Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

ratio of $34 to $31.50 on each thousand dollars of taxable property.

Now, it is not altogether futile to introduce such comparisons. It is quite clear that even drastic wholesale elimination of the executive departments, appointive offices, boards and commissions of the state government, if that were possible, would not effect any startling measure of relief to the taxpayer-much less so, if the pruning were only partial and amounted to the abolition of an office or a commission or two. On the basis of $100,000,000, in round numbers, taxable property in the State, the pruning of each $1,000 from the cost of the state government would make a difference of but one cent the property-owner has to pay in taxes per thousand dollars assessment valuation. Thus, if the pruning is $50,000, when it is translated in difference to the ultimate taxpayer, he saves 50 cents on each thousand dollars of property valuation. A $100,000 saving would thus make a dollar's difference on each thousand dollars of property valuation.

Now, from the foregoing, it must appear that the taxpayers of the State, who are complaining (and justly, there is no question) of the burden of taxation, are not likely to find the problem of relief so simple as many seem to think. When analyzed, it resolves itself into ramifications which include fundamentally the present inequitable system of taxation (by which much property escapes taxation or is undervalued), and an overhauling of municipal and county governments as well as that of the State, to eliminate waste without reducing efficiency. Lastly, it involves the proposition discussed by me in a former message to the Legislature, as follows:

"That we should address ourselves to the ways and means of bringing more population and creating more taxable property in this State. That this work of State upbuilding permits of no postponement without inviting

in the measurable future a crisis in the State, between the natural desire of our people for progressive institutions and their ability to maintain them."

For with a fixed cost of maintenance for institutions which we have come to believe as necessary to our civil government-for the same reason that advanced ways of living have supplanted the simpler modes of living of former times-the expense to the taxpayer, of such institutions, will be in an inverse ratio to the quantity of taxable property on which the burden of maintenance is assessed. Thus many problems interlock and have a more or less important bearing on this great problem now up for solution, which may be expressed as: How to maintain and increase the efficiency of our system of government and at the same time reduce the burden of its maintenance.

In November last, Senator Newlands proposed that, in advance of the meeting of the Legislature, a citizens' committee be appointed by himself, Lieutenant-Governor Ross, Senator Massey and myself to investigate the subject of taxation and retrenchment and to submit its findings for the use and benefit of your honorable bodies. The proposal met with my instant acceptance, since it was in accord with what I had urgently called to the attention of the previous Legislature and the people of the State. The members of the committee so appointed have given earnest attention to the work before it, and I believe when its report is submitted will present valuable information and recommendations for the consideration of your honorable bodies. I have confidence in your wisdom and good intent, from the primary standpoint of the highest welfare of the State, in dealing with this problem, and that your deliberations when crystallized into law will be a stimulating factor in the development and progress of Nevada.

I would recommend that the expenses of the foregoing

citizens' committee, including the members' traveling and hotel expenses, be paid by the State.

STATE FINANCES

The following tabulations are based on the report of the State Controller for the four years preceding, and will afford a general survey of our fiscal affairs, by comparative periods:

The State has a certain class of fiscal transactions which are not properly chargeable as receipts or disbursements in the ordinary sense. These are the receipts from sales of school lands, penal fines, escheated estates, etc., which are required to be invested for educacational purposes in government and state bonds, and the transactions involving bond purchases and redemptions. The interest, only, becomes a receipt, in the proper sense, and is applicable for educational purposes and none other. Thus, from the standpoint of disbursements to conduct the government in all its branches, including our educational system, we have two characters of receipts; one derived from the interest upon loans of its school funds, and the other the ordinary income from taxation, licenses and other miscellaneous

sources.

The following table shows the receipts proper of the state government from each of these last-mentioned sources, but excluding bond transactions and receipts belonging to the principal of trust funds:

[blocks in formation]

The disbursements of the state government for each

year of the same period, excluding bond purchases, were as follows:

[blocks in formation]

1911.

1912.

Totals.

General Total disbursements $580,095.61 $1,059,490.75 576,284.71 888,132.26

331,717.83 69,254.85 603,022.81 1,003,995.49 338,524.69 12,065,17 639,495.70 990,085.56

$1,397,793.55 $145,011.68 $2,398,898.83 $3,941,704.06

Under the heading "Educational" is included expenditures in support of the entire educational system of the State, including the University. General disbursements include all other expenditures of the state government, offices, departments, commissions, boards, charitable and penal institutions and miscellaneous expenditures, aside from sessions of the Legislature. The total cost of the state government the past two years, as compared with the previous biennial period, shows an increase of $46,458.04, of which $12,065.17 relates to the special session of the Legislature, in 1912, leaving, for comparative purposes, a net excess cost of $34,392.87 for the last two years, or an increase of approximately 2 per cent.

The following table shows the receipts and disbursements of the state government, by comparison of the totals of the tables previously given:

[blocks in formation]

The foregoing deficiency, showing in each year since 1909, falls very largely on the General Fund and for all intents and purposes may be so considered. A comparison of the net cash balances in the General Fund, after deducting outstanding warrants, at the beginning of each year shows as follows:

[blocks in formation]

There was $276,061.70 less in the General Fund on January 1, 1911, than on January 1, 1909, showing that the deficit between the income and expenditures for 1909-1910, aggregating $266,449.04, had been largely met by a draining of this fund.

Now the cash balance on January 1, 1909, showed a surplus over the amount necessary to cover the expense of the legislative session and to meet the normal disbursements from it until June 30, following, (which may be estimated at $350,000) approximating $100,000. On the other hand, on January 1, 1911, the same basis of accounting ($350,000 required) shows an actual deficit in the General Fund of $175,000; there being, to that extent, insufficient moneys to meet the expense of the Legislature and conduct the government until June 30, 1911. These differences disclose why the deficits of 1909-1910 did not create a crisis in our fiscal affairs during those years.

In the four years, 1909-1912, inclusive, the total deficit between receipts and disbursements was $481,769.75. A comparison of the aggregate net cash balances in all funds in the State Treasury, exclusive only of the State School Fund, University Fund 90,000-Acre Grant, and the State University Fund, which are strictly investment funds, shows the following:

[blocks in formation]

*Includes computation of balance due on account of exceptionally large delayed county settlements.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »