R~f"AR
s BY
S[~t\TOR
UBEP.T HI HJf1PilREY
.. AYCEE ft.vJA DS BAiiQUET
GRE EN BAY ~ WISCO SIN 1~ R C H
. 1~
.1972
TOliGHT IS
MA
y OF YOU
IT '
I
.~'
Ir :PORTA'H V 'Ii'G FOR GR [ lLY /l... D
ERE .
P.~ !~ I GL T
i·Jiil ·J YOU Af, RECOG IZ D BY YOUR
FOR T I GS YOU H VE U SELFISHLY
DO~E
C Dr 1f1~U
'ITY
FOR GREE · BAY AD
\HSCOI sr··. W HAT T IS I~OV I ~G
I~ I CH T f1EAf~S
GREEr' nhY
IS T f.\T YOU A\E DED ICATtD TO
FOR\~ARD -- THAT
ST
I~DH'
·1
STILL ISN ' T GOOD
E'OUGH . " FOR~ARD
11
IS \nSCOf 'Sii: ' f:iOTTO.
LOOK BJl.C. AT Tit !STORY OF THIS CITY A!JD THIS STPJE . HHETiiER IT ' S It
GOVER1~ f~Ei'TAL REFORr~ ,
P OG ESSIVE
I JOVATI01S I ' utf! Ai RIG'TS OR HHETHER IT ' S WI:··JH G FOOTBALL C HAr1P IO ~SH IPS ,
'/ISCO 'JS I
A.S ALJP.YS LED Ar'iER ICA FORH. 1\D .
2
AID TODAY I! THE
u~
ITED STATES SHMTE YOUR JUI· lOR
SENATOR--GAYLORD r4ELSO '--AIJD I JOI ED TOGETHER TO SPOI SOR
or' E OF
T E f·~OST COf1PREHENS IVE TAX REFO r!j PROPOSALS
I r TRODUCED THIS
SESS I O~
OF CONGRESS ,
THt TH1E HAS COME FOR TAX REFORft T 'E TIME HAS COP1E TO CUT THE BU DEN OF THE PROPERTY TAX FOR THE PEOPLE OF HI SCDr 1SIF
I
THE Tir1E AS I ~D I V I DUA L
C0~1 E
TO R DUCE THE HEAVY COST ON THE
TAXPAYER OF YOUR SCHOOLS.
THE TI ME HAS COME FOR TAX JUSTI CE FOR THE AMERICAN \'JORi' I NG FAfHLY I T .E Af'1ERI Cf1.i\l
BUSH~ESS~~M
APD THE
P.~~ERICAN
3 THE TI ME HAS COME FOR A TA~ SYSTEM T AT SAYS TO THE HEA.LTHY, TO THE SUPER- RIOt TO BI G BUS INESS" TO T IE Ii~TE RN/-\T I ONAL
BA.N
TODAY WE NEED LEADERSH IP I N GO\ERNMENT THAT WILL SEE TO IT Ti AT TAXES l\RE FAI R FOR EVERYOi·JE Af\D THAT NO ONE GETS A SPECIAL DEAL. TODAY" TEE TAX SYSTEr1 IS RIDDLED WITH SPECIAL LI NES" SPECIAL LOOP OLES" AID SPECI AL DEALS . -- I t 1969 AlD 1970" OVER 300
~~ER ICANS
MAK I G BETTER
THA"' $200"000 A YEAR PAID NO I NCOf1E TAX AT ALL . --GIANT OIL CQf\1 PAI' IES
r~~'-\K I N ·l
LESS THAii 10 PERCENT I N TAXES
I
OVER $8 BILLI OI' A YEr'-\R PAY
4 -- I NTE R~ATI ONA L
USE A hOST OF
TP~X
BAt, EHS A'D DODGES A.\lD
·1U LTi i~A.TI O!.A L C ORPORATI Oi~S
SHELTERS ~
DU '!rW CORPORATIOlS1
A1 D P 0\Y EXPORT DEV ICES TO AVO ID PfYHG TAXES . --T1E SUPER- RICH hIRE hIG PR. CED
~AS
.Ir GTOI'l f\i-!D
i~EVJ
YORK
TA LAWYP)S TO riA. IPULATE THE TAX LA\,J S SO TH T TH IR T XES !ILL BE LESS
I
--DOCTORS p, ··D LAiY RS FARfv~ER
v~H I LE
~1 IT
IG Ii ~ COf"'ES PLAY VJEE'
BY BUY ING FARfl PROPERTY TH FAfH LY
FARI\~ ER
~~D
D
~:HlG
TAX DEDUCTI O~ S
STRU -GLES TO f~AKE A DECE JT LI VI\IG .
PUT Sir";PLY 1 TA, LOO HOLES .1
.~J
ThAT YOU~ VE TO PAY
t'lORE T .XES--r·1oRE r··cm.1E TAXI noR SALES TAX PROPERTY TAX .
Arm noRE
5
T! E Tirl LAS COfq TO LIFT T E BUP.DE1 ' OF THE PROPER Y TA)
o;~
TI-:E PEOPLE OF HISCOI'SIN Aim T' E PEOPLE OF THIS ;.ATI O· .
Am WE CAll DO IT TFIS
kE
CA~
CLOSE THESE
TiES I ·HRICATE Ti
I
Y EA~, .
UNFA I ~
H I D L~
LOOPHO LES Bf GO itG AFTE R
PLACES : Ti'E ASSET DEPREC L~TI O J
RA1· GE1 CAP ITAL GA l S AT DEAT 1 T,E OIL DEPLETI O" ALLO\'JA 'Ct., T~
E 'OBEY FARf'1S., T E TP\X DODGES p,··n TAX SHELTERS OF THE
STATES OF f1 ILLI O'',f\.IRES . THESE ruJD 14 OTHER LOOPPOLES MUST BE CLOSED .
6 ~~E r~US T ~R I'~G
H AT T EY
RE~.LLY
r T PESTS ,,;m
Tl. -sE LOOPHOLES I ;TO T E OP[' TO Sl a~·~
/\RE
1
THE sur
DE\ ICES TH T ThE BI .. CO PORATE
r:-Rrcr
usE To f'iA' E Yo · PAY r~oR TAYEs
CLO I G T iESE LOOPHOLES r·1E JS T AT THERE
VJ ILL
BE
$16 BILLI OI' AVAILABLE TO REDUCE YOUR PROPE.JY TAX S
1
II YOUR OHi; i or·JETOHI~S AliD P.I G:T HtRE
a· GP.EE,
BAY
P.,OPERTY TAX S f.RE AT T :E A LARf1II~ LE1 L OF BETTE. THA:J
Tl IS MEA. S THAT p: YOU $1
1
00
.~
Ov:r;
r\·~
AVERAGE IOi'.E ArD rrA I
YE.L\R PROPERTY TAXES AP.E GOI "' - TO COST YOU CLOSE
I
7 BUT TI'AT --$1., 0
IS ~
'T ALL . LET ' S PDD IT UP .
FO PROPERTY TA'·{ES
-- ·- 1., 100 FOR FEDERJ\.L U cm:E TAX
--Sf-.LE TA; S., STATE LJCOi.E TAX., TELEPHm'E Tt,xEs .,
s~so Li i~E
CI~ ;.R- TTE
TP. .,
TAXES .. m ,.r!U SEf li~T TA·I s .
BY T E Tlf~l YOU Flrl iSI , PAY I ~s ThESE TP.XES Ol! f-\:-'E GO I G TO ~0 ( 3 ·ouRs o 'T oF
)Ou 15 I OURS OUT OF A 40 - HOU~ tiEE' OR A·~
IF T I BILL PASSEu., AdD TI'E
<>-row DAY To SE~~ATOR
f~Oi'' EY
P.~Y
YOUR
dELS Ot·i Aim I
~,RE
T~!\ XEs .
SPO 'SORI:t IS
rcTURI ED TO OU CITIES
AS T; I - LAv! 1.10ULD .·EO IRE .,
~!E
Ai~D
STl\TES
COULD r~A'/E A 30 PE .CE 'T
50 ERCE!,. T CUT Ii'J PROPE TY TP."ES USED TO Pf1 FO , SCHOOLS .
8
A"D FOR OUR SEN IO CITI ZE ·JS LI VUjG ON FI XED II·CDr·1tS UNDER $6 JOOOJ THE FEDERAL GOVERi'r~ENT REFUND PART OF
T~E
~/ ILL
1
BE REQU IRED TO
PROPERTY TAX .
A''D FOR THOUSANDS OF FAf"1 I LY FARr~ERS St.DDLED \H TH r I GH PROP RTY TAXES vJh iCI FORCE THEf'' OFF T E L~ND 1 THIS BILL PROV IDES .JEEDED RELI EF
I
viE DOi ' T JEED A VALUE-ADDED TAX \JH ICH IS QI\' LY A GIA''T
SIZED
NATI O~AL
SALES TAX .
viE S IOULD I!''STEAD CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES A~D SDm T E 11
fViQi~EY
BAC, TO THE PE.OPLE
I
I CAfJ TELL YOU HO ESTLY GETTI NG THE BILL EilACTED HILL 1
BE A TOUGH FIGHT.
9 f\LL ThE IiaER, · TI Of"AL FI ~A1'C I EP.S 1 T 'E CRED IT CQ;!PP.N IES J T
GIA·n
BA;-vs ~
THE · ..STI OI s OF T E \~EA LT Y THE co, ·GLor:ErATES J J
AJD T 'E GIAi 'T CO .PORfiTI O·s HI LL TRY TO DEFEAT US . ALL ~1A L
IE SPEC IAL I;·J TERESTS
~aLL
BE I
~1nS
'IflGTOrJJ
·r G T t ALLS OF CO:JGR.ESS T \Yr''G TO STOP THIS LEGISLATI Ot! . BliT T·lEY HOi'l ' T SUCCEED . T E PEOPLE OF \· ISCOiJS id HO;~ ' T
LET T HE~·
I
T E PEOPLE ARE TI RED OF PAY L r, HI ,H PROPEr.TY TP.XES-IT
·a RELI EF
Ii SIGI T
I
ALL OF US HERE--FROMT t AGE EARNER TO Tl E SAL .RIED r1PLOYEE TO T E sr.ALL IN O''R TAX SYSTErr
I
I i~DEP
1'
DE :T BUS iflESSf':A l H E A STA' E
10 A·nJ 1!hEJ VJE TALV ABOUT TAX REFO Rf1 WE P,RE ·aT OUT TO DM:AGE T :E Af ERICAJ FREE E·TE P.PRISE SYSTEfv1 1 I ll.f1 FOR .D. I
A~~
THR I Vr~G
FO EXPA.lDED PRODUCT IO;L
I Af'1 FOR VJOR I HP.i'T I
~Jn;
F .E E'HERP RISE SYSTEf1.
I
G:O\ JI ~G J
PPODUCL .G i·JATI O·\
T OU GOODS A•'D SPNICES TO E SECO''D TO iJO[''E1
I vJAiH ou . PEOPLE To · Av - oBsJ To BE AB LE To BUY THE T I ~Gs T EY vJAr'' T I
WA~T
TO
I
~AVE ECO-~OM IC EXPA' SION ~
BUT T ESE GOALS AR BEST SERVED BY EQUITY N'D J' STICE IN T E T~"~
SYSTEr1 ~
11
TODAY M·1ERIC/\ IS PR IVATELY HEALTHY AtD PUBLICLY POOR . WE SEE PUBLI C POVERTY ALL ARO FI XP~
1
OUR HOSPITALS ARE II' ADEQ'
IS 50 YEARS OUT OF DAT mSA FE ~ Ai~ D
~~E
LI V
1
1 ~
~m
J
US . OUR STREETS i·' D ATE ~
OU. T ANS IT
SYS TEi~
OUR AIRPORTS A.R.E CmlGESTED
Ai~D
v!E HA/E TOO FEW SH IPS Cr-R.Y I;"G OUR FLAG .
;:r: ·D JoBs FOR ouR PEOPLE .
Aim Too rr:A Y Ar ;ERICANS
T I FEAR OF CRif1E.
LET' S roT 1 ID OURSEL ES . CORRECTI "'G OUR GOlf G TO TAKE
PROB L Ef'~S
IS
f10~EY I
BUT CLOS I :G THE LOOPHOLES I A'E SUGGESTED TODAY WILL BRI 'G OV R $16 BILLI O· TO THE T \ A.SL.rY .
.
. 12 THAT' S
STA T.
