|
1
|
tially except with the number of pupils in each.
|
|
2
|
So that it was perfectly clear that what Dr.
|
|
3
|
Sensenbaugh and Mr. Perkins told me was that income was
|
|
4
|
not in the formula. Now, you are saying it is. I don't
|
|
5
|
know which one of you to believe.
|
|
6
|
MR. RAVER: Mr. Chairman, this must have been
|
|
7
|
a lack of communication. Each side must have misunder-
|
|
8
|
stood the other, because if you have your book here, Article
|
|
9
|
77, I can find for you in/very few minutes the changes
|
|
10
|
made in 1964, which puts in the net taxable income as a
|
|
11
|
product with assessable bases and then this factor of
|
|
12
|
1.228 is applied to that. You see, it is no longer a tax
|
|
13
|
rate. It is a kind of a percentage of this product, so
|
|
14
|
obviously that is not $1.228 cents, you see, so that they
|
|
15
|
have the factor correct, but the answers are not coming
|
|
16
|
across correctly. The net taxable income per school system
|
|
17
|
is the part of the calculation of the local effort. This
|
|
18
|
product is achieved by multiplying the net taxable income
|
|
19
|
times the assessable base and then applying this 1.228.
|
|
20
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Where do they get the net tax-
|
|
21
|
able income from?
|
