Pocahontas star herald., 1924-05-16


Township nor permit school district
No. 80 in Blackhawk District to issue
bonds nor authorize a road TO be built
from Siwash to Nutville. / have not
made this matter appear ridiculous,
am talking of facts,-legislation which
you may find in the printed reports
of the General Assembly of any session
showing how the time of legislature is
occupied. The remedy for this is sim
pie. Put the members on salary say
of $1,000 a term and let them stay in
session just as long as they please
even If IL is six months or a year.
Remember Congress, supposed to re-
present the brains of the country, does
not average passing one general bill
a month nor one sometimes for six
months. l believe in letting the mem
bers thrash out legislation carefully
and give every man a chance to think
and talk about IL, for it is better TO
kill one bad bill than to pass half
dozen good ones. II would be sim
pie matter to let local legislation be
settled at home so that the legislature
could devote its time TO matters of
general interest, in which the entire
state is effected. l was opposed TO
state income tax for number Of
reasons. / do not believe 1t woull
have brought financial results. We
have no people with large incomes in
the state. Private affairs would be
constantly subjected TO exposure and
many complications would grow out
Of any attempt to enforce a law of
that kind, while penalties for evasion
would seldom ever be visited upon the
offender. 1t would penalize the man
who operated his business intelligent
ly and economically and put premium
upon the man who is wasteful and neg
ligent in the operation of his affairs.
| am opposed to penalizing the man
who wants to go TO a show or buy
soft drink or things of that sort be-
cause the tax comes from him and
not from the seller and il would sim
ply he adding further burdens to the
rank and file of our people. believe
the real solution Of the tax problem
was contained in what was known as
the Turner-JacobsOn bill passed by the
legislature I'm 1913 and defeated at the
polls for lack of understanding. That
Is to say that all property subject TO
taxation should be assessed at its true
value with sliding scale of rates
In the present system we are simply
fooling ourselves and no two counties
in the stale is assessed upon the same
basis which varies anywhere from 10
to 80 per cent. We advertise 10 the
world that our total property value in
the state is so much when II is three
or four times more. Investors look at
our rates and find it TO be three times
as high as II should he. Our total
value should be three times as much
and our rates one-third of what II is.
IL is not true that this basis would be
burden upon the poor man. The OPP
posite is true. II would relieve him
of burden for II is the large property
owner that escapes under the present
system and not the small one.
A farmer has little place worth
$1,000 which he assesses on 30 per
cent valuation So that he pays tax
only on $500 Another farmer has a
place worth $1,000 which he assesses
at S2500. The first farmer has TO as
sess his property at $500, while the
second has to assess for S250O. The
little owner escapes payment of $500
while the larger escapes payment of
$1,000, 80 that under The fun valuation