A DO ·Ji'- PAYH['T 0 . CLEA··t A"JD
TH~,T ' S
SAFE NEI G ORHOODS J BETTER SCHOOLS) MORE GOOD HOUS I NG
A~D
LOWEq PROPERTY TAXES . CA~
OUR COUNTRY
S 1RVI VE 01 LY I F ITS I1STITUTi rnS
A~D
VALUES ARE SUPPORTED BY THE PEOPLE. TI-lE JAYCEES HA E PROVED THIS HERE If GREEI ' BAY ACROSS THE STATE.
FOR IT '
m
YOU ORGANIZATi m·J THAT STANDS FOR
PEOPLE- OR IEi· TED PROGRESS . Aim IT ' S YOUR ORJAN IZATI Dr THAT STA.·'DS FOR FAI Ri ESS
I
OVER 30 YEARS AGO FRA I'LI N RODS ELT SAID: "THE TEST OF PROGRESS IS 110T HHET-lER W0 HAVE r,UCH:
\~E
ADD TO TilE ABU 'DA CE OF T OSE
IT IS vi!-! ETHER HE PPO IDE ENOUGH FOK THOSE
H 0 HAVE TOO LITTLE.',
'
.. 13 THE TEST OF PROGRESS IS t!UC THE
SAr~~E
TODAY .
\4E CA" 01 LY BEG IN TO f11EET T AT TEST IF OUR TAX SYSTEN IS ~iE
F,~ I R A.~D
AI D FOR OUR 1
IF GOVERJrtiE 'T FIG~T S AGA I FOR YOU Af'D
FAr~ ILI ES .
March 21, 1972 TO:
SENATOR
FM:
D. J. LEARY
re:
Tax reform speech
We are planning to do the following with your Green Bay tax reform speech: 1. Film it in hopes of making a good television commercial and possibly a five minute television program. 2. Record it for editing to be aired on stations throughout Wisconsin next week, probably on a 15 minute basis depending on budget.
MEMORANDUM TO:
SENATOR
FROM:
DAN
SUBJECT:
JAYCEE AWARDS BANQUET
Gaylord Nelson is introducing his Tax Reform Act of 1972 in the Senate today.
Since you have cosponsored this bill and because it
is aimed at closing the loopholes and then providing property tax relief we thought this would be an
exce~lent
forum to talk about
taxes.
There are specific figures about Wisconsin and Green Bay in non-labor the speech. Even though this is a/group they will be receptive to
the themes we have used in the speech. In case you are asked about sbme of the spec i fics of the legislation, the following might be helpful:
rI I
r
The tax proposal, entitled the Tax Reform Act of 1972 includes the following major reform proposals (followed by an estimate of the savirg to the Federal Treasury): I
0
*Repeal of the Accelerated Depreciation Range System, saving $3 billion annuall~; 0
*Taxation of capital gains at death, saving $2 billion;
1
\
*Reduction of the oil depletion allowance from 22 percent of tax free incomeoto 15 percent, saving $400 million; *Increasing the rates and reducing the exemption in the minimum tax adopted in the Tax Reform Act of 1969, saving $3 billion; *Substitution of a $150 tax credit for the personal exemption, saving $1.9 billion. 0
Those five proposals account for a $10.3 · billion savings. There are 50 other ·provisions in the 79 page bill which would raise the u.nnual total for the legislative package to over $16 billion.
.
. .. .
:.·.·
. ·.r··..
---- --·--
' ---This propo sal will give drama tic and critic ally neede d financ ial assist ance ; to state and local gover nmen ts;:·: Theto tal amoun t in tax sharir ig would be $17 . . billion dollar s--$16 billio n for educa tion and/o r prope rty tax relief phis $1 billion addito nal aid to states and munic ipaliti es by provid ing that the federa l ; gover nment will pay 50 perce nt o.f.·the intere st cost for state and munic ipal bonds .
I
.
I
.; \. ' \ J
j
l i,
I l I
.l
.
.
,
· 1. This legisl ation would raise about $16 billio n a year in new reven ue 1 to be distrib uted to state and local gover nmen ts. (This does hot includ e the q.bove-mentione<;l $lbi.l lion.J Thfs money could be distrib uted by a numbe r of differ ent formu las. This propo sal is that the money be used direct ly to reduc e prope rty taxes 1 or in the altern ative to pay 1 part of the costs of local educa tion. This metho d of distrib ution follow s the lines of the · propo sal under consid eratio n by the Presid ent 1 althou gh the reven ue sourc e is differ ent.
2. The new funds should be distri buted to the states based on a formu la which gives each state an amoun t propo rtiona l to its share· of the popul ation of the nation . . A breakd own of this distrib ution by states · is attach ed. Under this formu la 1 \.Vis con sin would receiv e $34 7 millio n annua lly. 3. Distri bution of these funds for educa tion would pay almos t 40 percen t of the total state and local costs of prima ry and secon dary educa tion nation wide and about 34 perce nt of th e se co sts in Wisco nsin. (These perce ntage s are based on figure s for the curren t schoo l year.) This would result in subst antial proper ty tax relief . I
4. Or if these funds were used direct ly for proper ty tax relief it would have paid for 44 perce nt of tofal 'prope rty taxes on all home$ farms and ·busin esses 1 nation wide in 1971. In v\'isc onsin , proper t;y taxes could have been re duced 30 to 34 percen t acros s the board · (the percen ta ge reduc tion is less becau se Wisco nsin relies more heavi ly on this tax than the avera ge state. ) · I
I
1
\ \ \\
1 .
5. Finall y if we consi der only that portio n of the prope rty tax that goes to financ e the local schoo ls, the $16 billio n of new reven ues would have paid for 87 percen t of that cost nation wide an·d' 5...0 percen t in ·w iscon sin. 1
I
l
. f
..
(Note: figure s for 1971 are used since that is the most recen t year for which they are availa ble.) _· . · ·
.
The tax chang es propo sed here would const itute signif icant reform . They would trans~ate the tax sharin g rhetor ic of the Admin istrati on into: meani ngful realit y. Any amoun t of tax sharin g signif icantl y less than $16 billio n is merel y . "-.._ a tempo rizing ritual rather than a funda menta l attack on the proble m.
l
. . . .-... . ...: ;.,.
--------·~------
--------=-~-""~--
United States of America
Vol. 118
Q:ongrcssionat Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
92d CONGRESS,
SECOND SESSION
WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1972
Senate By Mr. NELSON (for himself, Mr. HART, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MoN:. DALE, Mr. CHURCH, Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. HuMPHREY, Mr. McGovERN, Mr. METCALF, and Mr. TuNNEY) : S. 3378. A bill to raise needed revenues by gearing the income tax more closely to an individual's ability to pay, by broadening the income tax base of individuals and corporations, by integrating the gift and estate taxes, and by otherwise reforming the income, estate, and gift tax provisions. Referred to the Committee on Finance. STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUMPHREY
I am pleased to join with the junior Sena.:. tor from Wisconsin in sponsoring one of the most comprehensive tax reform proposals presented in this session of Congress. Our tax structure needs fundamental and wide-scale reform. We need equity and fairness in a tax system that is presently rigged against the working man, against the average family, against the average citizen. The time has come for a new tax system, a system that says to the wealthy, to the superrich, to big business, to the large banks-you must pay your fair share. The legislation I am cosponsoring with Senator Nelson takes us a large step towards meaningful tax reform. No longer w111 it be possible for giant oil companies to make over $8 b1lllon a year and still pay less than ten percent of their total income In taxes. No . longer w111 the wealthy have tax free sources of Income. No longer will big business get a special deal through dummy export corporations and fast depreciation wrlte-offs. No longer will less than ten percent of our people be able to use all sorts of tax dodges and tax shelters to avoid paying taxes. And, IlQ longer will m1lllone.1res be able to escape paying taxes. The legislation being Introduced today would 'l"aise about $16 billion a year In new revenue. Th:ts mpney could .b e and should ·b e used to directly reduce the •b urden of proper.ty taxes on Almerican homeowners. We have estimated :t:hat If all this additional revenue Is II'eturned to states and localities, prope.r ty taxes could be reduced by ~S;bout one-half for all the homes, Ianns, and businesses in the 1l.altion. Mr. President, this Is a step we must take. we simply must reduce the !burden of taxes on our people. Right now, the average man works about 15 hours of every forty hour rwee'k w pay for 'his taxes. There are Federal and state !taxes on his income, .p ropery taxes, telephone taxes, cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, occupa.tional pr.ivllege taxes, amusement taxes, gift taxes, inheritance taxes ... tthe list 1.s almoot endless. Our citizens have been taxed almost to the breaking point. Yet, some citizens are not taxed at all, for they can hire high priced tax lawyers .t o figure out loopholes
that allow them to escape paying taxes. This is un·f air. And, the l·o opholes must .b e closed. The 'b111 being introduced today is specific. Lt would make frontal attack on the follorw!ng loopholes: Exclusion from dividends. Deduction for state gasoline taxes. Thx capital gains at dee.th. 011 depletion alloW18.Ilce. Capitalization of mineral exploration and drilling cost. Repeal the asset Depreciation Range. Tax income of foreign subsidiaries of U. S. Corporations. Repeal the Domestic International Sales Corpomtion. Federa.J. interest subsidy for municipal bonds. Extend the holding period for capital assets. Alter the charitable deductions in oa.se of appreciated ca.i:ptal. Depreciation on rental reaJ estate to be straight-line. Strengthening the minimum tax. Increase the minimum tax. Integrate estate and gift taxes into one tax. Tax generation skipping trusts. Limit charitable deduction for estate purposes. . Mr. President, closing these loopholes 1s a downpayment on the kind of tax system we ought to have. I support this legislation I intend to do what I oan to have U enacted. I know that enactment will not come easy. But, I believe that the voice of the people has been heard. They want .a;ction 111nd they want it now. On February 26, 1972, I spoke on the subject of tax return at Fond duLac, Wisconsin. In that speech, I outlined the k1.n d of tax program .I thought necessary to restore the confidence and crediblllty of our people to government. I a.m especially pleased to cosponsor this legislation because I feel it embodies tlhe thrust and direction of that speech. REMARKS BY SENATOR HUBERT H . HUMPHREY, FOND DU LAc COUNTY DEMOCRATIC DINNER
it Is two and a half months before April 15-tax day for the American people. . On that day the Internal Revenue Service will process 92 ·m illion tax forms and our Treasury w1H collect $125 billion. [ f all Americans paid their fair share the Treasury could collect $18 billion more and your tax •b urden would be less. But some :few Americans don't pay ·t heir fair share ·a nd because they are allowed to do this, you pay higher taxes. Today I want to talk to you about the inequities of our tax system and outline my ·a ction prog·r am to change this system. Federal, state, and local governments collect more than $275 billion a yea.r In taxes. Less than two percent of the people receive 22 percent of the income and pay less than 10 percent of the taxes. But the working man making between $8,-
No. 43 84299
2 000 and $15,0GQ-that's 26 percent of bhe people-make 20 percent of the total national income but pay 36 percent of the taxes. .I believe this system is unfair. The federal tax system is rigged against you-the working man. It is rigged against the wage earner. 'It is rigged against the average family. And, it is rigged in favor of unearned income. Our tax system penalizes the little man who works and ·r ewards wealthy investors who get checks from stocks, bonds and large dividends. The time has come for tax reform. The time has come for tax justice--tax justice for the American working family. The time has come 'for a tax system that says to the wealthy, to the super-rich, to big business, to the
Regrettably that tax system is now riddled with what we commonly call tax loopholes. Here are just a few that must .b e closed: Loophole No. 1: Is it fair that one giant oil company earning over $2.8 billion a year is permitted to pay less than 10 percent of its total net income-in taxes? While at the same time a working man who makes only $E,OOO a year pays exactly the same percentage rate? Is it fair? I say no. Loophole No. 2 : Is it fair that big business got a $9 billion tax break from Richard Nixon in the Revenue Act of 1971 through superfast machinery write-offs and phoney export devices? · I say no. Loophole No. 3 : Is it fair to the family farmer who struggles to make a living and pays high taxes while doing it, that doctors and lawyers with big incomes play weekend farmer by buying farm property and growing tax deductions? , I say no. If you want to deduct your farm losses, then give up the courtroom, the panneled otnce and go drive a tractor. Loophole No. 4: Is it fair and was it necessary for the Nixon Administration to permit and force working families to pay the highest interest rates since the Civil War? I say it's not fair and it wasn't necessary. Loophole No. 5: Is it fair for 10 percent of our people to use all sorts of tax dodges and tax shelters to avoid doing what you must do--pay taxes? I say no. The tax avoidance game is over. There are many more. And I want to ask you now: Is it fair know-ing that we can raise over $18 billion a ryear by closing loopholes for the Nixon Administration to propose a new tax burden on the American consumer in the form of a giant sized national sales tax? I say no. No matter what the Republicans call it, the new value added tax w111 add to the cost of living, will be regressive on all of us, will erode oommunity tax bases and ultimately it will be used to reduce the taxes of the wealthy. Today America. is privately wealthy and publicly poor. We see public poverty all around us. Our streets need fixing, our hospitals are inadequate, our transit system is 50 years out of date, our airports are congested and unsafe, and we have too few ships carrying our flag. We need to modernize our docks. We need jobs for our people. And too many Americans live in the fear of crime. Let's not kid ourselves. Correcting our problems is going to .t ake money. But closing the loopholes I have suggested today will bring over $18 billion to the treasury. That's a start. That's a. down-payment on clean and safe neighborhoods, better schools, more good housing and lower property taxes. Our country can survive only if its institu-tions and values are supported by the people. When three million of our elderly are forced to overpay their taxes because of complex tax forms, when the wealthy can hire high-priced tax advisors to cut their taxes, and when billions are made from investments and taxed at half the regular rate, then the people have a right to believe our tax system is unfair. That some are benefitting at the expense of others. That the tax system is rigged against the working man. Any reform on the American tax system will - require the courageous and persistent leadership of a. President. Over 30 years ago Franklin Roosevel,t said: "The test of progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.:" The test of progress is much the same today . We can only begin ,to meet that test if our tax system is fair and if government fights again for ,t he little guy-for you and me and for our families.
