Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1933-05-18

should be given full credit for it.
They are entitled to it.
There is no rejoicing on, the part
of sponsors of the statutory income
tax because an amendment bill was
not passed by the Legislature, but
certainly friends of this newer form
of taxation do not want such limita-
tions in the constitution as were pro-
posed. Nor do we think they are
necessary or wise.
The amendment bill passed by the
House contained no mention of ratio
or exemption limitations, but definite
ALLEGATION of funds to the schools,
and that should be enough. We are
not fretting about the future. We
have no reason to think that the next
Legislature will not be as good as the
last one, and the same may be said
of succeeding Legislatures. New
problems will confront the people
from time to time and it is well that
the constitution be elastic enough so
that necessary legislation can be en-
acted to meet the changes.
Further refreshing the memory OF
The Minneapolis Journal writer's it
might be well to add that an attempt
was made on the floor of the House
to make the maximum rate of taxa
tion in the statutory bill 25 per cent.
The sponsor of that move got but
three votes out of the 131 members,
which goes to prove that the great
majority are not running wild with
the new tax. Realizing that the fed
eral government has a maximum rate
now of 65 per cent; that state income
taxes are generally looked upon as
supplementary to the federal tax; and
further. that no state has as yet run
its income tax maximum rate up to
anywhere near 25 per cent, the law
makers almost unanimously turned a
cold shoulder to the suggestion.
But that is no reason why the con-
Stitution should read that the max
imum rate must not be more than
seven times the minimum. The min
imum is usually one per cent and in
that event the maximum would be but
seven per cent.
The Journal would like to have its
readers believe that the sponsors Of
the statutory income tax law were
not interested in proper distribution
of the proceeds from the tax. The
trouble is that the distribution, as
finally decided upon, after consider
able casting about. is too good to suit
The Journal. They would liked to
have had a certain percentage of the
tax allocated to the municipality or
district where collected. another per-
centage to the county and then the
state Being all allocated to the
schools, and education being consid-
cred state problem, the money will
be distributed equally to all parts of
the state based on the number of
children of compulsory school age,
lected in the state.
Further refreshing the memory of
The Journal writer's. The original
statutory bill allOcated the receipts
from the tax to the state revenue
fund and any moneys not needed for
the revenue fund would go to the
state school fund. On the floor of
the House Representative VIM. Mer-
rill, staunch friend of the income
tax, amended the bill to allocate the
money to the public schools, based on
attendance in those schools only
like other school aids are distributed.
1t brought on a controversy which in
volved the parochial schools and for
couple of days friends of the income
tax were sweating blood" for fear
that the bill might be stranded on
religious grounds. At that time the
writer took the floor and argued for
square deal for all communities
whether or not they had parochial
schools. Finally the House decided
to allocate the money to certain spe-
cific state charges, like the one mill
state road tax, the 1.23 mill state
school and University building funds,
and few minor funds. With that
ALLEGATION of the funds those millages
would not have been tax charges
against general property.
The Senate changed the ALLEGATION
back to the schools with distribution
based on all children of compulsory
school age, the money to go to the
public schools of each community.
The House accepted that amendment
without debate.
Yes, the friends of the income tax,
the sponsors of the statutory bill are
anxious that it be a replacement tax
and that it reduce the taxes on gen.
eral property. 1t seems out of place
for the Journal to try and make out
the opposite.
Present and past attorney generals
have given out as their opinions that
a state income tax will be cOnstitu-
tional without amending the cOnsti-
tuition, and therefore sponsors of the
statutory bill believe that it will be
held constitutional.