The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1925-02-19
New State Tax Bill if Pass
ed Would Seriously At
feet KenOsha.
COST COUNTY 100000
Bill Would Also Mean Cut of
100000 in County's Revenue
According to Figures.

Figures presented at Madison Tues
dav afternoon by w. H. Afford, presi-
dent Of the city council of Kenosha,
City Manager C. M. Osborn of Keno
sha and H. C. Laughlin, director OF
finance of Kenosha, at the committee
hearing on the proposed new state
tax bill, showed that the bill if adopt
ed would cost the city of. Kenoshs
$4,000, this being the decrease in
taxes left in Kcnosha under the new
bill and those that would accrue to
the city under the present bill. These
figures were presented to refute state
ments made by representatives of the
state tax commission to the effect
that the change proposed in the bill
would not cost Kenosha more than
$4,000.
The revelation Of how the proposed
legislation would hamper Kenosha
was one of the features of the hearing
on Tuesday afternoon. Representa-
tives from several other Wisconsin
cities appeared showing how the bill
would also bring big cuts in tax rev
enues for them,
Under the present bill the income
tax money Is distributed 70 per cent
to the city where it is collected, 20
per cent to the county and 10 per cent
TO the state. There is personal prop
erty Offset, the entire personal prop
erty tax remaining with the city UNI
der both measures.
The new bill proposes that the per-
sonal property offset be set aside and
also provides for cut in the income
tax of about one-third. This would
keep the totals of income tax and
personal property taxes for the city
and county about what they have been
in the past, according to City Treas
urer H.. G. Laughlih.
How this change in distribution
would cost the city of Kenosha 1884,
500 and the county of Kenosha 100000
was explained before the committee
on Tuesday using the figures for the
present tax roll.
Here Are the Figures.
The total gross @income tax roll for
Kenosha for the present year is APP
proximately 100000 with a personal
property offset of approximately $780,
30 leaving a net of 100000 in round
numbers to be distributed. Under
the present law 20 per cent of this is
returned to the city or $4,000, 20
per cent to the county or 100000 and
10 per cent goes to the state or $780,
900.
Under the new proposed law, the
income tax would amount to approxi-
mately the same-$ 100000. The new
distribution would give only 45 pei
cent of this amount back to the city
where it is collected or $270,00o, AZ
per cent to the state, $270,000 and 10
per cent to the county or $4,000.
The city of Kenosha under the pres
emit law received $4,000 and under
the new law would receive $270,0O0 oil
a difference of $4,000 The county
of Kenosha formerly received $120,o0G
and under the new proposed Law
would receive but 100000. Adding to
the loss to the city of Kenosha, 70
per cent of the loss to the county
which it must bear, the total loss tc
the city would be in the neighborhood
of $4,000. A few small offsets as
set forth in the law would bring this
total loss to S184,500.
There would be no benefit accruinl
to Kenosha from the setting aside Of
the personal property Offset on the
income tax. The personal property
tax is now paid to the city. and is de
Quoted from the income tax roll. The
city wor-1 get no more from persona
property axes by having the offse
removed ant the new law would de
crease the income tax as proposed.
Here Are Exact Figures.
The exact figures taken from the ta1
roll are given as follows supporting
(ContinueN on mace 997