Wis cons in
SENATOR GAYLORD NELSON (2o2 ) 225- 5323
STATEMENT ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 19 7 2 Tuesda y, March 21, 19 72 Tax reform is an urgent nation al priorit y. Our system for raising govern ment revenu es contain s grave inequi ties; and the averag e taxpay er knows it. . The rich freque ntly pay less than the poor; many of the very rich pay nothing at all. And the averag e wage-e arner carries a disprop ortiona te share of the burden . · ·· reality .
Nowhe re in our society is there a greater gap betwee n promis e and ·
The 16th Amend ment to the Consti tution empow ered Congre ss to levy taxes on "incom es , from whatev er source de~Jved" ~ In fact, some income is taxed at prefere ntial rates, some is not taxed at all, and some does. not. even have to be reporte d to the govern ment. Our tax system is suppos ed to be progre ssive-- to tax people accord ing to their ability to pay. But the opposi te is the case. Figure s reporte d by the chief of the Census Bureau 's Popula tion Divisio n show that in 1968, the middle income worker making $8, 000 - $10 1 000 paid federa l, state and local taxes at the same rate as the worker earning $25 000 - $50,0 00. And the man with less than $2,000 is taxed at about the same rate as the man making over $50,00 0. I
policy .
This result is unfair, discrim inatory and totally indefen siblE? as a tax And it has been getting worse.
On three separa te occasi ons over the last 8 years, we have reduce d one or the other of our two progre ssive taxes- -the person al income tax and the · corpor ate profits tax. The Revenu e Act of 1971 alone reduce d corpor ate tax rates by 15 percen t--the largest tax cut for the corpor ations in Americ an history . Meanw hile 1 there have been dramat ic increa ses in such regres sive levies as the social securit y tax. One of the more oppres sive taxes- -the local propert y tax--h as now risen about as far as it can go. Increa sing local govern ment costs have forced it up so that it now places an excess ive burden on million s of Ameri cans-many of whom live on fixed incom es. The overall result is a tax system which takes more from those who can least afford it, and less from those who can. Most people now agree that someth ing must be done about taxes. In a recent Harris poll, 69 percen t said they could sympa thize with a "taxpa yers' revolt 11 • Eighty -two percen t felt that "the big tax burden falls on the little man in this country today 11 • Sixty-f our percen t agreed that taxes have reache d the breakin g point. .. ·
-2-
Reform is long overd ue. Over the years privile ged financ ial sanctu aries tax prefer ences and looph oles have been writte n into the tax struct ure under variou s guise s. Somet imes they have been justifi ed as servin g some impor tant social purpo se or promo ting the gener al econo mic welfa re. More often than not they simply reflec t the gener al tende ncy of the politi cal and econo mic power struct ure within any societ y to design laws that best serve the intere sts of that privile ged group . 1
Anyone who has ever given seriou s thoug ht to reform ing the tax system is well aware that it is a knotty diffic ult politi cal exerc ise precis ely becau se the most power ful econo mic intere st group s are the benef iciarie s of the great bounty that flows from the inequ ities. They repres ent a potent organ ized cohes ive politi cal force which ha.s not been count er balan ced in the past by any signif icant politi cal pressu re from the vast unorg anized silent major ity. These privile ged classe s of taxpa yers and the variou s assoc iated group s of periph eral benef iciarie s repres ent in fact the very heart of the politic al power struct ure in our societ y. 1
1
1
1
1
1
There is nothin g unusu al or myste rious about it. The establ ishme nt in every societ y has alway s legisl ated to protec t and enhan ce the intere sts and welfar e of the power struct ure. This is true regard less of the ideolo gical nature of the politic al system . Now howev er a great chang e .is rapidl y taking place all acros s the countr y. Power ful forces for tax reform are coales cing into a potent consti tuency for the first time. I
I
It is happe ning as most things seem to happe n in this cou:ttr y becau se of a crisis . States and local gover nment s are in seriou s fiscal troubl e. Gover nors and Mayor s are pleadi ng for financ ial assist ance. The burde ns of the proper ty tax and financ ial suppo rt of the schoo l system have becom e a major topic of discu ssion at the nation al :level for the first time. And finally tax sharin g has becom e an impor tant part of the politi cal dialog ue of the countr y. 1
I
I
I
The Presid ent presid ential candi dates and politi cal leader s of both partie s have brough t the issue up front for discu ssion with reform propo sals of variou s kinds . In a messa ge to the Congr ess in Septem ber of last year the Presid ent said he would send a tax reform propo sal to the Congr ess this year. The Presid ent and his Cabin et memb ers have made it clear that the tax reform they are talkin g about is in the form of a nation al sales tax (calle d a value added tax) to be used to reliev e the proper ty tax. Secre taries Conna lly and Richa rdson both defend ed the value added tax in recent testim ony before the Finan ce Comm ittee. Secret ary Richa rdson argued that a value added tax would not be an additi onal tax becau se it would be· used only as a replac ement for the proper ty tax which is simply anoth er regres sive tax. 1
I
The value added tax would add substa ntially to the alread y onero us tax burden on lower and middle incom e peopl e. It will be inflati onary since the new tax will be added to the price of the produ ct. But whate ver its merits or shortc oming s this is not the kind of tax reform that tax exper ts 1 memb ers of Congr ess 1 the press and the public have been talkin g about . Certai nly as sugge sted by the Presid ent proper ty tax relief on some equita ble basis is one of many plausi ble metho ds of reven ue sharin g. Howe ver it is hardly defen sible to levy a sales tax to reliev e proper ty taxes while leavin g massi ve amoun ts of privile ged incom e under -taxed or not taxed at all. A value added tax may be a defen sible propo sal at some time for some purpo se, but it is not a defen sible propos a1 at this time for this purpo se. I
I
1
1
Two years ago, the Congr ess enacte d the Tax Reform Act of 1969. This was a beginn ing but it wa~ no more than that. Many of the worst tax-lo ophol es were left untou ched. Today our tax system is widely regard ed as a nation al disgra ce. 1
I
-:-3-
. As a subs t dntia l step .t'oward refor m, I ·am prop osi ng the Tax Reform l-ict of 19 72, a com preh ensi ve prog ram to clos e tax loop hole s. ·
1
This prop osal will give dram atic and criti cally need ed finan cial assi stan ce to state and loca l gove rnme nts.;: ' The . tota l ·amo unt in tax shadn~ wou ld be $17 billi on doll ars-- $16 billi on for educ ation and/ or prop erty tax relie f' phis $1 billi on addi tona l aid to state s and mun icipa litie s by prov iding that the fede ral governm~nt will pay 50 perc ent o.f.th e inte rest cost for state and mun icipa l bond s.
1. This legis latio n woul d raise abou t $16 billi on a year in new reve nue, to be distr ibute d to state and loca l gove rnme nts. (This does not inclu de the abov e-me ntion ed $1 bi:Uion. ~) Thfs mon ey coul d be distr ibute d by a num ber of diffe rent form ulas . This prop osal is that the mortey be used dire ctly to redu ce prop erty taxe s or in the alter hativ e to pay part of the cost s of loca l educ ation . This meth od of distr ibuti on follo ws the line s of the prop osal unde r cons idera tion by the Pres ident altho ugh the reve nue sour ce is diffe rent . I
I
I
2. The new fund s shou ld be distr ibut ed to the state s base d on a form ula whi~h give s each state an amou nt prop ortio nal to its shar e of the popu latio n of the natio n • . A brea kdow n of this distr ibuti on by state s · is attac hed. Unde r this form ula, Vl isco nsin woul d rece ive $347 milli on annu ally. 3. Dist ribu tion of thes e fund s for educ ation woul d pay almo st 40 perc ent of the tota l state and loca l cost s of prim ary and seco ndar y educ ation natio nwid e, and abou t 34 perc ent of thes e cost s in Wis cons in. (The se perc enta ges are base d on figu res for the curre nt scho ol year .) This wou ld resu lt in s.u bsta ntial prop erty tax relie f. 4. Or, if thes e fund s were used dire ctly for prop erty tax relie f, it woul d have paid for 44 perc ent of tofa: l 'prop erty taxe s on all home~, farm s and busi ness es, natio nwid e in 1971. In Wis cons in, prop erty taxe s coul d have been redu ced 30 to 34 perc ent a·c ross the boar d (the perc enta ge redu ction is less beca use Wis cons in relie s more heav ily on this tax than the aver age state .) · 5. Fina lly if we cons ider only that porti on of the prop erty tax that goes to finan ce the loca l scho ols, the $16 billi on of new reve nues woul d have paid for 87 perc ent of that cost natio nwid e and 50 perc ent in Wis cons in.
\
1
\
I
1
(Not e: figu res for 1971 are used sinc e that is the most rece nt year for whic h they are avai lable . }
The tax chan ges prop osed here wou ld cons titut e sign ifica nt refor m. They woul d tran slate the tax shar ing rhet oric of the Adm inist ratio n into' mean ingfu l reali ty. Any amoun~ of tax shar ing sign ifica ntly less than $16 billi on is mere ly a temp orizi ng ritua l rath er than a fund amen tal attac k on the prob lem. O>viously some of the prov ision s of this bill will prov e cont rove rsial . Supp orter s of refor m and co-s pons ors of this bill are not equa lly comm itted to ever y deta il of each prov ision but it is reco gniz ed that subs tanti al refor m acco mpa nied by mas sive finan cial assi stan ce to state and loca l gove rnme nts is an impo rtant natio nal prio rity. 1
The test ques tion is whe ther when cons idere d as a who le, the refor ms prop osed are a subs tanti al impr ovem ent over the pres ent situa tion . By that test the answ er is over whel ming ly in the affir mati ve. I
Alth ough it will be stron gly attac ked by thos e with a vest ed inter est in the pres ent tax struc ture this is not a radi cal prog ram. It repre sent s a com prom ise }?.e~ween wha t wou1d be ·'ah idea l taX re!on h ' anfi what it may be possibl~ .- to a~complish at this 'stag e -.in history~ · ·· 1
-4 It doe s not clos e ever y loop hole . Rath er it con cen trat es on thos e prov isio ns whi ch are mos t unfa ir and on whi ch ther e is wid est agre eme nt amo ng the exp erts . It inco rpor ates a num ber of the reco mm end atio ns mad e by the Tre asur y Dep artm ent in its com preh ensi ve Tax Reform Stud ies and Prop osal s of Dec emb er 1 196 8. It has ben efit ted from the assi stan ce and adv ice of som e of our mos t emi nen t tax law yers and eco nom ists . I
I
One area that mos t of the tax exp erts agre e is bad ly in nee d of refo rm is cap ital gain s.
