Rrf gems 02 4 R3

SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE 313

net income derived within thestate and also tax thedividends
in their entirety as personal income could easily mean discrimination
 against the recipients of dividends from domestic
corporations and foreign corporations doing business in the
state, as compared with those who receive income from
other intangibles, unless the income from the latter were
reached effectively by the income tax. The discrimination
would result largely from the fact that the information at
the source provision cannot be used effectively as a means
of ascertaining the amount of income received from foreign
corporations not registered in the state. However, an effective
 arrangement for information at the source between
states may be possible in the future, particularly if the
present trend toward state income taxation continues.
Other possibilities of broadening the tax base include a
decrease in personal exemptions and the taxation of the
interest received from bonds issued by the state of Missouri
and its political subdivisions. The personal exemptions are
very small, and a further reduction would have little to
commend it. The inclusion of interest received from the
bonds issued by the state and its subdivisions might be
justifiable, but it would affect the price at which bonds could
be sold within the state, and little advantage would be gained.
In recent years, moreover, large amounts of bonds have
been issued by the state on a tax-exempt basis, and to include
the interest received fom these bonds in the tax base would
be regarded by many as a breach of faith.
The possibilities of increasing the yield of the income tax
by means of more effective administration are excellent. On
the other hand, a broadening of the tax base does not offer
the same opportunity, although the effective tax base as
distinct from the legal base may be enlarged as a result of
administrative improvements. A question then arises concerning
 the rates that would be necessary to provide additional
 state revenue of approximately $3.9 million per year,
which may be taken as a minimum until the administrative
changes are completely effected. If intangibles, including
bank stock, were exempted from the general property tax
base, it would mean a loss of state revenue of approximately
$0.3 million. For the purpose of discussion, therefore, it may