Mexico weekly ledger., 1922-02-02

- =
: $3.50, FIVE thousand FIVE hundred an
eleven in all could not raise by loes
taxation to exceed $500 a year fo
schools. OF the 1886 rural district
more than 60 per cent had to subsis
so far as local taxation went on les
than $500 year. Those school dis
tricts averaged less than two hundre
people apiece.
The people of the rural districts 0
this state want and ought to have tn
best possible schools. They hav
hshown it by their tax levies. The con
stitution provides that rural schoc
! boards, on their own motion, can lev,
tax up to 40c on the $100 valuation
but that if the people of the distric
so vote, they can increase that lev,
to an amount not in excess of 65c ei
the 500 valuation. Only 316 district
out of the total of 1886 in the Stat
levied less than 40c tax on the $40,
valuation. Over 81 per cent of tn
rural school districts did, last yea
by their voluntary votes increase tn,
levy for school purposes over the 90
on the $100 valuation permitted b!
the constitution and 15 per cent NOR,
levied the full 40c. Yet they wer
unable to give adequate support t.
their schools because their assessed
valuation was so low that the full
maximum levy would not produce tht
money.
The state is attempting to give
more generous aid to the schools
than has been given in the past. We
have distributed in 1921 to the schools
of the state $1,142,792.O0 more thar
they ever previously received, the total
amount distributed being "a, 46l, $50
Lafayette County received from the
state for school purposes in 1920 $685..
290.22; in 1921, she has or will re-
ceive $4s,402.15. Thus while La
fayette County pays for state revenue
purposes $2203.63 more than in 1926
blind pension excluded; she receives
back $12,111.93 more in school money
in 1921than she received in 1920. The
balance is therefore nearly $4,000
better in favor of Lafayette County
than it was in 1920.
The reasons, therefore, for true
valuation and assessment in Missouri
are three:
First: Because the law commands
it.
Second: 1t is the only just and
equitable method.
Third: 1t permits local self gov
ernment in supporting school and
county development and thereby un-
shackles the hands of the people.
The state administration has been
accused of increasing taxes to get
more revenue for itself. Emphatical-
ly, that is not true. The state ad-
has reduced taxes and
reduced the amount of money it will
have to spend.
The assessed valuation for 1920
was 1854, ,567 ,460. The state rate
for state revenue, interest and cap
itol bonds funds was 18c on the $100
or total state revenue of
The assessed valuation
for 1921 was $4,646,1 ,259. The rate
for the above purposes was &c on the
$1O0 valuation, or the total state
revenue $S,716,741. Thus you see we
have reduced the taxes for state pur-
poses by $1,133,778 per year over
1920.
In the calculation l have excluded
the blind pension tax which was voted
BY the people last November and is
a totally new tax for which the pres
mt administration is in no way res
oonsible. But even if that tax be
counted against the present admins
ration, the property tax has been re-
luced $203,622 per annum over 1920.
Since we have reduced the amount
If state taxes, it cannot be success
,ully maintained that we desired to
Increase taxation in Missouri.
The Gardner administration in its
former years jumped the property
AK of the state as a whole from $3,-
1852 in 1917 to $5,307,946 in 1920.
That administration increased the tax
81 ,565,2A for 1920 over 1917. We
lave decreased it $1,133,278 for 1921
,ver 1920. That administration in
creased the 1917 figure 44.8@o; we
lave decreased the 1920 figure 23.4@o.
We are back to substantially the 1917
igure.
Governor Gardner tried to put the
tax on the constitutional, or
rue value basis, and failed The
present State Board Of Equalization
actually put the property tax on the
constitutional basis, and, the legisla-
ture, cooperating it was accomplish
ed with 23.4ao reduction of tax
alton.
Many county courts, city councils
and school boards Immediately levied
a rate which increased taxes locally
and laid the charge of increasing tax
alton at the door of the state board.
They probably needed more money to
maintain themselves and their insti-
tutions. They should accept the con-
sequences Of their own action.