1
Und er pres ent law the fede ral gov ernm ent taxe s only 50 perc ent of any incr ease in the valu e of pro pert y--s uch as real esta te or corp orat e stoc k--h eld ove r six mon ths. The othe r 50 perc ent is tax- free . I
This one prov i s ion rem ove s abo ut $16 bill ion from fede ral taxa tion . It cos ts the Fed eral Tre asur y alm ost $8 bill ion a yea r in lost reve nue . Not hing cou ld be mor e unfa ir, The ave rage wor ker who mus t live off his hard -ear ned wag es is taxe d at regu lar inco me tax rate s. But the rich man can inve st his wea lth, and then sim ply wai t--w itho ut lifti ng a fing er-- unti l it has incr ease d in valu e. At that poin t 50 perc ent of his gain goe s tax- free . 1
Def end ers of cap ital gain s like to invo ke the myt h of the sma ll inve stor who sup pos edly wou ld be hard hit if this tax pre :ere nce wer e to end . In fact only one taxp aye r in twe lve rece ives any cap ital gain s. Onl y 5 perc ent of thos e earn ing und er $10 000 re ceiv e any ; and this grou p rece ives only a littl e ove r one perc ent of the tota l tax give -aw ay. Mea nwh ile 1 88 perc ent goe s to fam ilies earn ing ove r $25 000 . Ove r half goe s to peo ple earn ing ove r $100 1000 I
1
I
o
But that is not the end of it. Man y cap ital gain s ben efic iari es pay no tax at all. This is bec aus e no cap ital gain s tax is due on prop erty held unti l dea th. Sup pose a taxp aye r bou ght $5 mill ion of stoc k in 195 0. The com pany has flou rish ed and the stoc k is now wor th $15 mill ion. If he sell s the stoc k the taxp aye r pay s the cap ital gain s tax on the $10 mill ion incr ease in valu e. But if he hold s the stoc k unti l he dies neit her he nor his heir s eve r pay s any 1 cpa ital gain s tax on the $10 mill ion. 1
1
The bes t long ·-ter m solu tion to the cap tial gain s loop hole is to trea t thes e gain s like othe r inco me. Inde ed 1 I will sho rtly intr odu ce legi slat ion to do just this . The inve stor wou ld pay tax on 50 perc ent of the firs t $10 000 of gain s in any one yea r but abo ve that he wou ld pay tax on the who le gain . This prop osal will be intr odu ced and con side red sep arat ely from the tax refo rm pac kag e bec aus e it is a muc h mor e dram atic refo rm and is not as wid ely supp orte d as the othe r prov isio ns of this bill . 1
I
But the prop osal here is not so broa d. It clos es the maj or loop hole in the tran sfer of prop erty at dea th. It prov ides that cap ital gain s sha ll be taxe d at dea th as prop osed both by Pres iden t Ken nedy and by the Tre asur y Dep artm ent in its com preh ensi ve stud y of 196 9. This alon e wou ld add $2.0 bill ion to fede ral reve nue s. Ano ther seri ous loop hole is the oil dep letio n allo wan ce. This allo ws oil men to rece ive 2 2 perc ent of thei r inco me tax free . In theo ry, the oil man gets the dep letio n allo wan ce bec aus e his wel l is bein g "use d up" in the sam e way that a bus ines sma n rece ives dep reci atio n as his plan t and mac hine ry are wea ring out. I
The re is one big diff eren ce, how eve r. A bus ines sma n can clai m dep reci ation on a mac hine up to the amo unt that it cos t him . But the oil man can rece ive the dep letio n allo wan ce yea r afte r yea r as long as the wel l is prod ucin g. The resu lt is hard ly surp risin g. Acc ordi ng to Trea sury esti mat es the cos t of the ave rage oil wel l was reco vere d 19 time s in 196 6. Mea nwh ile the 1
I
-520 top oil com pan ies wer e mak ing prof its of $4 3/4 bill ion and pay ing taxe s at the rate of only 8 1/2 perc ent. The re is no goo d reas on why the oil indu stry shou ld rece ive this spe cial trea tme nt. Inde ed the Con sad stud y prep ared for the Tre asur y in 1968 con clud ed that tota l elim inat ion of perc enta ge dep letio n wou ld hav e a min ima l effe ct on our oil rese rve s. I
How ever 1 the Tax Reform Act of 1972 foll ows the mor e mod est prop osal mad e b'l Pres iden t Trum an in 1950 : it wou ld sim ply redu ce perc enta ge dep letio n ' "> 15 perc ent thus savi ng the Tre asur y ove r $40 0 mill ion a yea r. 1
But not all the tax loop hole s are as sim ple as cap ital gain s and oil dep letio n. Som e of them actu ally serv e a soc iall y use ful purp ose. bon ds.
Con side r, for inst anc e, the tax exem ptio n for stat e and loca l gov ernm ent
Bec ause the inte rest from thes e bon ds is tax--fre e inve stor s are will ing to buy them at low er inte rest rate s. As a resu lt hard -pre ssed loca l gov ernm ents can rais e fund s at a rela tive ly low cos t with a sav ing to the loca l taxp aye r. I
1
This ls one loop hole that p.pp ears to mak e sen se. But the app eara nce is mis lead ing. In fact this is an extr eme ly was tefu l way of help ing stat e and loca l gov ernm ents . And the ben efic iari es of this was te-- as usu al-- are the very rich . I
Her e is how it wor ks. .Sup pose corp orat e bon ds are pay ing 7 perc ent 1 whi le tax- free loca l gov ernm ent bon ds pay 4 perc ent. For the ave rage wag e-ea rner his $100 corp orat e bon d yiel ds him $7. He pay s $1.3 0 in fede ral taxe s but the rem aind er-- $5. 70- -is stil l mor e than the 1 $4 he cou ld get from the tax- exe mpt bon d. How ever 1 for the mil lion aire --in the 70 perc ent tax brac ket- -the $7 corp orat e bon d divi den d real ly mea ns $2.1 0 in inco me, bec aus e $4.9 0 goe s to the fede ral gov ernm ent in tax es. Obv ious ly he will pref er the $4 divi den d, tax- free . I
I
In sho rt 1 here is ano ther tax give -aw ay that ben efit s only the rich . True this prov isio n sav es loca l gov ernm ents abo ut $1 bill ion in inte rest cos ts. But the Fed eral Trea sury lose s abo ut $2 bill ion in tax inco me. The diff eren ce is abo ut $1 bill ion of whi ch ove r 80 perc ent goe s to the rich est one perc ent of the pop ulat ion. 1
I
The prop osal in this bill allo ws loca l auth orit ies the cho ice of con tinu ing to issu e tax- exe mpt bon ds or of issu ing taxa ble bon ds and hav ing the fede ral gov ernm ent pay 50 perc ent of the inte rest cos t. Sinc e the 50 perc ent inte rest sub sidy is wor th muc h mor e than the low er inte rest cos t resu ltin g from the tax exem ptio n stat e and loca l gov ernm ents will hav e a stro ng ince ntiv e to issu e taxa ble bon ds. At the sam e tim e, the new prov isio n in no way viol ates thei r free dom of cho ice. I
I
A sim ilar prop osal was pas sed by the Hou se in 196 9. The effe ct of this cha nge is to give an add itio nal $1 bill ion of fede ral fun ds-- now ben efit ting inv esto rs-- to stat e and loca l gov ernm ents . Inde ed com bine d with the $16 bill ion that wou ld be retu rned dire ctly to stat e and loca l gov ernm ents und er my prop osal this in effe ct mak es a tota l of $17 bill ion that cou ld be use d to fina nce the loca l scho ols or pay for prop erty tax reli ef. I
I
I
Num erou s othe r tax cha nge s are also nee ded . VIe shou ld sub stitu te a $150 cred it for the $75 0 pers ona l exem ptio n. At pres ent, eve ry taxp aye r gets a $75 0 ded ucti on for each mem ber of his fam ily.
-6-
The problem is tLat this deduction is worth $105 to the low income taxpayer and $525 to the man in the 70 percent bracket. A $150 credit would put. everyone on the same footing, give a sizeable tax cut to most lower and middle income families, and raise $1.9 billion for the ·Federal Treasury. We should repeal the accelerated depreciation system (ADR). Originally, we were told that this depreciation speed-up yvould help the economy because it would encourage businessmen : to invest more, and this in turn would create jobs. But the ADR system has now been in effect over a year, and it is hard to find an economist who believes it has helped anyone but corporate stockholders. Meanwhile, it is costing the rest of us about $3 billion a year. I
I
We should close the real estate loophole. A rich investor can put up an apartment building take accelerated depreciation on it and use the depreciation to shelter from tax his other ordinary income, such as salary and dividends. Moreover, if he then sells the building at a profit he can frequently receive favorable capital gains treatment on part of it. Changing these provisions will increase federal revenues by up to $1 billion annually. I
I
I
We should beef up the minimum tax adopted in the 1969 Tax Reform Act. This provision was supposed to end tax avoidance by the rich, by making even loophole income subject to a small tax. Unfortunately, the minimum tax has turned out to be a gentle "love tap" to the rich. This is because some income is not subject to the minimum tax; there are over-generous exemption~; and the :tax is only 10 percent--about the average rate paid by the taxpayer earning $12 000 a year. Changing these features will raise $3 billion a year. I
These eight proposals described so far will raise over $ll billion a year in new federal revenues. There ·a re 47 other proposed changes in the Tax Reform Act of 1972. Together, these would raise well over $5 billion a year, to bring the annual total for the whole bill to over $16 billion. The exact formula for distributing these funds within a state has yet to be worked out. Certainly it should give relatively greater assistance to areas of major need. Recently, at President Nixon's request, a comprehensive study of this question was started by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations , an organization of federal, state and local government officials plus representatives of the public. This study is now in progress. I
In the attached charts, it has been assumed--for illustrative purposes-that all the new federal revenues are distributed to the states on the basis of population, and that the states use the funds to cut property taxes. These charts suggest the tremendous impact that the $16 billion of tax reform revenues could have nationwide i~ redu.cing property taxes directly or in paying local education costs . In the charts, column 1 gives the present property tax· rates in every V.lisconstn community; column 2 gives the rates that would result from a 30 percent reduction. For instance Milwaukee would go from $45 per thousand to $31.5 per thousand. 1
Alternatively, if the new funds were used to cut only that portion of the property tax going to education in Wisconsin these taxes could be cut in half. In the charts column 3 shows the property tax rates for education and column 4 shows the results of a 50 percent reduction in these rates. I
I
Although the formula for distributing the new federal funds must await the report of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, one change can--and should--be made now: property tax relief for the low-income elderly. Property taxes place a particularly onerous burden on retired people. According to the Senate Special Committee on Aging hundreds of thousands of older Americans are being driven from their homes because of prohibitive I
-7property taxes and maintenance costs. Under this proposal, in addition to the property tax relief resulting from the tax sharing program already described, the federal government would rebate part of the property taxes paid by homeowners over 65 with less than $6,000 in income. The portion of the property tax rebated would depend on the individual's income. For instance, if household income is $1,000, 75 percent of the property tax--up to $270--would be rebated. If household income is $3,000, the homeowner would have to pay the first $60 in property taxes, and 75 percent of the remainder--up to $225--would be rebated. Finally, at $6,000, the rebate would be phased out. L
[
This proposal would cost an estimated $600 million. Similar programs exist in Wisconsin and several other states but the eligibility levels are usually far below $6,000. Of course, property tax relief for the eld erly is only a small part of a much larger problem. The State Supreme Court decisions undermining the use of local property taxes in financing education have made some form of general property tax reform inevitable. But to finance this reform, a comprehensive program to plug tax loopholes is far preferable to a new, national sales tax. A major tax reform effort of this kind would make our tax system much more equitable. And it would allow taxes to be reduced for overburdened middle and lower income taxpayers . Finally, it should be noted that the President's Commission on School Finance filed its report a few days ago. Its most important recommendatio n was that the states take over from the local districts the major burden of financing the schools. In view of the recent court decisions on the inequities of the locally-levied property tax for school purposes, it is inevitable that some such alternative method will necessarily be adopted. The Commission boldly described the problem. It stated that the system of public schools "is, today, in serious trouble, and if we fail to recognize it, our country's chance to survive will all but disappear. " Vi hile their description of the crisis was bold, their solution was not. In view of their own conclusion one would think they might suggest a solution commensurate with the gravity of the problem they described. But no. They could describe a calamity but not how to cope with it. Somehow they dream that with a one billion dollar annual inducement from the Federal Treasury, state governments will magically find a way to assume major responsibility for financing local schools. It is far too little and much too late for this kind of palliative to be considered as a serious response to a challenge of "survival".
# # #
•
SENATOR GAYLORD NELSON 221 Old Senate Office Building Washington , D • .C. 20510
PROPERTY TAX RATES IN WISCONSIN Under the Nelson program, property taxes nationwide could be reduced by 30 percent. Alternative ly, if this proposal were applied to school taxes alone, it would allow a 50 percent reduction of these taxes. This table shows how much local property taxes could be reduced in each town, village and city in Wisconsin with over 1, 000 population. Column 1 shows the present total property tax rate in each Wisconsin tax district, in dollars of tax per thousand dollars of property. Column 2 shows the results of a 30 percent reduction in these rates. Column 3 shows the present property tax rates used to finance the local schools. Column 4 shows the results of a 50 percent reduction in these rates. The tax rates presented here are based on "full value". Each year, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue determines the actual market value of general property throughout the state. The "full value" tax rate is simply the total property tax paid divided by th~ actual market value of the property. These tax rates have been computed for every tax district in the state, and are comparable . The Department of Revenue also lists property tax rates based on local assessmen ts. Since different tax districts assess at differing percentages of full value, these tax rates are not comparable , and therefore have not been reproduced here.
