Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1932-04-14
WHY DAMN THE LEGISLATURE
BY Robert c. Bell, State Senator
of Detroit Lakes

is guilty OF wasting the public funds,
lavish expenditure of the peoples
money and profligate extravaganza.
We also are told that many of the
members do not know what a tax re-
ceipt looks like and that they can't
be trusted. Such criticism does no
violence to my conscience because
have served only one term in the
Legislature.
These criticisms are merely indict-
ments of our form of government and
reflection on the Intelligence and
judgment of the people who elect the
members of the Legislature. If true,
we are incapable of self-government
and promptly should call dictator to
take charge of our affairs. AS a mat
ter of fact the people have been get
ting from the Legislature and from
the officials of the local subdivisions
of the state just about what they de.
manded.
Far be it from me to undertake
to excuse many of the fool things the
Legislature may have done in the
past, but let us examine the facts as
to extravaganza.
Local Units Get Most.
The general property tax for 1880
was $13O.921,946. OF this sum only
81 ,O92, 946-less than S.5%-went to
the general revenue fund for state pur-
poses. More than $3.50 went to the
local governing bodies for local pur-
poses. OF the states share it ex-
pended $5,299,5O9 for education and
roads which left $5,793,44O for other
state purposes. Anything extravagant
about that?
Yes, the state has funds from other
sources. 1t has the gasoline tax and
the automobile license tax, but the
shall be used for highways. There is
the occupation tax but the law pro-
vides that half of the revenue shall
go into the permanent trust fund of
the state and that only the interest
can be used for educational purposes.
Much has been said about the gross
earnings tax but the comments ap-
parently come from those who do not
care to mention the fact that the laws
imposing gross earnings tax abolish
taxes on all property of the corpora
tions permitted to pay the gross earn
ings tax, which results in a loss of
revenue. If these corporations were
required to pay an ad valorem tax on
their property, the same as other citi-
zens, their taxes would be at least
doubled. The gross earnings tax re-
suits in a loss of revenue and a COM
property; in other words, the system
for taxing property has been left wide
open, but not so, the method of tax
ing certain classes of corporations.
Criticism from Income Tax Foes.
1t is significant that criticisms of
the Legislature are coming from those
who are opposed to the income tax
amendment. The purpose is to make
it appear that the Legislature cannot
be trusted to use the revenue from an
income tax. Let me say to the own
ers of property that the Legislature for
three-quarters of a century has had
the power to spend your tax money.
You have no guarantees. The system
for taxing your property is thoroughly
elastic, and your taxes may be con-
fiscatory. What is so sacred about the
revenue from an income tax?
The revenue from income taxes has
been used for replacement purposes
in other states. The Legislatures of
New York and Wisconsin, since the
adoption of an income tax, have abol-
ished the taxes on property for state
purposes. Since the enactment of an
income tax law in North Carolina, the
state has taken over the entire cost of
education and road building. Eighty
per cent of the cost of schools in New
York is paid out of the state treasury.
South Carolina, since the adoption of
an income tax, has reduced the tax on
property from IS mills to AZ mills.
Is the legislature of Minnesota less
trustworthy?
The bill considered by the Legisla-
ture at the last session is a fair indi
cation of what may be expected in
Minnesota 1t contained a provision
abolishing the taxes on property for
state purposes except the one mill
levy for road and bridge purposes.
1t is likely that after this is done the
balance of the revenue will be distri-
buted to the public schools and our
present eXhorbitant school taxes
thereby reduced
Few Farmers Would Pay Income Tax.
The bill at the last session further
provided exemptions for a single per-
son $1,000, a married person $4,000
and each dependent $500. 1t imposed
tax on net incomes; that is, the part
of the income left, if any, after all
expenses are paid; and not a tax on
what is taken in" by the farmer or
home owner, as some pretend. Under
this bill a person could have a net
annual income of $4,000 and be taxed,
if single, only $500, if married $3.50,