Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1931-04-30
Minnesota Legislature
Continued from Page u

CONTINUED from Page -
by Prof. Rottschaefer of the Minnesota
University. Several committee hear
ings were held and three public hear
ings were also had on the measure.
Opponents of the measure were nat
tiers.
The bill was way down on special
orders so in order to have roll call
on same and attempt to pass it pro-
ponents made special efforts to have
it advanced on the last day of the
session. Representative ]. E. Odegard
of Sherbur'ne county, one OF the au-
thors, fought hard to get it up for
an immediate vote. Representative
W. |. Norton of Minneapolis, the con-
sentative leader, argued that a bill
of this Importance should certainly
not be voted on in the closing hours
when there would not be time for due
consideration. The writer reminded
him that he as well as other men,
bers of the Legislature had had ample
time to acquaint themselves with pro-
visions of the bill as several COM
mittee meetings and three public
hearings had been held. The re-
suit was that 70 members voted to
bring it up for immediate considera-
ton whereas 50 votes were needed.
That spelled the death knell of the
1881 statutory income tax.
EXemDtiOnS too Low.
Proponents of the measure were
anxious to have it passed for what tax
relief it might have afforded to gen.
eral property taxpayers. 1t was esti-
mated that S10,0O0,00O would have
accrued to the state through this
measure. Had it passed it would
naturally have been fought out in the
courts and if declared unconstitu-
tional it was better that it did not
pass for then it would have caused
connection and expense without any
revenue having accrued. Many heads
combined to draw up the bill and nat
urally all could not be satisfied. One
matter that was not in accord with
the wishes of the writer was the low
exemptions of $1,000 to single persons
and $500 to heads of families. On
amounts above that they were to pay
an income tax. Opponents of the bill
were fighting to have the exemptions
even lower-$600 to single persons
and $500 to heads of families. With
low exemptions it would mean that
practically everybody would have TO
make out income tax reports and pay
some income taxes, and that was not
the purpose of the proposed tax from
the beginning. The purpose was to
get more tax money from those who
can well afford to pay it-those re-
ceiving incomes of $4,000, $4,000,
$4,000, 100000, and amounts run
ming up to million or over. The
people of smaller means usually have
enough expenses with their real estate
and personal property taxes, and if
they do not pay real estate taxes they
pay rent which amounts to the same.
1t would seem better to have exemp-
lions on a state income tax the same
as federal income tax exemptions,
namely $1,500 to single persons and
$4,000 to heads of families, so that
when a report is made out for the
federal income tax it need only be
duplicated for the state report.
The drawing up of a bill in this
session of the legislature however
has had it's benefits. 1t focused at
tention on state income tax, caused
much writing and discussion and sew
eral radio talks were given on the
subject which will naturally pave the
way for better bill in the next ses-
sion after passage of the constitu-
tional amendment. 1t should also be
the means of getting out good vote on
the amendment in 1882.
Blanket Ballot Fails.
After having the consolidated pri-
mary election ballot bill pass the
House by fair margin it was a lit
tie disheartening to see it fail in the
Senate. About ten days before the
session closed an attempt was made
in the Senate to lift the bill up on
special orders. 1t received 38 votes
that day. Another like attempt was
made the second last day of the ses-
sion when it received 40 votes. 1t re-
,quired As votes to bring it up on
special orders. If it had become law