Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-12-17
Washingtons Tax Burden.

Elsewhere in The Star today is Il second
editorial article, demonstrating that the
Nsshingtoniau is not undertaxed and
does not in equity need to be clustered
with new tax exactious or weighed down
with Increased tax burdens.
NaShingtou's tax levy, combining tax
rate and assessment. and measuring ac-
curately the real tax burden, was higher
per capita i'll 1910 than that of 1a9 of the
ISL other american cities
In comparing the per capita tax levy
Of Washington with that of other cities
II IS to he considered that the contribu-
ton i'm lieu OF taxes of the largest tquasD
taxpayer is in Washinstons case. omit
ted from the calculation. Ii Is as if the
steel trust and other great plant-pwnug
corporations We're omitted from the tax
levy of Pittsburgh. If Uncle Sam was
treated In the calculation as "a single tax
payer. his tax contribution added to the
levy and his own name added to the pop
uiation. Washiugton's per capita would
be doubled. amounting to s2S.I2. greater
per capita than that of any other city
over 3oo,'s6 in population. except Boston
and New York. and nearly doubling such
typical cities OF Washingtons class as
Detroit. Milwaukee. New Orleans. New
ark and Louisville.
There is no way of handling the aues-
ton which makes il fair TO omit from
the Washington calculation of rer capita
contribution ali consideration of the larg-
est property owner ana quasi taxpayer in
the equation
Eliminate the government exempted
property from consideration and what is
there of property and resources In the re-
manning fraction of Washington to cause
it or TO enable it TO bear a high per
capita of tax burden? What has it of
business property values 10 make it com
pare favorabiy with much smaller Ameri-
can cities? Its mills. its factories. its
great plants $50 far as they exist are in
the governments exempted fraction of
the city and do not count in the local as
sessment and tax levy. Then there is the
third of the population colored and an
extraordinarily large percentage of tran
sients and non-taxpayers. How much per
capita OF tax levy could Buffalo or Cleve-
land or Cincinnati or Detroit afford to
pay If its largest Taxpayers the owners
Of its mills. the manufacturing plants.
etc. were omitted from the cafculatio
and a third of its population was coIored
percentage Of floating non-taxpaying pop
ulation the capital with its one-third
negro population. and its thousands of
temporary visitors and the government
employees. and this non-taxpaying popu-
lation reduces the nominal per capita tax
levy without reducing it i'm fact by cash
contributions. Not one of the cities emu
merated has so few money-making re-
sources in manufactures. trade and COM
merce, in proportion to it's population, to
meet this drain of taxation.
Clearly Washington's tax levy not only
averages up in actual figures with those
OF other American cities, but for the rea-
son stated 1t must be doubled In order
to make a fair comparison with other
dties. and even without this doubling its
tax burden is, owing to its peculiar con-
ditions, harder to be borne than that of
any other municipality with approximate
ly the same census figures of tax levy.