Towns, Villages and Cities over 1, 000 Population Total Property Tax Rate Tax District (Present)
Total Property
Property Tax Rate for Education T~~ 1Ra~e (30% Re~uction) (Present) ~
Property Ta,x Rate for Ed~ition (50%1-fe u~tion) ~
[Rates in dollars per thousand] Adams County Cities: Adams Ashland County Cities: Ashland Mellen
32.36
22.65
17.27
8.635
/
34.43 37.37
24.10 26 . 159
19.72 25.57
9.86 12. 785
Barron County Towns: Rice Lake Stanley Cities: Barron Chetek Cumberland Rice Lake
28.02 29.96
19. 614 20.972
19.25 20.43
9. 625 10.215
34.39 33.29 36.28 33.57
24.073 23.303 25.396 23.499
20.99 20.80 22.56 21.91
10.495 10.40 11.28 10.955
Bayfield County Cities: VI' ashburn
39.30
27.51
22.80
11.40
Brown County Towns: Allouez
28 .69
20.053
18. 79
9.395
Page 2
•
Ashwaubenon Bellevue De Pere Eaton
27.22 26.03 24.78 26.68
19. 054 18.221 17. 346 18.676
18.77 17.80 17.75 17.67
9.385 8.90 8.875 8.835
G1enmore Hobart Holland Humboldt
25.02 26.22 23.86 26.54
17. 514 18. 354 16.702 18.578
16.91 16,50 18.13 18.44
8.455 8.25 9.065 9.22
Lawrence Morrison New Denmark Pittsfield
24.44 25.72 26.92 22.63
17.108 18.004 18.844 15. 981
17.21 17.47 17.76 15.85
8.605 8.735 8.88 7.975
Scott Suamico Wrightstown
22.04 23.14 24.25
15.428 16.198 16.975
17.82 15.91 16.95
8. 91 7.955 8.475
Villages: Denmark Howard Pulaski Wrightstown
28.30 21.97 32.21 28.85
19.810 15. 3 79 22.547 2 0 .19 5
20.21 16.29 19.31 18.35
10.105 8.145 9.655 9.175
Cities: De Pere Green Bay
31.72 32.70
22.204 22.890
18.03 19.53
9. 015 9.765
Buffalo Count::t: Cities: Fountain City Mondovi
40.59 37.76
28.413 26.432
22.39 20.45
11.195 10.225
Calu met County Towns: Brillion Brothertown Charlestown Chilton Harrison
24.63 30.82 32.50 32.85 23.98
17.241 21.574 22.75 22.995 16.786
16.82 20.51 20.51 20.66 19.72
8. 41 10. 255 10.255 10.33 9.86
New Holstein Rantoul Stockbridge Woodville
31.49 25.06 28.59 25.97
22.043 17.542 20.013 18 .179
20.57 18.50 20 . 43 18.40
10.285 9.45 10.215 9.20
Cities: Appleton Brillion Chilton New Holstein
28.98 24.46 27.24 30.13
20.286 17.122 19.068 21.091
18.65 16.61 23.96 20.71
9.325 8.305 11.98 10.355
Chit;n~ewa County Towns: Anson Delmar Eagle Point Edson
20.40 25.57 19.30 24.21
14. 280 17.899 13. 510 16.947
15.88 17.31 16.08 17.66
7.94 8.655 8.04 8.83
18.10 19.01 22.06
12.67 13.307 15.442
13.42 15.94 16.36
6. 71 7.97 . 8.18
36.52
25.564
.2 2. 09
11.045
Hallie Lafayette Wheaton Cities: Bloomer
, Page 3
Chippewa Falls 28.77 Cornell 31.60 Stanley 28.42
20.139 22.12 19.894
13.60 22.63 17.96
6.80 11.315 8.98
39.60 40.96 39.98 38.84
27.72 28.672 27.986 2 7.188
23.24 27.84 33.85 19.84
11. 62 13.92 16.925 9.92
34.76 36.77
24.332 25.739
25.42 23.14
12.71 11.57
Columbia Count~ Towns: 23.88 Dekorra Lodi 19.76 20.87 Wyocena
16. 716 13.832 14. 609
19.92 17.63 18.83
9.96 8. 815 9. 415
Villages: Pardeeville Poynette
29.07 30.79
20.349 21.553
22.35 20.65
11.175 10.325
Cities: 32.02 Columbus 30.92 Lodi 27.44 Portage vVisconsin Dells 31.94
2 2. 414 21.644 19. 208 22.358
19.62 18.43 18.59 17.93
9. 81 9. 215 9.295 8.965
Crawford Count~ Cities: Prairie du Chien 3 2 .13
2 2. 491
18.67
9.335
Dane County Towns: Albion Blooming Grove Bristol Burke
23.73 23.80 24.19 21.83
16. 611 16.66 16.933 15. 281
19.65 19.24 18.71 18.34
9.825 9.62 9.355 ff .17
Christiana Cottage Grove Dunkirk Dunn
25.76 24.68 24.16 24.90
17.932 17.276 16. 912 17.430
21.91 20.79 19.34 21.39
10.955 10.395 9.67 10. 695
Fitchburg Madison Middleton Oregon
24.37 26.51 30.46 26.69
17.059 18. 55 7 21. 322 18. 683
20.37 22.56 25.45 20.22
10.185 11.28 12. 72 5 10.11
Pleasant Springs Roxbury Rutland Springdale
24.91 23.75 23.61 21.81
17.437 16.625 16.527 15. 2 6 7
20.52 19.76 18.59 17.58
10.2 6 9.88 9.295 8.79
Springfield Sun Prairie Verona Vienna
23.24 23.03 23.99 23.07
16.268 16.121 16.793 16 .149
19. OS 18.70 19.89 17.05
9.525 9.35 9.945 8.525
·westport Windsor
23.30 21.73
16. 310 15. 211
19.36 18.59
9.68 9.295
Villages: Black Earth
31.32
21.924
24.15
12.075
Clark County Cities: Abbotsford Greenwood Loyal Neillsville Owen Thorp
-
I
Page 4
Cross Plains Deerfield Deforest Maple Bluff
30.24 27.92 21.61 22.74
21.168 19.544 15 .12 7 15.918
22.86 21.40 18.02 21.03
11.43 10.70 9. 01 10. SIS
Marshall Mazoman ie McFarlan d Mount Horeb
28.55 31.43 30.46 27.27
19.985 22.001 21.322 19. 089
20.57 22.08 24.02 17.36
10.285 11.04 12.01 8.68
31.80 Oregon Shorewoo d Hills 25.56 30.12 Verona 28.51 Waunake e
22.26 17.892 21. 084 19.957
22.76 19.98 22.52 19.97
11.38 9.99 11.26 9.985
Cities: Madison Middleton Monona Stoughton Sun Prairie
32.56 28.97 28.25 29.58 26.26
22.792 20.279 19. 775 20.706 18.382
20.29 21.40 23.08 19 ~89 ~2.98
10.145 10.70 11.54 9.995 11.49
Dodge County Towns: Ashippun Beaver Dam Chester Emmet
28.34 20.86 19.06 2 7.16
19.838 14.602 13.342 19 . 012
21.89 15.45 16.94 19.88
10.945 7.725 8.47 9.94
Fox Lake Herman Hubbard Hustisfor d Lebanon
22.92 30.57 26.33 27.20 31.05
16.044 21.399 18. 431 19.040 21. 735
15.63 22.86 17.76 18.10 21.03
7. 815 ll. 43 8.88 9.05 10. 515
Leroy Lomira Lowell Oak Grove
28.06 21.20 25.61 27.25
19.642 14.840 17.927 19.075
20.97 15.09 17.89 20.88
10.495 7.545 8.945 10.44
Rubicon Theresa Trenton Westford
31.62 27.03 22.51 23.69
22 .134 18. 921 15.757 16.583
23.76 19.78 16.97 16.62
11.88 9.89 8.485 8. 31
Villages: Lomira Randolph
29.94 29.66
20.958 20.762
16.88 19.90
8.44 9.95
Cities: Beaver Dam Fox Lake Horicon Juneau
30.89 33.76 32.40 30.60
21.623 23.632 22.680 21.420
18. 61 18.97 20.38 19.95
9.305 9.485 10.19 9.975
Mayville \'1/atertow n V/ aupun
29.73 33.57 28.97
2 0. 811 23.499 20.279
22.36 20.68 18.42
11.18 10.34 9. 21
23.14 19.37 22.19 22.15
16 .198 13.559 15. 533 15. 505
17.55 13.47 17.33 17.56
8. 775 6.735 8.665 8.78
Door County Towns: Brussels Liberty Grove Nasewau pee Sevastop ol
Page 5
Cities: Sturgeon Bay
31.36
. 21.952
17.89
8.945
Parkland Superior
20.05 22.19
14 ,:o3s 15.533
.13.. ·3c7 .·. 14 ~ 79
8.945 7.395
Cities: Superior
35.66
' 24.973
20.31
10 .155
Dunn County Towns: Menomonie Spring Brook Tainter
23.51 24.49 23.23
16.457 17.143 16.261
17.15 17.78 16.60
8.575 8.89 8.30
Villages: Colfax
34.09
23.963
2'1,83
10. 415
Cities: Menomonie
35.73
25.011
20.82
10.41
Eau Claire County Towns: Brunswick 22.09 Pleasant Valley 24.21 Seymour 19.85 Union 24.51
15. 463 16.947 13.895 17.15 7
17.99 18.11 20.78 20.34
8.995 9.055 10.39 10.17
21.68
15.175
18.30
9.15
Cities: Altoona Augusta Eau Claire
30.61 34.47 29.40
21.427 -24.129 20.580
21.04 2L82 21.12
10.52 10.91 10.56
Florence County Towns: Florence
27.26
19.082
17.21
8.605
Fond du Lac County Towns: Alto 25.56 Ashford 24.30 Auburn 23.40 Byron 24.90
17.892 17.010 16.380 17.430
17.49 16.97 18.12 19.39
8.745 8.485 9.06 9.695
Douglas County Towns:
Washington
..
