WHY WE SUPPOFITED THE STATE INCOME TAX BILL 



tives, they were voted out by an over- 

 whelming majority, and from that time 

 on, the gasoline tax had the active sup- 

 port of the Illinois Agricultural As- 

 sociation. 



Early in consideration of the meas- 

 ure, it developed that the lines were 

 tightly drawn between the larger cities 

 of the state and the more rural dis- 

 tricts. Most of the city newspapers 

 aggressively opposed the measure. 

 So did the Chicago Motor Club. 

 Farmer representatives were contin- 

 ually charged with asking the city 

 motorist, not only to complete the bond 

 issue system, but to construct and 

 maintain the secondary road system. 



What's In Bill 



This amended bill contains the fol- 

 lowing provisions: 



1. It levies a tax of two cents per 

 gallon on all gasoline used in motor 

 vehicles on the highways of Illinois. 



2. It provides exemption for gaso- 

 line used for agricultural, industrial, 

 and purposes other than in motor ve- 

 hicles used on the highways. 



3. It provides for the prompt com- 

 pletion of the bond issue system (one- 

 half of the tax going for that pur- 

 pose), thereby removing to a large de- 

 gree the element of politics in desig- 

 nating which roads shall be completed. 



4. It recognizes the secondary 

 roads as a part of the state highway 

 system. One-half of the gasoline tax 

 goes back to the counties on the basis 

 of the automobile license fees coming 

 from such counties for the construction 

 and maintenance of state aid roads. 



5. It provides that county boards 

 shall designate the state aid roads for 

 improvement from this fund. How- 

 ever, the construction and maintenance 

 of such highways is to be subject to 

 the approval of the State Highway De- 

 partment. 



6. It provides that funds derived 

 from the gas tax may be used to pay 

 the principal and interest on county 

 road bonds where such bonds have 

 been issued for the construction of 

 state aid roads, and where such roads 

 have been built according to approved 

 specifications. 



7. It provides that county boards 

 may, by resolution, use the funds de- 

 rived from the gas tax to replace funds 

 now levied against property for state 

 aid road maintenance. 



A close study of the following roll 

 calls reveals and confirms our state- 

 ment: The vote in the House was as 

 follows : 



YEAS — Acker, Allen, Arnold, Babb, 

 ■Baker, Bauer, Baxter, Beckman, Bran- 

 son, Bray, Breen, Browne, Bush, Chois- 

 ser, Chynoweth, Cork, Corzine, Cutler, 

 Davis, Eckley, Eisenbart, Ewing, Fahy, 

 Foster, Hanley, Harrell, Hawkins, 



Hoar, HofF, Hunter, Hutson, Jackson, 

 Jenco, Johnson, E. A. W., Johnson, G. 

 J., Kasserman, Kersey, Lager, Lipka, 

 Lohman, Luckey, Malloy, Martens, 

 Martin, McAdams, McCarthy, McCask- 

 rin, Mester, Moore, O'Hair, Petri, Phil- 

 lips, Porter, Reeves, Rennick, Rew, 

 Rice, Robbins, Robinson, Roe, Rush, 

 Ryan, Ed., Searle, Snell, Soderstrom, 

 Sparks, Stanfield, Stewart, Teel, Tice, 

 Trandel, Turner, C. M., Turner, S. B., 

 Vaughan, Waller, Warren, Weiss, 

 Whitely, Wilson, Wood, Wright, and 

 Scholes. 



NAYS — Baird, Bippus, Boyle, Bruer, 

 Castle, Church, Clark, Coia, Devine, 

 Douglas, Elrod, Fekete, Finneran, 

 Franz, C. D., Franz, Matt., Gallas, 

 Garriott, Gill, Gormley, Green, Griffin, 

 C. A., Griffin, John, Hennebry, Holm- 

 gren, Holten, Hrdlicka, Igoe, Jacobson, 

 Juul, Krump, Lee, Lyon, Marinier, Mc- 

 Clugage, McSweeney, Miller, Minsky, 

 Mugler, Murray, Noonan, O'Brien, 

 O'Grady, O'Neill, Pacelli, Peffers, Per- 

 ina. Powers, Propper, Rategan, Ryan, 

 Frank., Schnackenberg, Shanahan, 

 Steven, Swanson, Turner, E. W., Web- 

 er, Weeks, Wylie. 



