The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1934-06-06

teal SetAte VaIu0tlOu VI 1zVVV IA 1906
that would mean that the assessed
valuation for 1882 was $4,000 and for
1898 1t was $500 In 1888 taxes would
be figured upon only $500. There
fore, the farmer would pay ST.
COOK. oo6S3 or 1886 in 1882 for all state
purposes. For 1893 the same farmer
would pay 3lS00x .0o679 or l222, q DIFF
ference Of $l.44 instead Of a differ
ence Of 8 cents. But, what is small
matter Of Sl.36 - between friends!
It is OF tremendous Importance, how
ever, to the taxpayer. My friend the
professor calculates without knowing
oil Of the material facts. II he Will
drop q line to the state tax commits
sioner asking for copy Of the board
Of equalization report, he may secure
the missing data. When he gets that
report ask him TO turn to page So
and read as follows:
1T was moved by Mr.. Weeks
and seconded by Mr.. Dale, that
assessment Of farm lands be re-
duced approximately 10 per cent
below the 1891 assessment as rec
commended by the tax commits
sioner to the state board of equal
ization, and that real estate In
the various counties be equalized
and certified to the various county
auditors as shown in the following
schedule. Members voting aye"
were Mrs. Baker, Mr.. Weeks. Mr..
Dale and Mr.. HUSKY. Governor
LANCER wished to 60 on record as
favcrins Z 70 per cent reduction
on farm lands"
It must be remembered that real
estate Is assessed only once in two
years. The 1891 and 1882 assessments
were therefore the same, while the
1888 assessment was 10 per cent less.
The tax figures show that the coun-
ty auditors returned a taxable value
Of $338.537 1892 on farm lands for the
year 1882. For the year 1888 the fig
ure was 1901, 333.94l. The difference
is $37 ,203 1871. or little more than
10 per cent reduction. The proof OF
the pudding Is in the eating. The
amount saved is the pudding in this
case. It amounts to $3.50. 1883 less
taxes on farm lands for 1888 than fog
1882.
This is not all there is to it. how.
ever. The general fund levy in dol
lars for state purposes is where We
must look to find the reductions
made by the legislature and the gov
ernor. That levy in 1882 was $780,.
254.72. The same in 1888 was 81
So, 364.8l or difference Of <687, !
sS99l in the general fund levy for the
year 1888, and on top Of that the
present administration had to begin
with large deficit. The deficit was
largely in unpaid bills Of the shafel
administration and had to be met BY
the LANCER administration. 1t amounts
ed to more than 4500,00O.00. On &C.
count of the deficit and on account OF
the taxes not being paid as expected
the board had to make the levy much
larger than 1t otherwise would have
been.
Then, too. large part Of the total
state levy was for old debts. The new
administration did not make the
debts, but it must pay them just the
same For debts. tht Shafer admin
istration levied $l,6ll. 08272 in 1882
For the same purpose, the LANCER ad-
ministration had to levy 81 1899. l56 II
in 1888. There was no choice IN the
matter II the credit Of the state wa
to be maintained.
It is too bad that Q part Of the say.
ing in the general fund levies Of TIN
state had to Ne wiped out by an IN