Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1931-10-15
AMENDMENT
IS EXPLAINED
Senator r. C.. Bell Writes
Governor, Accepts Com
mittee Appointment.
Shows What Phrases are
Used i'm Effort to Defeat
Income Tax.

Lakes, a prominent exponent OF
the proposed state income tax for
Minnesota, wrote a letter to Gov
ernor Floyd B. Olson on Oct. 9th,
in which he accepts the appoint
ment as a member of the Citizens
Committee that the governor will
appoint to study the tax situa-
ton. A copy of this letter in
which he brings out clearly that
replacement or lin lieu
clause cannot be embodied in the
constitutional amendment was
also sent to the Askov American
by the senator and is published
herewith for the benefit of the
many readers who are interested
in the furtherance and enactment
of the state income tax. Senator
Bells letter follows:
Senator Bells Letter.
Your letter advising that you will
endeavor to secure a Citizens Com
mittee to assemble facts, study the
situation, and prescribe remedies for
the defects in the present system OF
taxation in Minnesota is gratifying;
and, in accordance with your request,
/ shall be pleased to serve as a mem
Der
As you state there is some criticism
of the proposed income tax amend
ment because it does not guarantee
that the tax shall be in lieu of some
other tax. 1t is significant that this
criticism Invariably comes from CEN
tiers of wealth and population where
live producers of large incomes and
owners of intangible property who are
escaping at least portion of their
share of the cost of government and
who are enjoying special privileges
under our Anticipated, tax system.
Cannot Go Into Constitution.
Apparently it is the contention of
our critics that a provision of the
Constitution authorizing an income
tax should at the same time guarantee
the sum total of taxes levied and col
lected. Such a contention is puerile
and the reason is simple. 1t is be-
cause the state has not adequate pow
er to control public expenditures.
This is a government by the people;
and, whether right or wrong, the peo-
pie have the power to eXpend their
money. There are about ten thousand
little governments within the state
the schools, counties, townships, cities
and villages-each with the power to
levy and collect taxes and to spend
public funds. Consequently we cam
not guarantee by constitutional limi-
tation that taxes will not be increased
unless local self government practi-
cally is abolished and power central
lied in the state to control local eX-
penditures which would amount to a
revolutionary change in our form of
government; and the provision au-
does not belong in an amendment au-
thorizing an income tax.
The Constitution might prohibit the
taxation of property for state pur-
poses; but that would not guarantee
that the taxes would not be increased,
because the ten thousand little gov
ernments would be left free to in
crease local levies and assessments.
1t would be easy to prescribe the
purpose for which the revenue de-
rived from an income tax should be
used. For instance, the Constitution
might provide that it should be al
located to the public schools; but that
would not guarantee that taxes would
not be increased, because the little
governments still would be at liberty
to increase levies or assessments and
thus counter-balance any decrease
that might result in school taxes.
State income taxation was inaugu-
rated by Wisconsin twenty years ago.
Twenty states since have adopted it.
Not one has discovered a constitu-
tional provision guaranteeing that
taxes cannot be increased. No law
yer with sufficient ingenuity to for
mulate such a provision has been
discovered. 1t is strangely significant
that not one of our critics has put
his suggestion in the English Ian
guage. They advocate doing some
thing without prescribing how it can
be done. Some state that they would
favor an income tax amendment if it
contained such a provision; in other
words, they would support the amend
ment if it contains something that is
impossible. Why do they not candidly
say that they are simply opposed to
an income tax and let us admire them
for their frankness? AS a matter OF
fact many of those who object to the
so because they have accepted the
Replacement" and Gin lieu" sugges-
tons at face value and as something