Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1933-04-06
HOUSE BIG FOR
INCOME TAX
After P a S sing Statutory
Bill, Legislators Vote to
Amend Constitution.
Tax Committee r e t ur n S
Lynn Thompson Tax Pro-
pOSal to Author.
BY HJALMAR PETERSEN
from Pine COun

BY HJAIIMAR PETERSEN
Representative from Pine County
March "a to April ~
The bill for a constitutional amend
meat concerning state income taxes
was passed by the House Monday with
only one dissenting vote. The statu-
tory income tax bill was also passed
in the House only two days previously
by a vote of 1e4 to IL
In spite of the fact that former
Attorney General Benson and the
present Attorney General Harry H.
Peterson have both given out opinions
to the effect that it is not necessary
to amend the constitution for an in
come tax it seems that there are some
people who deem it safer to have the
constitution amended and be "abso-
lutely sure" as they put it. Way
back in 1906 the late Attorney Gen
raj Young, stated that when the con-
stitutiOn was amended that year it
provided for a wide open state income
tax.
the constitutional amendment bill
Monday so that there might be less
chance of contesting in court the sta
tutory income tax if passed by the
Senate and it becomes law.
Replaces Real Estate Charges.
The amendment bill places in the
constitution definite ALLEGATION of rev.
enue received from the state income
tax much on the same basis as that
in the statutory bill. 1t provides first
for taking care of the one mill state
wide road tax; 1.23 mill state school
and university tax on general prop
erty. It takes care of several other
definite state revenue fund charges
which have heretofore been collected
on real estate and personal property
and If any more is collected from the
income tax than needed for those
definite charges, the money goes to
pay off state bonded indebtedness.
Rep. Weeks of Minneapolis, at
tempted to place into the constitution.
a tax limitation providing that the
maximum rate of state income taxes
should never be more than five times
failed and he then tried to amend it
by a seven to one ratio which was
also voted down. Rep. VIM. Merrill
of Starbuck, in no uncertain words
stated that this was simply an amend
ment that the wealthy would like to
have embodied in the constitution so
as to guarantee that the tax would
never be very high. 1t would be Civ
ing protection to the income taxpayer
that had never been accorded the
general property taxpayer. Reps. De-
Parcq of Staples, and Herfndahl of
Benson. and others also spoke against
such limitations. Mr.. Herfindahl
called attention to the fact that in
the 1881 session there was an attempt
TO make the highest rate only three
times that of the lowest rate, or a
ratio of three to one, with maxi
mum tax of 3f6 assuming the lowest
rate would be 40.
Rep. Stockwell. Minneapolis, wanted
a wide open amendment such as the
He argued that without embodying in
the constitution just what should be
done with the receipts from the state
income tax, it would be possible for
future legislatures to conform to the
times and to use receipts from the
income tax for such purposes as the
times demanded. MIR. Stockwell ex-
pressed confidence in other men and
said it would be unnecessary to make
the constitution so binding. Sup
porters of the statutory income tax
bill and friends of this newer and
more scientific form Of taxation
agreed that Mr.. StOckwell was right
and that there is no such thing as
a definite replacement of income tax
money either by statute or in the
constitution.
Tax Levying Bodies Have Power.
There has been so much ballyhoo
about making the income tax a re-
placement tax so it was deemed by
proponents of the statutory bill that
it might be better to embody in the
amendment bill provisions for definite
ALLEGATION of the receipts in the con-
stitution-thus, in way doing away
with lot of crying for replacement
features. How the money received
from any form Of taxation, be it in
come. general property or other taxes.
is spent. depends entirely on the type
of men and women elected to the
Legislature, city and village councils,
county boards, township boards, school
boards and so on.
The statutory income tax bill and
the bill for the income tax constitu-
tional amendment are now being con-
Continued on Page s.