Of the city of st. Louis, which
will pay $3,364,1 5000 in 1921 as
against $3,111, 14O.70 in 1920, an in
crease for the whole state, outside of
the city of St. Louis of 1858, 109. so,
for state purposes alone. And yet the
taxes of the city of St. Louis have not
been reduced, but in most instances
increased. The city paid about ST.
BAT, 794.39 in state taxes in 1920; and
will turn into the State Treasury only
about $1,000,000 in 1921. However,
this does not take into account city
taxes which now are levied upon an
increased assessment of $902,797 ,339,
as against an assessment of 1854, 404,-
$40 in 1920. Here is the rub, and fixes
a burden upon the taxing powers of
st. Louis city to explain, in conjunc-
ton with the State Board, which
raised the city's assessments approx
imately $150,000,000. More of this
later on.
Another excellent thing to remem-
Der is that all taxes, including state,
county, city, township, district taxes,
are levied against this new assess
ment. The Republican apologists
skillfully dodge this all-pertinent fact,
just as Gov. Hyde and Secretary
Becker would have us believe that the
administration should not be charged
up with the blind pension tax, just as
though they could escape responsible
ity for raising the assessment against
which the blind pension levy is taxa
bile. This is childish, and everybody
knows t.
ooh, but" they say, 1--WE must not
be blamed if city and county and dis
trict officials increase their levies, for
we tried to limit them by law to ten
per cent of Their revenues for the pre-
ceding year. 1t is the county court or
the city board, or the school district
board, or the road district commits
sioners, or somebody-anybody but us
to blame"
This presumes upon the ignorance
of the public, as a plain examination
of the facts will prove:
In the first place, section II of ar
ticle 10 of the Constitution of Mis-
souri, specifically names the limita-
tons that may by law be placed upon
levies made by county courts and To-
cal boards. The act approved March
30, 1921, which contains the ten per
cent clause, recites these constitutional
limitations. Here is that aforesaid
ten per cent:
provided, however, the county
court shall not have power to order |
a rate of tax levy on real or personal !
for the year 1921 which |
shall produce more than ten per cent !
in excess Of the amount produced, |
automatically, by the rate of tax |
levy ordered in 1920, and in no sub
Sequent year may any county court, !
IF any officer or officers acting there |
'or, order a rate Of tax levy that will |
produce, automatically, more than
zen per cent in excess of the taxes lev
ed for the previous year"
Excellent legal authorities pro-
lounce this clause invalid because it |
assumes to place different Limitation
rom that imposed by the constitution. /
i is not necessary, for the present,
fortunately, even to consider that
question. Assume that the local tax
II. L