Calumet Eden Eldorado Empire
24.93 20.44 24.66 20.23
17.451 14. 308 17.262 14.161
19.13 17.37 18.73 19.55
9.565 0.685 9.365 9.775
Fond duLac Forest Friendship Lamartine
22.20 22.59 21.44 26.29
15.540 15. 813 15.008 18.403
18.13 17.12 18.82 21.16
9.065 8.56 9. 41 10.58
Marshfield Osceola Ripon Taycheedah Waupun
25.02 24.56 25,38 23.68 21.68
17. 514 17.192 17.766 16.576 15.176
17.75 18.55 19.87 19.10 17.63
8.875 9.275 9.935 9.55 8. 815
Page 6
Villages: Campbellsport North Fond du Lac
28.66
20.062
18.13
9.065
27.10
18.970
20.13
10.065
Cities: Fonct · du Lac Ripon Waupun
37.70 34.04 31.54
26.390 23.828 22.078
22.29 22.63 20.28
11.145 11.315 10.14
Forest County Towns: Laona vVabeno
29.62 30.57
20.735 21.399\
20.79 16.10
10.395 8.05
Cities: Crandon
32.51
22.757
17.3 7
8.685
Grant County Towns: Hazel Green Jamestown Platteville Potosi
26.07 24.46 27.70 30.62
18.245 17 .12 2 19.390 21.434
1::.39 D .30
9 . 65
22.26
11.3 6 ll.13
South Lancaster 27.72
19.404
20.00
10.00
:::.~ . 72
9 . 695
Villages: Cassville Dickeyville Muscoda
10.17 26.06 34.14
7.497 18.242 23.898
10.71 20.2.4 23 .13
5.355 10.12 11. 5 65
Cities: Boscobel Cuba City Fennimore Lancaster Platteville
34.79 31.05 36.02 33.30 34.61
24.353 . 21.735 25.214 23.310 24.227
21.38 20.19 2?..00 2' . ~7 .:: 2 ~ . 97
10.69 10.095 11.00 1.0' 685 11.485
Green County Towns: Clarno Jefferson Monroe
25.34 25.36 23.50
17.738 17.752 16.450
18 .69 19.00 17.66
9.345 9. 50 8.83
Villages: New Glarus
30.62
21.434
23.43
11.715
Cities: Brodhead Monroe
34.53 27.57
24.171 19.299
2::!.48 19.23
11.24 9. 515
Green County Towns: Brooklyn Green Lake
21.94 23.44
15.358 16.408
17.18 18.4 7
8.59 9.235
Cities: Berlin Green Lake Markesan Princeton
26.14 26.16 28.52 26.72
18.298 18. 312 19.964 18. 704
17.99 16.86 20.38 18.84
8.995 8.43 10.19 9.42
Iowa County Towns: Arena
28.06
19. 642
19.23
9. 615
·
Page 7
Dodgeville
28.35
19.845
19.78
9.89
Cities: Dodgeville Mineral Point
35.14 39.87
24.598 27.909
20.64 21.91
10.955 10.955
Iron Count~ · Towns: Mercer
27.14
18.998
18.11
9.055
Cities: . Hurley
43.17
30'. 219
22.55
11.275
Iackson County Cities: Black River Falls 37.79
26.453
22.97
11.485
Iefferson County Towns: Aztalan 21.48 Cold Spring 24.55 Concord 24.40 Farminton 24.93
15. 03 6 17.185 17.080 17.451
19.00 21.13 19.60 ·. 20.13
10.565 9.80 10.065
~.so
Ixonia Jefferson Koshkonong Lake Mills
27.22 19.34 23.34 22.44
19. 054 13;.~ 538 16.338 15. 708
21.15 18.03 20.. 68 19.22
10. 5 75 9.015 10.34 9. 61
Milford Oakland Sullivan Watertown
21.24 25.06 23.20 . 26.74
14 ·• 8 68 17. 542 16.240 "18. 718
18.16 22.73 18,.73 2.0. 02
9.08 11.365 . 9.365 10.01
Villages: Palmyra
31.42
21.994
. 22.43
11.215
Cities: Fort Atkinson Jefferson Lake Mills Waterloo
30.03 29.10 26.67 29.25
21.021 20.370 18. 669 20.475
20.37 18.67 18.21 23.16
10.185 9.335 9.105 11.58
Watertown Whitewater
33.26 37.29
23.282 26.103
20.39 23.21
10 . .195 11; 605
Iuneau County Cities: Elroy Mauston New Lisbon
35.21 38.56 39.96
24.647 26.992 27.972
21.10 23.28 23.68
10.55 11.64 11.85
Kenosha Count~ Towns: Brighton Bristol Paris Pleasant Prairie
26.67 29.13 26.78 27.08
18.669 20.391 18.746 18.956
20.64 23.28 25.06 21.25
10.32 11. 64 12.53 10. 625
28.83 31.47 25.81 29.53
20.181 22.029 18.067 29.671
43.20 25.80 21.51 23.76
11.60 12.90 10.955 11.88
Randall Salem Somers Wheatland
Page 9
Villages: Paddock Lake Silver Lake Twin Lakes
36.35 39.17 34 .ll
25.445 2 7. 419 23.877
25.67 28.67 25.75
12.835 14.335 12.875
Cities: Kenosha ·
36.30
25.41
20.66
10.33
Kewaunee County Towns: Carlton Luxemburg Montpelier Red River W. Kewaunee
21.26 26.47 24.47 22.96 25.91
14.882 18. 529 17.129 16.072 18 .13 7
16.86 18.47 16.78 16.01 18. 62
8.43 9.235 8.39 8.005 9. 31
Cities: Algoma Kewaunee
32.54 28.88
22.778 20. 216
21.49 18.20
10. 745 9.10
La Crosse County Towns: Campbell Farmington Greenfield Hamilton
18.90 30.26 24.96 26.61
13.230 . 21.182 17·. 472 18. 62 7
14.50 21.99 17 ·. 68 21.43
7.25 10.995 8.84 10.715
Medary Onalaska Shelby
19 . 47 24.75 19.41
13.629 17.325 13.587
18 .. 63 20.45 13.53
9. 315 10.225 6.765
Villages: Holmen· West Salem
29 . 91 30.07
20.937 21.049
23.62 19.99
ll. 81 9.995
Cities: La Crosse Onalaska
25.30 28.20
17.710 19.740
15.14 21.04
7.570 10.52
Lafayette County Cities: Darlington 39.03 Shullsburg 29.45
2 7. 3 51 20.615
21.49 17.98
10.745 8.990
Langlade County Towns: Antigo
27.23
19.061
18.52
9.260
Cities: Antigo
38.26
26.782
19.47
9.735
Lincoln County Towns: Bradley Merrill Pine River Scott
22.32 26.03 27.37 28.10
15. 624 18. 221 19.159 19. 670
14.34 17.70 18.06 19.10
7.17 8.850 9.03 9.55
Cities: Merrill Tomahawk
37.43 30.77
2 6. ]01 21. 539
18.27 23.75
9.135 ll.875
Manitowoc County Towns: Cato 27.85
19.495
18.20
9.10
·~
.
Page 9
Cooperstown Franklin Gibson Kossuth
26.77 28.44 29.31 25.59
18. 739 19.908 20,517 17.913
18.09 18.77 17.81 16.82
9.045 9.385 8.905 8.410
Liberty 29.84 Manitowoc 22.28 Manitowoc Rapids 24.73 Meeme 30.39
20.888 15.596 17.311 21.273
18.51 16.48 16.37 22.69
9.255 8.24 8.185 11.345
Mishicot Newton Schleswig Two Rivers
25.42 25.27 30.29 24.09
17.794 17.689 21.203 16.863
17.90 16.96 22.80 17.90
8.950 8.480 11.400 8.950
Cities: Kiel Manitowoc Two Rivers
35.20 30.85 31.68
24.640 21.595 22.176
32.84 18.26 19.20
16.42 9.130 9.60
Marathon County Towns: Hull Kronenwetter Maine McMillan
29.99 26.37 24.50 26.30
20.993 18.459 19 .150 18.410
22.00 20.08 20.02 19.80
11.00 10.04 10.01 9.900
Rib Mountain Rietbrock Stettin Texas
23.51 31.89 23.25 28.43
16.457 22.323 16.275 19.901
18.40 22.58 20.02 19.96
9.20 11..29 10.01 9.980
Wausau Weston
26.13 21.50
18. 291 15. 050
20.37 15.99
10.185 7.995
32.89 29.90 34.47 31.02
23.023 20.930 24.129 21. 714
23.00 21.84 22.20 20.25
11.50 10.92 11.10 10.125
26.17 30.91 34.61
18. 319 21. 637 24.227
19.73 20.03 21.30
9.865 10.015 10.65
24.89 24.11 23.30 22.22
17.423 16.877 16. 310 15. 554
17.34 19.91 16.52 15.59
8.67 9.955 8.26 7.795
2 6.16
18. 312
17.45
8.725
Villages: Niagara
33.09
23.163
19.2 7
9.635
Cities: Marinette Peshtigo
34.36 30.24
24.052 21.168"
21.68 20.86
10.84 10.43
Marguette County Villages: Montello 30.77
21.539
20.42
10. 21
Villages: Marathon Rothschild Spencer Stratford Cities: Mosinee Schofield Wausau Marinette County Towns: Grover Peshtigo Porterfield Pound Stephenson
'
'
Page 10
Milwaukee County: Villages: Bayside 35.02 Brown Deer 36.75 Fox Point 35.77 Greendale 34.85
24.514 25.725 25.039 24.395
23.30 24.04 24.65 22.77
11. 65 12.02 12.325 11.385
Hales Corners 36.22 River Hills 33.56 Shorewood 38.08 West Milwaukee 33.39 Whitefish Bay 36.93
25.354 23.492 26.656 23.373 25.851
23.86 21.27 21.91 15.89 24.53
11.93 10. 635 10.955 7.945 12. 2 65
38.50 36.15 29.35 32.87
26.950 25.305 20.545 23.009
22.21 23.98 16.95 21.36
11.105 11.99 8.475 10.68
Milwaukee Oak Creek Saint Francis S. Milwaukee
44.97 28.81 38.68 36.54
31.479 20.167 27.076 25.578
20.81 21.60 22.40 21.44
10.405 10.80 ll. 20 10.72
Wauwatosa West Allis
30.43 33.84
21.301 23.688
16.64 14.97
8.320 7.485
Monroe County: Towns: La Grange Little Falls Sparta
27.21 29.50 27.66
19.047 20.650 19.3 62
20.08 20.03 19.41
10.04 10.015 9.705
Cities: Sparta Tomah
31.35 35.91
21.945 2 5 .13 9
20.21 20.41
10.105 10.205
Oconto County: Towns: Chase Little Suamico
27 .ll 29.79
18. 977 20.853
18.26 19.98
9.130 9.990
Cities: Gillett Oconto Oconto Falls
30.28 40.23 34.82
21.19 6 28.161 24.374
18.24 20.73 22,54
9.12 10.365 11.270
Oneida County: Towns: Crescent Minocqua Newbold Pelican
19.83 22.06 19.12 20.38
13. 881 15.442 13.384 14.266
16.04 12.04 14.78 16.38
8.020 6.020 7.390 8.190
Pine Lake Three Lakes Woodruff
22.49 21.82 20.57
15. 743 15. 274 14. 399
17.52 14.93 13.90
8.76 7.465 6.95
31.71
2 2 .19 7
18.50
9,25
16 . 709 16. 611
19.03 17.58
9. 515 8.79
Cities: Cudahy Franklin Glendale Greenfield
Cities: Rhinelander ., '
Outagamie County Towns: Buchanan 23.87 23.73 Center
Page 11
Cicero Dale Ellington Freedom
26,72 24.37 22.25 21.89
18. 704 17.059 15. 5 75 15. 323
20.68 20,08 18.13 17,45
10.34 10.04 9.065 8.725
Grand Chute Greenville Oneida Seymour Vandenbroek
22.62 23.81 25.40 26.72 25.04
15.834 16.667 17.780 18.704 17.528
18.20 19.49 19.04 20,46 19.84
9.100 9.745 9.520 10.23 9.920
2 7. 90 25.90 28.49 29.10
19.530 18 .130 19. 943 20.370
19.51 19.12 18.90 18.22
9.755 9.56 9.45 9.11
28.81 29.79 31.52 . 35.73
. ·. 20.167 2·0. 853 22.064 2 5. 011
17.86 1g.oo 19.95 22.26
8.93 9.50 9.975 11.13
Villages: Combined Loc.k s Hortonville Kimberly Little Chute Cities: Appleton Kaukauna New London Seymour
' .