Here's Senate Vote 



The bill was taken up promptly in 

 the Senate and passed second reading 

 without further amendment. On the 

 vote on third reading, the bill failed 

 to pass lacking one vote of the required 

 constitutional majority. On the follow- 

 ing legislative day a motion to recon- 

 sider the vote by which the bill failed 

 to pass was carried and on a second 

 roll call the bill passed by a vote of 

 30 to 19. On this roll call the mem- 

 bers of the Senate voted as follows: 



YEAS — Bailey, Barr, Bohrer, Boyd, 

 Brown, Burgess, Carlson, Courtney, 

 Cuthbertson, Deck, Flagg, Forrester, 

 Haenisch, Hamilton, Jewell, Joyce, 

 Lantz, Leonardo, McNay, Marks, 

 Meents, Meyers, Roberts, Searcy, 

 Smith, Sneed, Telford, Van Lent, Wil- 

 son, and Wright. 



NAYS — Abt, Barbour, Boehm, Brod- 

 erick, Carroll, Dailey, Denvir, Dunlap, 

 Emmons, Hicks, Huebsch, Hughes, 

 Kessinger, McDermott, Mason, Rey- 

 nolds, Starr, Steinert, and Woods. 



It is the opinion of those in touch 

 with the legislative situation that the 

 gasoline tax just passed is the best 

 possible arrangement obtainable under 

 present conditions. They believe fur- 

 ther that at no future period would 

 as satisfactory an arrangement have 

 been possible. 



The large cities have already been 

 supplied with roads and have lost in- 

 terest in the rural requirements. If 

 this program had been deferred 

 two more years, other communities 

 would have grown cold to those needs. 

 Never again would we have been able 



to secure substantial recognition for :.;. 

 secondary roads, v:^ :..:';- ;|. Si .".V^ 



We have made possible through the 

 gas tax a comprehensive road pro- 

 gram. The farmer's end of the road . 

 has been recognized. We may now look 

 forward to the development of a real 

 farm-to-market system of roads. 



INCOME TAX--A TAX BASED 

 ON ABILITY TO PAY 



EXPERIENCE in the tax amend- : 

 ment campaign of 1926 demon- 

 strated the extreme difficulty of secur- 

 ing tax reform through a change in 

 the state constitution. It will be re- 

 called that in that fight, although a . 

 large majority of those voting on the 

 proposition voted in favor of the . ; 

 amendment, it failed to carry because 

 of the Constitutional requirement that : *. : 

 an amendment must receive a major- 

 ity of all votes cast in the election. 



It has long been generally conceded 

 that a uniform property tax cannot be ; • 

 made to apply equitably to property 

 conditions as they now exist. Under 

 its operation taxes have borne down . ' 

 each year more heavily on tangible 

 property until conditions are becom- 

 ing unbearable. .. i fi 



In view of this situation, and be- 

 cause an amendment to the Revenue 

 Article could not be submitted until 

 the next General Assembly, it was 

 thought advisable to see what could 

 be done under present constitutional 

 provisions. A state income tax bill 

 accordingly was introduced in each 

 House. In the Senate it was sponsored 

 by Senators Lantz, Deck, and Sneed and 

 in the House by Representative Arnold. 



What It Provided ^ ^' 



This bill in its final form provided 

 for a tax of one per cent on net in- ; 

 comes up to $5,000; it allowed an ex- 

 emption of $1,500 in case of unmar- 

 ried persons and $3,000 in case of mar- 

 ried persons or heads of families; and 

 it provided for an additional exemp- 

 tion of $500 for each child under eight- 

 een years of age, or other dependent. = 

 It provided a tax of two per cent on 

 additional net incomes of $5,000 to $10,- 

 000, and three per cent on additional 

 net incomes above $10,000. 



It allowed the taxpayer to deduct ;. 

 his property taxes from his computed 

 income tax. In case a man paid taxes 

 on property, either real or personal, 

 he must have received a very large in- • 

 come before he would be required to 

 pay an income tax. The purpose of 

 the measure was to secure contribution . 

 to the cost of government from per- 

 sons of substantial incomes who, be- 

 cause they pay no property tax, con- 

 tribute nothing directly to the cost of 

 government. ' . . 



i 



X 







1 



V 



