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

| ton whether the average congressmans
average constituent Is really robbed to
| ease the tax burdens of the mendicants
| residing in the District OF Columbia.
| 1t appears that the contribution of
| such constituent to the national revenue
| is infinitesimal, and, in the cases cited,
| far exceeded by the contribution OF the
| Washingtonian himself. While the Dis
trict has no representation in the ma
| tional legislature which is paid from
| and which disburses this national fund
! its contribution to the internal revenue
| exceeds the combined contributions OF
| Maine, Vermont. Mississippi, North Da-
| kota, Nevada, Oklahoma and Wyoming
| which cast fourteen votes in the Senate
| and twenty-three in the House. The
| Washingtonan pays into the fund from
| which are drawn the salaries OF the
| South Dakotan's senators and represent
| atives more than four times as much
| in internal revenue taxation as the
South Dakotan: toward the salary of
| the Kansas congressman. six times as
| much as the kansan; for the Texan
/ congressman. five times as much as the
| Texan; for the Vermont congressman,
| twenty times as much as the Vermonter:
| lima or Arkansas. eighteen times as much
| as the ArkanSan. and sixteen times
| as much as the South Carolinian. and
| for the Mississippi congressman eighty
six times as much as the Mississippian
1t is not intended in presenting these
| figures to suggest that the states or citi-
zens contributing the most per capita to
| the internal revenue tax or other national
| taxes should on that account have any
| wefghtfer voting power in respect to the
| disposition of the national revenues than
| those states and those citizens whose
| contributions to the national taxes are,
| comparatively speaking, fnfinitesimal.
| and it is not intended to discred!t in
any way the small contributors to the
! national taxes or even to argue in denial
| of the latter's claim that it is more viz
| tuous not to contribute than to contribute
| to internal revenue taxes derived 80
| largely from whisky. beer and tobacco.
| The sole purpose is to convince the rep
resentatives of sma1l-contributing con-
stituencies in the states that they should
| not berate their National Capital con-
| stituents Whose legislative interests are
| intrusted to their care by the Constitu-
| tion), the ground that the latter
are untaxed mendcants supported by
| the tax money unjustly drawn from
| their local constituents; first, because
| in SO many cases these contributions
by their constituents to the national
taxes are infinitesimal, far less than
those made by the District itself: sec
| ond. because the District. instead OF be
ing untaxed. is reasonably, and. owing
to the peculiar local conditions, even
| heavily. taxed, both in municipal and in
national taxation. and. third. because the
tax conditions are not Of the Districts
making. but of that of congress, If the
local tax burden is too light the reproach
attaches not to Washington. but to Con-
gress: but. as has been already demon
strated. this burden is not too light
1t should not be that harsh and unjust
| tional Capital of tiny fraction of the
| ma tional revenue should be in inverse
proportion to the amount of contribu-
lions to that revenue. those being the
most vociierous and unfair critics whose
constituents through superior virtue.
plain living. small consumption of inn
ported luxiIries and rural residence far
from custom houses, breweries and dis
tilleries. have been only inf1nitesimal con-
tributors to the national funds.
In developing the nations city the
Washingtonians are by far the largest
contributors among Americans. They
contribute on both the local and the
national side of the account. They pay
they are heavy contributors to the Gus
toms duties and internal revenue taxes
from which the national funds are de-
rived that meet the other half They
ar" the only Americans who have alb
solutely nothing to say authortatively
concerning the disposition of the funds
to which they are such large contributors.
washington Lax system.
Usually Americans tax themselves for
specific purposes. in the way most easily
borne by them, with an accurate adjust
nent of rate and assessment to raise
as nearly as possible the exact amount
| required. Here the necessary tax total
under the law is one-half Of the amount
that Congress is willing to authorize to
be expended each year on the National
Capital. Washington is accustomed to
raise this amount by a heavy realty tax,
under an assessment much higher than
that Of the average American city, and
by comparatively light personal tax.
This method of taxation imposes. as we
have seen. a net burden of tax levy upon
the Washingtonian heavier than that i'm
posed upon the vast majority of Ameri-
can cities containing over 10000 popula-
ton and at least as heavy as that of the
average American city approximating
Washington in population; and this tax
system raises the amount of revenue
which is and will be required from the
local taxpayers under the organic act.
Why NEEDLE with this system to which
taxpayers have become accustomed and
! which raises the needed revenue? Why
discuss an increase of the comparatively
light personal tax burden. for instance,
unless corresponding reduction Is pro-
posed. in the excessively high real es-
tate tax burden? Why suggest that the
personal tax assessment be extended to
intangible personal property, If the local
taxpayers prefer that the revenues be
| raised from realty and tangible personal
| property taxes instead, on the theory
! that these taxes are the fairest, the
most uniform, the most easily and ac-
curately ascertained, and the most read
| lily collected of any that could be i'm
| posed? Why should not Congress, the
| constitutionally chosen local legislature
of Washington. act faithful and SYM
whose interests are Entrusted exclusively
| to their legislative protection, and devise
and put in operation preserve and
| keep i'll operation means of raising the
| needed local tax revenue which will
pinch the least, which will be the most
popular or the least unpopular, and
which will create the minimum of
| friction and discomfort? Why, on
| the contrary. should Congress be
| tempted to play the oriental mot the
| Americana role of alien, despotic tax
satherer. searching for in order to apply
to this defenseless community every con-
ceivable form of general or special tax
| that has ever been devised anywhere to
| extort money from helpless taxpayers,
| whose taxation Is without representa-
ton?
! Will Congress decide that it is its func-
| ton unnecessarily, so far as the raising
poses is concerned, to see that the Wash
ingtonian is blistered with every form
of tax exaction from which any unfor-
! tunate taxpayer suffers in all the world ?