.. Ozaukee County Towns: Belgium Cedarburg Fredonia Grafton Port Washington Saukville
25.44 20.83 23.65 22.49 20.64 20.71
17.808 14. 581 16.555 15.743 14.448 14.497
.21.57 19.65 20.10 22.62 17.84 17.77
10.785 9.825 10. OS 11.37 8.92 8.885 ·
Villages: Fredonia Grafton Saukville Thiensville
30.61 26.75 24.99 28.72
21.427 18. 725 17.493 2 0.104
.23 .17 22.52 19.07 25.74
ll.585 11. 26 9.353 12.87
Cities: Cedarburg 26.30 Mequon 28.24 Port Washington 22 .ll
18.410 19. 768 15.477
20.30 24.22 19.92
10.15 12.11 9.96
PeJ2in County Towns: Waterville
29.29
20.503
18.36
9.18
Cities: Durand
37.06
25.942
20.75
10.375
Pierce County Towns: Ellsworth River Falls Trenton Trimbelle
29.39 27.57 28.48 28.93
20.573 19.299 19.93 6 20. 251
20.44 19.47 20.38 20.29
10.22 9.735 10.19 10.145
Villages: Ellsworth
32.53
22,771
21.25
10. 625
Cities: Prescott River Falls
32.91 30.80
23.037 21.56
21.32 20.58
10.66 10.29
Page 12
Polk County Towns: Alden Eureka Farmington Lincoln
26.71 30.57 25.95 26.42
18.697 21. 399 18 .165 18.494
20,05 21.40 19.62 18.16
10.025 10.70 9. 81 9.08
Vlll.oges: Osceola
32.52
22,764
20.61
10.305
Cities: Amery St. Croix Falls
30.57 35.75
21.399 25.025
20.55 23,17
10.275 11.585
Portage County Towns: Carson Grant Hull Plover
25.72 25.81 23,60 25.38
18.004 18.067 16.520 17.766
19.85 19.38 20.40 19.10
9.925 9. 69 10.20 9.55
29.20 24.96
20.44 19.472
21.96 21.17
10.98 10.585
Villages: 'Whiting
26.52
18.5 64
20.65
10. 325
Cities: Stevens Point
34.90
24.430
22.26
11.13
Price County Towns: Lake ·worcester
25.07 21.65
17,549 15.155
18.61 14.3 7
9.305 7.185
Cities: Park Falls Phillips
29.45 31.12
20. 615 21.784
17.84 16.46
8.92 8.23
Racine County Towns: Burlington Caledonia Dover Mt. Pleasant
25.27 28.23 29 .18 27.45
17.689 19.961 20.426 19. 215
17. 21 20.39 22.20 20.81
8.605 10.195 11.10 10.405
Norway Raymond Rochester Waterford Yorkville
29.75 33.22 23.29 34,62 37.79
20.825 23.254 19.803 24.234 26.453
23.70 24.63 21.34 27.58 29.53
11.85 12.315 10.67 13.79 14.765
Villages: Sturtevant Union Grove Waterford Wind Point
37.44 45.93 40.28 22.95
26.208 32 .151 28.196 16.065
21.24 32.84 26.02 22.92
10.62 16.42 13.01 11.46
Cities: Burlington Racine
33.29 37.71
23.303 26.397
27.02 21.02
13. 51 10.51
Richland County Towns: Buena Vista
30.69
21.483
19.08
9.54
Sharon Stockton
Page 13
Richland
29.86
20.902
18.56
9.28
Cities: Richland Center 38.52
26.964
20.01
10.005
Rock County Towns: Beloit Bradford Clinton Fulton
23.13 21.74 20.50 21.32
16 .191 15. 218 . . "14. 350 14.924
22.55 17.91 17.28 19.42
11.2·75 8.955 8.64 9. 91
Harmony Janesville Laprairie Lima
21.03 20.23 22.70 23.18
14. 721 14.161 15.890 16.226
18.34 18.85 19.16 21.11
9.17 9,425 9.S8 10.555
Milton Newark Plymouth Rock
22.79 23.26 22.48 24.82
15.953 16.282 15.736 17.374
19.92 t7. 45 17.21 21.33
9.96 8.725 8.605 10.665
Turtle Union
21.98 22.48
15. 386 15.736
19.60 17.27
9.80 8.635
Villages: Clinton
27.75
19. 425
17.99
·_ 8·.Q95
Cities: Beloit Edgerton Evansville Janesville
30.54 31.98 32.04 30.74
. ' 21.378 22.386 22.428 21. 518
19.46 · 20.24 -,i8. 84 21.92
27.77
19.439
19.92
9.96
Cities: Ladysmith
39 .19
27.433
25.83
12.915
St . Croix County Towns: Richmond St. Joseph Somerset Star Prairie
26.75 25.36 30.58 26.45
18. 72 5 17.752 21.406 18. 515
19.37 19.42 22.49 19.80
9.685 9.70 11.245 9.90
26.73
18. 711
20.42
10.21
Villages: Baldwin North Hudson
31.40 24.16
21.980 16. 912
21.70 19.76
10.85 9.88
Cities: Hudson
29.47
20.629
19.32
9.66
Sauk County Towns: Baraboo Reedsburg
27.43 30.31
19. 2 01 21. 217
19. 61 21.63
9.805 10.815
Villages: Lake Delton Prairie du Sac
28.32 32.86
19.824 23.002
17.48 21.15
8.74 10.575
Milton
.. .
9.73 10.12 9.42 10.96
Rusk County
Troy
.- ..
Page 14
Sauk City Spring Green
32.69 32.69
22.883 22.883
22.81 20.19
ll. 405 10.095
30.78 32.73
21. 546 2 2. 911
18.79 21.38
9.395 10.69
Towns: Hayward
24.71
17.297
17.04
8.52
Cities: Hayward
2 7.16
19. 012
17.68
8.84
Shawano Count~ Towns: Angelica Belle Plaine Maple Grove Richmond
23.94 25.21 23.99 22.86
16.758 17.647 16.793 16.002
18.66 18.31 18.51 17.59
9.33 9.155 9.255 8.759
Wescott
24.11
16.887
17.95
8.975
Cities: Shawano
28.58
20.006
18.44
9.22
Towns: Greenbush Herman Holland Lima
23.54 27.78 27.17 26.45
16.478 19.446 19. 019 18. 515
19.30 21.13 21.59 20.98
9.65 10.565 10.795 10.49
Lyndon Mosel Plymouth Rhine
24.93 27.39 22,32 28.64
17. 451 19.173 15.624 20.048
18.71 20.99 17.60 21.82
9.355 10.495 8.800 10.91
24.53 Scott 23.57 Sheboygan Sheboygan Falls 2 7. 40 25.31 Sherman 23.78 Wilson
17.171 16. 499 19 .180 17. 717 16. 646
18.63 21.29 22.16 20.11 18.99
9. 315 10.645 11.08 10.055 9.495
33.95 18.82 32.49 31.61
23.765 13.174 22.743 22.12 7
24.96 11.16 22.21 23.41
12.48 5.58 11.105 11.705
Cities: Plymouth 31.55 35.31 Sheboygan Sheboygan Falls 34.16
22.085 24.717 23.412
20.81 26.35 25.69
10.405 13.175 12.845
Taylor County Towns: Little Black Medford
32.61 29.65
22.827 20.755
19.40 17.75
9.70 8.875
Cities: Medford
34.93
24.451
20.50
10.25
Cities: Baraboo Reedsburg Sa~er Count~
Shebo~gan
Countx
Villages: Cedar Grove Kohler Oostburg Rancom Lake
Page 15
Trem2ealeau County Towns: Arcadia 29.92 Ettrick 31.56 28,84 Gale Hale 35.83
20.944 22.092 20.188 25.081
17.56 19.44 19.56 20.00
8.78 9.72 9.78 10.00
Preston Trempealeau
33.74 29.35
23.618 20.545
21.59 19.85
10.795 . 9.925
Cities: Arcadia Blair Galesville Independence
36.78 40.19 38.57 42.34
25.746 28.133 26.999 29.638
29.64 23.15 19.73 25.88
14.82 11.575 9.865 12.94
37,69 38.74
26.383 2 7.118
21.46 22.97
10.73 11.485
Vernon County Towns: Bergen Viroqua
26.96 29.90
18.872 "20.930
18.29 20,80
9.145 10.40
Cities: Hillsboro Viroqua Westby
40.12 35.06 34.58
28.084 24.542 24.206
. 22.62 23.49 20.07
11.31 11.745 10. 035
Vilas County Towns: Lac du Flambeau 17.21 13.96 Lincoln
12.04 7 9.772
10.70 10.25
5. 35 . 5 .12.5
Cities: Eagle River
21.99
15.393
10.90
5.45
Walworth County Towns: Bloomfield Darien Delavan East Troy
25 .11 28.60 25,59 25.70
17.577 20.020 17.913 17.990
20.33 24.74 21.76 19.91
10.165 12.37 10.88 9.955
Geneva La Grange Linn Lyons
24.42 25.44 21.94 24.61
17.094 17.808 15.358 17.227
18.99 20.21 15.51 19.48
9.495 10 .lOS 7.755 9.74
Richmond Sharon Spring Prairie Sugar Creek
26.66 29.50 23.20 24,27
18. 662 20.650 16.240 16. 989
21.35 24.50 18.03 20.04
10.675 12.25 9. 015 10.02
Troy Walworth Whitewater
25.38 24.04 28.31
17.766 16.828 19. 817
19.73 20.08 23.08
9.865 10.04 11.54
Villages: East Troy Fontana Genoa City Sharon
30.11 25.73 34.95 35.14
21.077 18. 011 24.465 24.598
22.25 17.24 24.69 26.80
11.125 8. 62 12.345 13.40
Osseo Whitehall
. . .... . •'
Page 16
Walwor th William s Bay
29.14 28.09
20.398 19. 63 3
23.07 19.35
11.535 9.675
Cities: Delavan Elkhorn Lake Geneva Whitew ater
29.03 29.23 27,87 35.95
2 0. 3 21 20.461 19.509 25 .165
21.31 20.19 18.70 22.90
10.655 10.095 9.35 11.45
Washbu rn County Cities: 32.42 Spooner
22.694
23.89
11.945
Washin gton County Towns: 23.26 Addis·o n 28.10 Barton 29.64 Erin 23.81 Farming ton
16.282 19. 670 20.748 16.667
18.56 24.52 26.09 19.10
9.28 12.26 13.045 9,55
Hartford Jackson Kewasku m Polk
30.42 27.97 21.02 19.82
21.294 19. 5 79 14. 714 13.874
26.02 24.22 19.77 16.91
13.01 12 .11 9.885 8,455
Richfiel d Trenton Wayne West Bend
25.89 27.72 25.93 25,88
· 18.123 17.404 18 .151 18.116
22.42 25.92 19.01 24.55
11.21 12.96 9.505 12.2 75
Villages : German town Kewasku m Slinger
30.93 27.69 28,65
21.651 19. 383 20.055
22.68 20.75 17.40
11.34 10.375 8.70
Cities: Hartford Milwauk ee West Bend
34.43 42.60 35.39
24.101 29.820 24.773
26.25 22.63 27.23
13 .125 11.315 13. 615
Waukes ha County Towns: Brookfie ld Delafie ld Eagle Genese e
22,54 27.03 27.30 23.80
15. 778 18. 921 19 .110 16.660
20.03 25.99 24.80 22.33
10. 015 12.995 12.40 11.165
Lisbon Merton Mukwon ago Oconom owoc
30.18 29.43 26.14 25 .19
21.12 6 20.601 18.298 17. 633
26.67 26.95 25.48 22.20
13.335 13.4 75 12.74 11.10
Ottawa Pewauk ee Summit Vernon Waukes ha
25.36 21.07 27.01 29.09 18.60
17.752 14.749 18.907 20.363 13.020
23.65 20.60 22.65 26.92 19.13
11.825 10.30 11. 325 13.46 9.565
Villages : Big Bend Butler Elm Grove Hartland
33.45 30.04 24.86 36.56
23.415 21.028 17.402 25.592
30.06 24.15 23.34 30.02
15.03 12.075 11.67 15.01
....
..
;
Page 17
20.209 20.951 25,228 22.925 22.519
25.06 22.98 27,36 25,60 25.04
12.53 11.49 13.68 12.80 12.52
30.00 29.08 26.56 27.68
; 21 •.00 20.356 18.592 19,376
23.03 24.83 24.95 23.61
11.515 12.415 12.475 11.805
33.64 28.98
23.548 20.286
22.31 19.35
11.155 9.675
Towns: Farmington Larrabee Little Wolf Mukwa
20.84 25.05 27.20 26.35
14.588 . 17.535 19. 040 18.445
15.09 18.02 20.46 18.98
7.545 9. 01 10.23 9.49
Royalton
26.50
18.550
20.38
10.19
Cities: Clintonville Manawa Marion New London
32.17 31.74 30.40 34.48
22.519 22.218 21.280 24.136
20.17 23.77 19.23 20.89
10.085 11.885 9. 615 10.445
Waupaca Weyauwega
33.98 32.66
23.786 22.862
16.53 23.82
8.265 11.91
Waushara County Cities: Wautoma 31.53
2 2. 071
20.05
10.025
Winnebago County Towns: Algoma 19.64 Black Wolf 23.25 Clayton 20.77 Menasha 22.29
13. 748 16.275 14. 539 15.603
15.71 19.35 17.14 16. 79
7.855 9. 675 8.57 8.395
18.66 22.25 20.98 20.18
13.062 15. 5 75 14. 686 14.126
19.16 18.20 16.80 19.18
9.58 9.10 8.40 9.59
21.40 25.34 19.37 22.74
14.980 17.738 13.559 15. 918
16.53 18.89 17.54 17.47
8.265 9.445 8.77 8.735
20.81
14.567
17.07
8.535
Cities: Menasha Neenah Omro Oshkosh
31.61 30.46 26.10 31.35
2 2.12 7 21.322 18.270 21.945
15.69 19.51 17.57 19.82
7.845 9.755 8.785 9. 91
Wood County Towns: Arpin
28.60
20.020
22.96
11.48
Lannon 28.87 Menomonee Falls 29.93 Mukwonago 36.04 Pewaukee 32.75 Sussex 32.17 Cities: Brookfield Delafield. Muskego New Berlin Oconomowoc Waukesha Wau~aca
County
Neenah Nekimi Omro Oshkosh Rushford Utica Vin1and Winchester Villages: Winneconne
-.
Page 18
Grand Rapids Lincoln Marshfield Port Ed wards
23.53 27.32 25.62 21.67
16. 4 71 19 .124 17.934 15 .169
18. 66 20.55 20.61 22.74
9.33 10. 275 10. 305 11.37
Richfield Rudolph Saratoga Seneca
25.38 24.81 24.32 20.02
17.766 17.367 17.024 14.014
20.70 18.50 20.55 17.88
10.35 9.25 10.275 8.94
Sigel
26.40
18.480
18.50
9.25
Villages: Port Edwards
. 24.09
16.863
18.70
9.35
Cities: Marshfield Nekoosa Wis. Rapids
31.12 40.48 33.38
21.784 28.336 23.366
17.93 25.27 20.58
8.965 12.635 10.29
Menominee County Towns: 31.95 Menominee
22.365
14.48
7.24
00 ,ttS8
\
RE :!ARKS BY SENATOR HUBERT H.
