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

In a recent editorial The Mime
apOlis Journal replies to a previously
published editorial in the Askov
American which dealt with the sta
tutory income tax law enacted by the
recent session of the Minnesota Leg
islature and also the proposed amend
ment to the constitution concerning
state income taxes which failed of
passage.
The Journal tries to make out that
the editor of this newspaper as spon-
sor of the statutory income tax bill
in the House, together with others. re-
joices over the defeat of the amend
ment bill as much as over the passage
of the statutory bill. The constitu-
tionality of the statutory bill will of
course be tried in court and should
the law be declared invalid the Jour-
nal thinks the blame for the delay
of an income tax day in Minnesota
should be placed on the heads of
those who opposed the amendment
bill.
AS mentioned before. and we re-
peat again, The Journal was not for
an income tax. They represent the
conservative and reactionary element
in the state and their method of stav-
ing off state income tax was to pre-
tend to be for an amendment to the
constitution and that there should
be no income tax before the consti-
tuition was amended through a bill
passed by the Legislature and an af-
firmative vote taken by the people.
In other words, delay. The amend
ment to the constitution that they
wanted when demand for an income
tax had become so great that it could
no longer be withheld, was the kind
of an amendment which would mini
mize the effect of the tax.
1t must be admitted that it is easy
for those who do not have to pay the
tax to be for it and the same may
be said of those who would have TO
pay only a small income tax. The
Minneapolis Journal would naturally
have to, pay an income tax as would
many, if not all of its stockholders,
and the tax would be paid by the
people and interests they represent.
However, no one need apologize for
being for the income tax and work
ing for its enactment. General prop
erty is contributing a disproportion-
ate share toward the tax burden and
taxes must be collected more on a
basis of ability to pay.
Perhaps it might be all right to
refresh the memory of The Mime
apolis Journal writer's little.
Three bills for amendments to the
House. Representatives Barker of
Grant county, Hart of Carlton, and
Lee of Wright. were the sponsors.
The Barker bill would have limited
exemptions to $500 for single persons
and $500 for married people; the
maximum rate of taxation would
never have been more than five times
the minimum rate, and it also car
ried provisions for ALLEGATION of the
funds with certain percentages to the
community of origin, the county and
the state.
That would have been a fine mess
to have put into the constitution of
the state. Members of the Tax COM
mittee often referred to it as The
Minneapolis Journal bill.
The three amendment bills were
discussed by the committee, which
was followed by the selection of a
subcommittee that picked a few
points from each of the bills and
came out with a bill that was ac-
cepted by the committee and passed
by the House with only one dissenting
vote. About all that was left of the
Barker bill was the title and the
House file number. But the repre-
sentative having introduced a bill
that was to the liking of The Mime
apolis Journal they preferred to con-
tinue giving it his name.
The amendment bill as passed by
the House which left out any refer
ence to ratio of tax and exemptions
but had definite ALLEGATION of the
funds to the schools was taken apart
by the Senate. They put back the
ratio proposition only not quite so
severe-seven to one-and they also
resurrected the exemption limita-
tions. Those were doubled and made
$500 for single persons and $1,000 for
married persons.
The Senate made it a Barker bill
again, only not as statute-like as the
original. The original was just to
the liking of The Journal and with