READ ABOUT THE RAID ON THE ILLINOIS TAXPAYER 



«. 



1 1\ 



-1 r 



■■.■:i *. 



J! 



For example, take a married man 

 with two children and a net income of 

 $10,000 including exemptions: 

 Total income after deducting 



ordinary expenses $10,000 



Ordinary exemption 3,000 



Additional exemption for chil- 

 dren 1,000 



Taxable net income 6,000 



Tax on the first $5,000 at one 



per cent 50 



Tax on the remaining $1,000 at 



two per cent 20 



Total Income Tax 70 



Taxes on any property paid by the 

 taxpayer cited above would be credited 

 against the income tax. A property 

 tax of only seventy dollars would com- 

 pletely wipe out the tax on his income. 



Killed In Committee 



The House Bill was killed in the 

 Revenue Committee of the House with- 

 out the courtesy of a hearing. One- 

 half of the members of this committee 

 were from Chicago. The Senate Bill, 

 on the other hand, was promptly 

 passed out with a favorable recommen- 

 dation, and with but two dissenting 

 votes. .,:;" ■/■ -"'"^ '■-^' 



The introduction of the income tax 

 bill created much protest which came 

 mostly from the Chicago press. The 

 opposition to the bill emanated largely 

 from two sources, as follows: 



(1) Those who were honestly or wil- 

 fully misinformed. 



• (2) Those who now pay no direct 

 tax but whose incomes are sufficiently 

 large to compel them to pay a tax had 

 the bill become a law. 



When the bill was considered on sec- 

 ond reading in the Senate an amend- 

 ment was adopted attaching a refer- 

 endum to the measure. In spite of this 

 weakening amendment, the Association 

 determined to press the bill for pass- 

 age. The amended bill, at least, would 

 have furnished an opportunity to get 

 an interpretation of the powers of the 

 legislature with reference to the in- 

 come tax under the present constitu- 

 tional limitation. 



How They Voted 



The bill was passed by the Senate 

 with a vote of 30 to 18. The roll call 

 follows : 



AYES — Abt, Bailey, Barr, Bohrer, 

 Boyd, Burgess, Carlson, Cuthbertson, 

 Dailey, Deck, Dunlap, Emmons, Flagg, 

 Forrester, Hamilton, Hicks, Jewell, 

 Kessinger, Lantz, McNay, Meents, 

 Meyers, Searcy, Smith, Sneed, Swift, 

 Telford, Thompson, Wilson, Wright. 



NAYS— Barbour, Boehm, Carroll, 

 Courtney, Denvir, Haenish, Huebsch, 

 Hughes, Leonardo, McDermott, Marks, 

 Mason, Reynolds, Roberts, Starr, Stein- 

 ert. Van Lent, Woods. 



The following down state Senators 

 who voted for the bill on final passage 

 also voted for the amendment attach- 

 ing the referendum to the act: 



Searcy, Dailey, Hicks, Kessinger, 

 Wright. ::l, ::':^.--^W-. ..■■:■-■ A ■■■:-■ )^ 



The bill thus went to the House 

 where it was handled by Rep. Reed 

 Cutler. The same revenue committee 

 that killed the bill earlier in the ses- 

 sion passed the bill out with favorable 

 recommendation after a fierce strug- 

 gle. 



At this point the Chicago press 

 hurled charges of trading support on 

 various bills. These charges were en- 

 tirely without foundation. The Asso- 

 ciation was ^rty to no deal with any 

 political cpBfibination. It based its 

 support or opposition to various meas- 

 ures strictly on the merits or demerits 

 of the pending measures.- ~ I 



After the bill was placed on the cal- 

 endar repeated attempts were made to 

 secure consideration but without suc- 

 cess. Consideration was postponed 

 from time to time until it was caught 

 in the famous filibuster on the bonding 

 bills. On the morning of the last day 

 of the session Association representa- 

 tives awakened to find that the income 

 tax bill had disappeared from the cal- 

 endar. 



The Last Fight i 



Late that last night. Representative 

 Arnold made a motion under Rule 12, 

 supported by more than five members, 

 to call the bill up. Seventy-seven votes 

 were required to carry this motion. 