HIJf~iPHREY
JAYCEE AWARDS B/{NQUET
':REEN BAY I \•JJSCONSlN
M RCH 21, 1972
I
/
.,
..........
00 ' 469
TONIGHT IS
,..ronh
r··ItJtt' ttuv t
PI('cufi v . . ·~
v i.iliVE n~ S'P F., ·1~1·!1 vrHl .... a .. 1 ...sv nh1 .. vt · '"'1..
;~ I ,__.
flt
HHAT THIS NIGHT r£AHS IS THr·1 YOU AP£ L[lHCATED TO
"FORWAPJJil IS WISCONSIF'S HOTTO.
THIS STATE,
-
CHAf·iP 1OfiSH iPS HI .JCONS IN HAS t\UlAYS LIT: I
f\!~EP. I CA FOR~:ARD t
.
00\470 2
AND TODAY IN THE UNITED STATES SEr~JE YOUR ~:tit%
SEiiATOR--GAYLORD NELSON--AHD I JOINED TOGETHER TO SPONSOR
T'IT!:lODuc--n t'ES('Iot..l l n '" 1 tli -· 111 1•· ~ ~ ~ v a
n.;: ~..:,
co·'"nEr-s · -m.::K v• ,
L. TiiE TIME HAS Cot~!£ TO CUT THE BURDEN OF THE P~OPERTY TAX FOR THE PEOPLE OF tH SCmiS lH.__
LTllE TH';£
H~ CO:·lE
TO PEJUCE TliE HEAVY COST ON THE
NDIVIIJUA':,. TA.XPAYE:: OF YOUR SCtiOOLS.
7
l..J!jE TL1E HAS CO!':E FOR TfiJ\ JUSTICE fOR THE Af~£R1CAH
P"J':"R .• FA.tY.t
- -
.. 3
L
TH£ TW£ liAS COl"£ FOR A TAX SYSTf}\ THAT SAYS TO Tiir.
WEALTHY, TO THE
SUPER-RICH~ TO
HITERHATIOl~AL hft.NK~R--YOU
l!,uJJ~.Y WE
BIG
BUSH'E~S ..
TO THE
r:usT PAY YOUR FAIR SH -- ~~
ilEED LEADl:P.SfiiP IN EOVERiiH:t:T THAT WILL SEE
TO IT THAT TAXES ARE FAIR FOR
-\!fRYOi~E PJ~J
THAi NO ONE GETS
ASPECIAL DEAL • 1 ...---- TGDP.Y THE TP.X SYST8~ IS RIDDlt'lJ WITH St'ECIAL LH ES 1
1
SPECIAL
Loop; rou~s,
1\iiD SPEGIP.L DEALS,
--IN 1969 tum 1970., OVER 300
I
LESS TH~t 10 PERCENT I.i TAXES.
N~{F IC~JiS
i;t\J
-- INTERHATION;'L B/\NKERS AND ,'1ULTI -~ATIOi~AL CORPORATIONS
USE A f:OST OF TP:X DODGES Mm SHELTERSi :uf-"I'W CORPOfW:TIONS'
~~ --T ,E SUPER-RICH hiPJ:. hiGH PRICED
WPSHIPGTOf~
A:!D
t~tJ!
YOHK
I
.11 LL i3E LESS •
Tfu.'{ L.OOPHOLES
-
~~At~ TI~AT
-
YOU HhVE TO PAY
. ·~-~q... 'r:-s· TnV nn n1 fvt~.L.- SnLt rllt.J ,r·"'n I h·.·c""'f'E Ui'1 Til',' >
PROPERTY TKX.
oo
.-
\473
5
I_ ThE Tmt_ HAS COl~£ TO SAY: L. THE TIDE HAS COHE TO LIFT THE BUPlJEN OF THE PROPERTY TAX
-
m~
THE PEOPLE OF
L Alm WE
L J
Ct~Ii
rHSCO:ISH~
ftJiD THE .PEOPLE OF THIS NATIOH,
DO IT THIS
It: '!Q'-' HE RC i\k y .ti• •i
WE CAli CLOSE THESi: UNFt\h' LOOPWilES BY GOING AFTER
TrtE ASStl rAP ITA.,L r,_J,.nft I,:,l_·~~ .t..T . · .· . - \ W'\i n
Di=l...l"i1\.T~." ;)1
DEPRECIATIO~
I '"rPLE..,..l I~· \Jh .. ' H~ LL,-·q · ~ r UF.lr,.,dU:.l..
T· .;.,, E L n 1L. .Uc.
r
p
THE hOBBY FAf~~( THE TA.X DQDr!ES .!\ND TA.X SHELTERS OF THE EST.!\TES OF r!ILLIOt~AIRE§.~ 1\ H...-, T~ lr:(·..vt PJ11J
L
tn~
0 ""THE l... 4.· U , t\
L - Ul.;. Anp·n ·oj1 U::.'-~s r:u,Z"T v. "!E o rLo("r:-r) .. 1 ,
-.)k.&, • •
I
•
6
L
WE l·:UST BRING THESE LOOPHOLES !liTO THE OPE!i TO SHOW
WliAT THEY REPLLY
-
DEVICES ThAT TtiE BIG CORPOP'"4TE
H ERt.ST~ AND ThE SUPER- RICH USE TO NAKE YOU PAY r:ORE TAXES -
L
WJSliiG ThESE LOOPilOl.ES
fi:P~iS
THP.T ThEP£ WILL BE
$16 BILLIOri fl.Vr· ILABLE TO REDUCE YOUR PROPERTY TAXn; ·
$30 FOR eVErY
~1,, 000
OF ASSESSr E;Tr
-
$12 .. GOO :\ YE!\R, PROPERTY TAXES ..;Pl GO I HC TO
-
TO Sl,OOO._.r__ ~
-
CC~ i
YOV CLOSE
7
tlUi ThAT ISN'T ALL. LE 'S ft]D IT UP.
--Sl,lOO FOR FEDt.PJ.L IaCcr£ 1P:X \
j S~
w_
..... •
THF Tl fl_-,.r f uu r luiS'' 11 11 ...
• A-
\ij'\' l
...
I1IG TO \iOR1 !•.BOUT 15 HOURS OUT OF
1-. 40-HOUi~
HEEK OP
I ARE SPONSORHlt IS
PfDCCTI Oil IiJ YOUR LOCP.L PERC£r!T CUI IN PROPERTY T/\XES USED T0 Pf;Y POD SChOOLS .
.,
8
L
MD FOR ouR SENIOR CJTIZEilS
U:"'DER
$6,~000,
T;:E FEDEPAL GOV
uvu·r, ow FIXEll wcor.r:s,
RNi'~EHT
HILL BE REQUIRED TO
L PROVlDtS :iEEDfJJ Rt.LI EF,\
.
~HE DON 'T NEEI1 A Vi\LUE--tillDED TAX HH ICH IS O:~LY
A GlA.tfT
T!![ "
'E BILL EN:_CTED WILL BE A TOUGr; FIGHT ~e
9
Lf LL '
-r1.E ln
!"IT~'"'d (ar."TI'ruiAt h•
1
~Jil
L.
<-t lES I "'l''pA -T LU; . . ncnl 'i t-· L.. ;"''CIEP
-
A;~D
'
THE Gif\tiT CORPOPJtTIOHS WILL TrrY TO DEFE.r4T US
L
ALL HiE SPECIAL HHEPJ:STS HILL BE IN
WASHHlGT:J·~
HALKING Tht. Hft.LLS OF Co;!GPISS TRYI NG TD STOP THIS LEG!SU\TIOl ,
4n Ti'l:.l'~~. L..}}iE
THE PEOPLE OF f/ISCOllSI ,l liOil'T
PEOPLE ME Tll?.Ell OF f'AYI :IG Hit.!l PP.OPErTY T YJ::S-
VITi. NO RELIEF
I~
SIGHT,
L...ALL OF l!S HERE-FROM filE WAGE EPJ'JiE!' TO THE SAIJ.RlEll
IM'"
1"\i ·~
uuH.
~v Tfit.
,_ ..-vsr·· v, t : , •
oo \ tt78 10 PJiD.. WHEH \lE TALK ABQij1 TAX REFOPJi WE ARE NOT OUT TO
DAl'~li\GE
L
i
THE APERICA;i FP.E£ EHTERPRISE
SYST~~.
-~~ FOR A THRIVING FREt ENTERPRISE SYSTD·ii
I PJ!i FOR HOP-KlI
LI
-----1111
·-r
!tr'.H I
A I"\
,..nntti ~c tKvtt i& 1
PRODUCH!G NATIO 'i,
----------------------
L I Hr~,T ouR soons AND SERVICES T~ HE st:cmm To iWN~, 1-l WftJIT
OUR PEOPLE TO Hr1V£ .JOBS TO BE ABLE TO BLiY
THE TH I~\GS THEY
L j
i WA1lT TO HAVE ECOilOHIC EXPANSION.
.E!:T ThESE GOALS ARE BEST SEP.Vt;,Il BY EC!i ITY ANll J!lST!CE
Ii Tt1E Tt\X "' • . ..
• , ,.
• ·G"
~{4iiT.
SYSTs~~j\.
1, •c-"", ~.._...,... ·~.,r-- ,.._. ... .-..""! •wo. ·,
r•
~-·
._
'h.'
of"~'..,. ,,..,~.
'1.'
,
•
t··
• -.~.-\ -
• •'
~-..,....,......_.~--
ll TODAY
A~1ERICf\
IS PRIVATELY \-IEALTHY AND PUBLICLY POOR,
WE SEE PUBLIC POVERTY ALL AROU!{D US.
(mm STHEETS NEED
\_
FIXIHG'
O~R
HOSPITALS ARE
Ii~fillEQUA~
OUR TRPtSIT SYSTEN
IS D. • 50 YEARS OUT OF Dl\l~ OUR AIRPORTS ;'RE COfiGESTED ~~J~D ~
L ~E
;tEED JOBS FOR OURPEOPlf-t Nm roo FAtlY AllER ICAllS
LIVE IN THE FEAR OF CRH1E.
L
LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES..:. CORRECTiliG OUR PROBLE!'S IS
BUT CLOSING THE LOOPHOLES I HAVE SUEGEST£D TODP.Y \HLL ·' ~
'
l
BRIHG OVER $16 BILLION TO TH[ Tf{EASURY,
\
12
~ THAT'S ASTART
THAT'S A DOviN-PAYhBiT OH CLEAH f\ND
SAFt. iiEI'iHBORNOODSf BfficR SCHOOLS_. f'IORE GOOD HOUSIUG 1\ND LOWER PROPERTY TAXES ·
OUR COUNTRY CJ\N SURVIVE ONlY IF ITS
H~STITUTIONS
/\tiD
VALUES !\RE SUPPORTED BY TH ~ PEOPLE.
LTHE JAYCEES Hl\11!: PROVE!! THIS HERE H' GREEN BAY AtiD ACROSS THE STATE
FOR IT'S YOUa ORGANizATIO~ Ttt~t STAiiDS FOR
PEOPLE-ORHJiTED PROGRESS. Aiffi IT ;S YOUR ORGAIHZATION THAT STJlj DS FOR F!\I fdiESS • L..oVI:.R 30 Y£1\RS ,,GO FRAiiKLJN ROOSEVELT S/\ID: "THE TEST
OF PROGRESS IS NOT WHETHER WE Ai1D TO THE ABUNDANCE OF THOSE WHO HAVE f'iUCH:
IT IS YlfiETHER HE PPOVItE ENOUGH FOR THOSE
HHO HAVE TOO LITILE."
.
F
•
13
THE TEST OF PROGRESS IS NUCH THi: SAM£ TODAY. WE CAN OHLY
BEf,Ii~
TO
r~tET
THAT TEST IF OUR TA.X
SYST£N IS FAI~\ t1.ND IF GOVEnN:!ENT Flf,HTS AGAI l FOR YOU .AHD · _ AfiD rOR OUR fAf'aLIES.
Minnesota Historical Society Copyright in this digital version belongs to the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied without the copyright holder's express written permission. Users may print, download, link to, or email content, however, for individual use.
To req uest permission for com mercial or ed uca tional use,
please contact the Minnesota Historical Society.
1~
W'W'W.mnhs.org