Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1936-08-13
Constitutional
Amendment No. z

A bill for a proposed Constitutional
Amendment was passed by the last
regular session of the Minnesota Leg
islature. 1t is Amendment No. and
is known as the Youngquist Amend
ment, being introduced by Represen-
tative w. r. Youngquist OF Mime
apolis. TIE voters of the State are
called upon to adopt or reject Il is
proposed Amendment on November 8.
The Amendment, if adopted. would
remove taxes from real estate and
personal property for the State or
Minnesota, with the exception of the
one mill road and bridge tax which
may be levied at the option OF the
Legislature. A proviso in the pro-
posed Amendment says that it Isl all
not limit, but the State shall have
the right to impose taxes upon royal
ties, occupations. SALES. RECEIPTS,
incomes, inheritances, gifts, PRIV
LEGES, franchises or licenses, or
upon property on the basis of gross
earnings or tonnage, or upon intang-
ibles of every kind" (The capitali-
cations are the writer's.)
Heading Toward Sales Tax.
In other words it is plainly evident
that the author of the Constitutional
Amendment and his friends had in
mind a general sales tax to make up
at least in part the deficiency caused
by not collecting general property
taxes for State purposes. Receipts and
privileges are other taxes suggested
by the author. There is no telling
how far a privilege tax might go.
Perhaps it could tax the very air
that our citizens breathe.
General property produced approx
imately $1O9,OOO,OOO for the State and
all the subdivisions of government
in the year 1895. About $16,00O,0OO
went to the State. Much of that
s16,OOO,OOO is redistributed back to
the thousands of school districts all
over the 81 counties. Where would
that school aid come from if it were
not for the state taxes on general
property? Would it not mean the
levying of higher taxes on general
property within the thousands of
school districts.
Where to get Revenue:
During the past few years the state
has also appropriated relief aids,
sorely needed by local units, from the
State Revenue fund. 1t is evident
that if the Amendment was adopted
those state aids could not be con-
tinued. Local taxes would necessarily
be raised, or other forms of taxation
would have to be adopted by the state.
if it was to continue aids to the var
ious subdivisions of government.
Conservatives and reactionaries
cannot hide the fact that they have
sales taxes in mind. Proof of that
is conclusive in their great fight to
put over the Omnibus tax bill in the
session of 1895, which had for its
main purpose the raising of revenue
through a sales tax.
1t is also possible that If Amend
ment No. was adopted by vote of
the people. and with a conservative
Legislature the present revenues from
net income taxes on individuals and
corporations now assigned to re pub
lie schools, might be diverted to other
purposes, at least in part, and thus
causing further reductions in school
aids.
Amendment Not Necessary.
There is no legal restriction pre-
venting the Minnesota Legislature
from abolishing the State property
tax, so therefore Amendment No.
to the Constitution confers no author
fly upon tie Legislature that it does
not already have. If the State gen
eral property tax was not necessary
if there was not the cry for aids from
school districts, counties and othel
subdivisions of government, then thu
people of our state, through the1
elected representatives and senators
could have eliminated State genera
property taxes long ago.
Absentee Owners Would Benefit.
Adoption of the Constitutions
Amendment would save owners o
iron ore, many of whom live in othe
states, approximately 100000 an
nually.
Absentee insurance companies, rea
estate firms, and individuals ownin
farms, homes and business propert
in the State Of Minnesota would saw
taxes on their property here If tn
Amendment was adopted.
AS before stated all the taxes col