 The roll was called and the motion was 

 lost 67-67. Following is the roll call: 



AYES — Acker, Allen, Arnold, Babb, 

 Baker, Bandy, Bauer, Baxter, Beck- 

 man, Branson, Bray, Bruer, Bush, Chy- 

 noweth, Cork, Corzine, Cutler, Davis, 

 Fahy, Foster, Green, Hanley, Harrell, 

 Hawkins, Hennebry, Hunter, Hutson, 

 Jackson, Johnson, G. J.; Kasserman, 

 Lohmann, Lager, Little, Luckey, Mar- 

 tens, Martin, McAdams, McCarthy, 

 McCaskrin, McClugage, Mester, Miller, 

 Moore, O'Hair, O'Neill, Phillips, Por- 

 ter, Rennick, Rew, Rice, Robbins, Rob- 

 inson, Roe, Rush, Searle, Sinnett, Sod- 

 erstrom. Sparks, Stanfield, Teel, Tice, 

 Turner, C. M.; Vaughan, Waller, War- 

 ren, Whitely, Wright. 



NAYS — Baird, Bippus, Breen, 

 Browne, L. O'N.; Castle, Church, Clark, 

 Coia, Curran, Devine, Douglas, Durso, 

 Eckly, Eisenbart, EIrod, Ewing, Fekete, 

 Finneran, Franz, Matt; Gallas, Gar- 

 riott. Gill, Gormley, Griffin, C. A.; 

 Hoar, Holmgren, Holten, Hrdlicka, 

 Igoe, Jacobson, Jenco, Johnson, E. A. 

 W., Jewell, Kersey, Krump, Lee, Lipka, 

 Lyon, McSii«reeney, Minsky, Mugler, 

 Murray, Noonan, O'Brien, O'Grady, 

 Overland, Pacelli, Peffers, Perina, 



Powers, Propper, Rategan, RyaBt 1. 

 Frank; Schnackenberg, Shanahan, I 

 Snell, Steven, Stewart, Sullivan, Swan< | 

 son, Trendel, Turner, E. W., Weber, i 

 Weeks, Weiss, Wilson, Wylie. 



Recorded as not voting — Boyle, ; ■ 

 Choisser, Franz, C. D.; Goode, Griffin, 

 John, Hoff, Malloy, Marinier, Petri, ; 

 Placek, Reeves, Ryan, Ed.; Turner, S. 

 B.; Van Norman, Wood and Scholes. i: 



Although the income tax bill failed ] 

 to pass, much good was accomplished j 

 by its introduction. The whole tax i 

 problem received a tremendous amount ;• 

 of discussion in the press of the state. | 

 The inequality of the tax situation was ^ 

 never brought more clearly before the I 

 minds of the people. Never before has I 

 an income tax bill passed either House t, 

 though one has been frequently intro- 

 duced. 



It is generally admitted by tax 

 authorities that there is no fairer '■ 

 measure of a man's ability to pay 

 taxes under modern conditions than'' 

 the income he receives. This is not 1 

 the time to feel discouraged. With i 

 continued effort extending even to the f 

 polls, we may look forward to a fairer :: 

 taxing policy in Illinois in the near 

 future. 



i ^t 



THE RAID ON THE TAX- 

 PAYER'S POCKETBOOJC 



ON THE 17th of May, thirty-three 

 days before the traditional final 

 closing day of the General Assembly, 

 the Chicago administration threw into 

 the hopper 112 bills purporting to deal 

 simply with the Chicago revenue situa- 

 tion. As a matter of fact, these bills 

 as originally introduced would have 

 doubled the bonding power of every 

 taxing body in the state. | 



What was generally known las the 

 key bill, S. B. No. 446, changed the 

 basis of assessment from half to full 

 value. The other bills cut the maxi- 

 mum tax rates in half. Mr. Watson, 

 Tax Director of the Association, be- 

 lieved that the upsetting of the tax 

 system; due to the passage of these 

 bills, would result in greatly increased 

 taxation. He based this opinion on 

 past experience in Illinois. I I 



These bills came into the General 

 Assembly as the session was approach- 

 ing its close with a crowded calendar 

 and much major legislation demanding 

 consideration. From the time of their 

 appearance, these measures consumed 

 almost the entire attention of the As- 

 sembly to the detriment of other legis- 

 lation. The session ran two weeks 

 longer than usual. Even then many 

 important bills died on the calendar, 

 including fa number of great interest 

 to agriculture. . 



;^:-l 



h 



