Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-05-13

widely in the different cities. and the
: census slurs the accuracy of the reports OF
| relation to true value. Let us compare
! the dollars paid in actual tax l"Nies as
| furnishing the only reliable test of COM
| parative tax burdens.
| Dollars of Real Tax Burden.
| Tho n. T. Erowne-t;coree report pro
poses the unsettlement of the S1Ip tax
! rate. with an cmin"us hint that it Is too
| low But oven il the rate We're not in
crea sed. Washington would raise in taxes
| from its S14toOG.ON of realty alone in
| 1912 sI116oono Tho taxed fraction Of
resourceless Washington would thus raise
from its realty alone more than was
| raised on realty and personally combined
! in 1912 by the great. rich and prosperous
| industrial cities Of Cleveland total levy,
slo.o1a 500. Baltimore tSs. .Oo5,. Detroit
| so. 67I $50, Buffalo $50 49,. 1871, San Fran
cisco tS1o.46s 7o1). Milwaukee cs6.s59.113,.
! Cincinnati (s7.5S3. $50, Los Angeles &C.,
1877 7os, Newark ts6.s46,6oo, and New Or
leans osj.1Sc. teD. all larger cities With
far more resources than Washington. The
! taxed fraction of the capital would under
the H. j. Browne valuation pay more
taxes on its realty alone than the realty
and personality levcs of Minneapolis 90
bncd: a little less than Seattle 'S4.:n1.-
c3a,,. Kansas city ,s4 1lo.g5, and Indian
apolis g.: 4G6. 800, combined; about three
| times as much as the total tax of In
danapolls. or Providence. or Rochester,
or Denver, or Louisville: over four times
as much as the total levy of St Paul and
| levy of Atlanta.
| The local taxpayers of Washington
actually raised in 1912 a total levy or
S.'.39s.3s4. and to do so endured the bur
den of a per capita tax levy of Slo.t:',
| greater tax burden than that imposed
upon 147 out of the 1874 American cities.
/ II. j. Browne proposed ofhand 10 more
| than double that per capita tax levy by
| the tax realty alone, and TO make
! Washington's per capita tax levy mucn
| greater than that of any other American
city. more even than New York with us
/ vast wealth and its assessed Valuatloh
4 of S9,1I7 49,, go,
! The $4,000 Washingtonians. one-third
| coored. and including an extraordinary
| percentage of mountaineering translents:
deprived Of the taxable resources ana
| even the usual means of self-support oil
! the ordinary industrial city. arc to pay
in taxes almost as much as the $50 OF
| Raltimoreans and st. Paulites COM
bined The $1,000 Washington tax
| payers. nearly all small property own
ers crippled and cramped in money
making IN every conceivable fashion. are
| To pay in taxes to sustain the nation
| city on a national scale more than tue
| aggregated taxpayers of New orleans,
| Louisville and St. Paul pay in municipal
I taNes.
| Where are the Washingtonians to get
these eleven million dollars of taxes or
even the half of that amount. without
the sympathetic cooperation OF Congress
Their legislature has cut them off from
the money-naking opportunities OF the
ordinary manufacturing and noustriai
CITY. They have no Rockefellers or Car
ne-ies or multi millionaires of any de-
mree 70 he bled after socialistic methods
of taxation for the public beneht- ihclI
great employers and manufacturers ana
captains of industry are consolidated IN
mole sam Their richest men are wealthy
| Americans from all over the republic who
! M first are only winter residents OF tie
/ capital These men are. ike me "orkihen
| in the building trades. being driven out ~
the capital and off the city tax lst. Is IL
the plan to depopulate the city: 10 con
lfscate the land OH slnsle-taN pf1helpie.
I by excessive taxation, and theh 70 eHi.t
! the people OF the city In ordef lhSs iius
may find elsewhere some means OF sell
support?
An Absolute Necessity.
/ 2. since the proposed methods OF rnis-
! ing the caoitaI revenues are not feA-
/ sonabIe and equitable. but c"nhsea'"rs
/ and bankrupting. and since the present
local tax-burdeu is rs heavy as ShouH
he imuoxed the ha!f-and-half law Is ali
/ soIu,eIy cssentiai to the capitaTs well
fare The contention that this law has
NOT been beneficial but injurious to the
community nv H whole reduces itself
on the slightest examination to nm ali
surdity.
Mr. Browne in 1912 took the position
that the half and-half law was Gnneces-
sary. in 1914 he adds that 1t has been
/ injurious. Whatever may be conceded by
other sngle-taxers. Mr.. Browne Will not
| yield au inch to the suggestion that the
| single-tax method of easing the taXpay-
ers load by skillful readjustment should
| be now applied only to the present tax
! burden of the District The half contrl-
button of the nation interferes with
single-tax levy on the naked land of the
District that will be from the sinGle-taX-
| er's viewpoint thoroughly and officially
| confscatory. This is the only reason
that can be imagined for insistence upon
an unnecessary doubling or TRIPPING of
the capitals tax burden before applying
| to it the improved sinsle-taX plan of
raising the necessary taxes.
I Mr.. Browne holds that Congress has so
spent the national contribution to the
| capitals revenues since 1878 as not to
| benefit the public or the city as a whole;
that this national contribution has trick
! lily slipped past the individual and gone
automatically and exclusively to Increase
ground values in certain favored local.
/ ties. and has thus in some occult fashion
! increased rents and the cost of living
! everywhere. and through increase of the
cost of living has caused the undesirable
ceIibacy of 2o.Ho young men and women
in the District.
/ 1t is mournful satisfaction to discover
| at last the real cause of the high cost
OF living and of the reprchensbi" latter
| day custom of celbacy. 1t is suspected
| after the analogy OF these discoveries
| that the half-and-ha law caused the
spots the sun and is the breeding and
| lurking place of the cancer germ.
There are some puzzllns features IN
Mr. Brownies reasoning. Since Congress
| appropriates the District revenues from
| the Treasury. where the local and ma
! tional contributions are inextricably
! mingled. how; can afr. Browne be sure
| that the local tax contribution separates
| itself and goes wisely to the development
| of the whole capital and to the better
| Inent Of the whole community. while the
| national contribution after similar
| separation goes unwisely or corrupty
! through favoritism TO the undue develop
! ment of certain localities? Since only
| a small fraction of the total revenue was
S;.eut in these street and kindred i'm
! provements in all the sections and
| stil smaller fraction i'll the few undulF
! favored localities. how does the faint
! of misuse attach to the whole Of the ma
| tional contribution. even assuming thai
only national dollars went Sui!tily into
| these sectional improvements?
| Is not the confident assumption that il
mug, b,,a icen the national dollars that