Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1936-10-08
PLENTY OF AIR WILL
KILL 1T

This newspaper, few weeks
ago, expressed editorial comment
against the proposed Youngquist
Amendment No. in order that
our readers might be informed
as to the true motive back of
such a move. Sin, II at time other
editorials from other papers out
over the state have been giving
vent to explanations against it.
We quote herewith editorial
comment from a recent issue of
the Blooming Prairie Times. in
which Editor Nicholson mentions
certain points which should cause
the voters to be on their guard.
The editorial fellows:
Among the interesting issues to be
decided by the people in the coming
fishing the tax levy on real estate for
state purposes. All state levies on
real estate will be eliminated if
Amendment to the constitution car
ries in November.
The advocates of Amendment 2 are
presenting an interesting and plaus-
ible case which is bound to interest
the real estate owners who have been
harassed unreasonably by the heavy
tax burden they must meet each year.
If they can fan this resentment suf-
ficiently they may be able to carry
the amendment although they have
a difficult task due to the fact that
Minnesota
must get a majority of all the votes
cast in the election. Anyone who
votes in the election but does not vote
either way on the amendment is
counted against it.
The chief arguments in favor of the
amendment is that real estate is car
rying an unfair proportion of the state
tax load. That there is but one state
in the union where real estate carries
such a heavy per capita state tax
load and the only way to get relief
is by this amendment which makes
such a levy for state purposes impos-
sible. Of course tie counties, town.
ships, villages and cities will still be
able to levy taxes on real estate for
the purposes of these political sub
divisions.
In connection with this, the advo-
Gates of the amendment point out that
the state per capita tax for state pur-
poses in Minnesota is more than 81.
Wisconsin, however, which does not
have such a restriction, has been able
to reduce the per capita real estate
tax for state purposes down to less
than 25 cents. Evidently it is clear
that there are other methods of re-
lief for the real estate owner than
such an extreme measure. Wisconsin
collects a bigger income tax and col
lects more money from its corpora
tions than Minnesota.
1t is also interesting to observe
that the support of Amendment 2
is coming chiefly from those leaders
and groups which advocated the Dol
lar Turnover tax and later the sales
tax in the last campaign and in the
last legislature. Although they do not
wish to discuss it publicly, they con-
cede privately that the passage of
Amendment 2 inevitably means sales
tax for Minnesota. They also believe
q sales tax is a proper tax for Min
nesota and will welcome it gladly.
Consequently the sales tax becomes
a campaign issue this November and
it is bound up with the success or
failure of Amendment 2.
There are number of serious OBJ
jections against this amendment. The
small farm or property owner has
already received some relief due te
the homestead exemption law but the
fact remains that he still is paying
too large a part of the state tax
bill If Amendment carries he i:
likely to pay even a larger part bu
only i'm another form. The chief saw
ing is going to come to the large
real estate owner. What he saves viii
have to be made up in some othe
way. Since the large real estate own
er eats but three meals day, wears
but one suit at time and buys rela
lively small amount of the item
which will be taxed under sale
tax. his burden will be passed ol
to the rank and file who will assum
Just as heavy, if not heavier, shar
of the burden than before.
Another objection to the amend
ment is that it is likely to tie tn
hands of the people and cripple tn
state government in case of an emer
gency. 1t would seem a sounde
method of procedure to attack tn
problem as Wisconsin has done an
F.. raise the state income from othe