The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1932-12-30

In view Of the foregoing, I cannot
recommend the additional 1919 tax or
Pari-Mutuel bets proposed by the ma
jority of the Commissino.
5.
/ am not sure, however, that some
smaller tax can not be safely levied
on Pari-Mutuel bets. The five States
which now permit such betting and the
percentage taken by the tracks, in
GLIDING breakage, where allowed, are
approximately as follows: Maryland
SO; Illinois $40; Kentucky 1919
Florida 11Ho; Louisiana 1870.
It is also to be noted that Pari-
Mutuel betting was voted down in
California this year, and know of no
indication that any other States are
apt to legalize it in the near future.
Based on this years volume of bet
ting, each 10 Of tax would produce
$35O,000.00 of revenue for the State,
and tax up to 31a% could be inn
posed and still have the Maryland
charge against Pari-Mutuel betting
lower than any other State in the
country save Illinois.
! Most of the reasons heretofore given
in opposition to 1919 tax can be used
against any tax, but the lower one
makes the proposed tax, the less force
there is to the reasons, and / believe
serious consideration should be given
to imposing tax of go. Such tax,
if deducted with the commission and
breakage now paid the tracks, would
not affect the tracks revenue it would
be too small, in my opinion, to serious
| ly curtail the betting of small bettors,
whether casual or habitual, it would
certainly not be sufficient to enable
bookmakers to pay greater odds than
the tracks, and the big bettors would
be in the position of either betting at
| the Maryland tracks, or of confirming
their operations to Illinois during the
racing season in that State, because in
the three other States which permit
betting they would find from 1870 to
1870 being taken from the pools as
| against Maryland's 80, which is all
! that would be taken here even with a
| 2@o tax.
There may be reasons which have
not occurred to me against imposing
even this small tax, but when you con-
slider that betting on horse races is a
| pastime or diversion, not a necessity,
that much of the money wagered comes
from outside Of Maryland, and that in
every State which permits it, more is
taken from the pools than is now taken
| in Maryland, it seems reasonable to
suggest that in the present state of
| public finances some thought be given
a 29o tax, or even one of go.
Mention has also been made of pos
sible tax on race track admissions, but
the materially reduced revenue of the
tracks resulting from the depression
render it unwise, in my opinion, to con-
slider such tax at this time.
APO tax on Pari-Mutuel bets would
on this years betting, produce about
about $700,000.00, but even if this
racing, the State would still need fur
Their revenue of $2,600,000 to enable it
to give to the public school systems of
i the Counties and Baltimore City the
$3,300,00O aid suggested in the major
| ity report of the Commission. This
additional revenue could be secured by
| imposing 1919 tax on cigarettes,
cigars and smoking tobacco, and 209o
tax on soft drinks and chewing gum.
| According to a careful study made by
DR.. Devault of the Commission, the
/ first tax would produce revenue of
about So, 100, 900, and the second would
produce almost $2,000,000, making a
| total of nearly $4,100,000. If there is
added to this the additional race track
revenue Of about 100000 the State
would have approximately $4,S0O,000
with which to take care of the $780,
| 900 it would need for the increased
| school burden, and even without any,
| thing from the tracks, there would be
margin of 100000 which would
seem ample to take care of any over
estimate of the return from the tax
| on the commodities mentioned.
Such a tax should not prove burden
some to the consuming public. None
| of the commodities are necessities, no
one is compelled to use them, and they
| sell for very small sums so that the
| payment of the tax, even if it is all
| passed on to the consumer instead of
being partly absorbed elsewhere would
not be onerous. Due to the almost
universal use of at least some of these
articles by the citizens of the State,
the tax would represent contributions
by nearly everyone towards the sup
port of the government, and at the
same time anyone could avoid pay
ment of the tax by the simple expedi-
ent Of refraining from the use of to-
bacco, soft drinks and chewing gum.
The amount to be realized from the
tax is very considerable, and the prac-
teal details of collecting the tax by
means of State revenue stamps or
otherwise, should not be difficult to
work out.
The Federal Government taxes
cigars, cigarettes, cigarette papers and
manufactured tobacco, and in addition
these articles, or some of them, are
taxed in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, North Da-
kota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Da-
kota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.
South Carolina also taxes soft drinks,
and Arkansas, Michigan and South
Dakota tax malt products. do not
believe any State taxes chewing gum,
but I see no objection to placing
moderate tax on this non-essential