Evening star., 1915-03-29
A SQUARE DEAL.
FOR WASHINGTON
Our Tax-Burden Distinctly
Heavier Than That of Most
American Cities.
POINTED LESSONS FROM
1912 CENSUS FIGURES
Our Assessment Basis Should Not Be
Rehabilitation Should Not Cut
Down Half Provision.


In the last analysis every one
of the assaults upon the half-and-
half law turns in final decision
upon the answer to be given to
the question: rs the Washing
tonian already paying as much
tax as he ought" If his tax-bur-
den is now as heavy as should
fairly be imposed no reasonable
American, whether III or out Of
Congress, will favor repeating
the half-and-half arrangement !;
or doubling or increasing by
fifty per cent his tax assess
ment; or shifting from the strong,
broad shoulders of Uncle Sam
to those of the feeble local COM
nunity any further portion of
the nations burden of capital
making; or blistering the Wash
ingtonian with perjury-pronoting,
veracity-punishing new taxes; or
extorting from him without due
consideration alleged ancient
debts that died, buried and de
cayed forty years ago, and that,
resurrccted, violate all the decen-
cies by stalking abroad in their
graveclothes.
The comparative tax-burden OF
the Washingtonian has already
been measured in detail in the
light OF the census figures of 1910.
Study of the recently published
census statistics OF 1912 develops
that the comparative tax-burden
of Washington has increased
within the two years not only alb
solutely and substantially, but in
its relation to the other American
cities. The lessons taught by the
1910 figures are confirmed and
strengthened by the figures Of
1912.
The burden imposed by Con-
gress upon the local taxpayers is
fully as heavy as that which the
average self-governing municipal
ity imposes upon itself, and in
view of the capitals lack Of tax
able resources and other peculiar
disabilities under which the Dis
trict of Columbia labors, its tax is
harder to bear than that of the
average American community.
I. wa.hinRton'. tax levy. combinin.:
accurately the real tax-burden, Is
In her Per capita than that of II.
OF the 104 other American cities in 1912.
=. In comparing the per capita tax
cities 1t Ia to be considered that the
contribution in lieu of taxes of the
largest (auasi) taxpayer In, In wash
ih3tons case, omitted from the cal
culatton. 1t In as il the steel trust and
other great plant-owning corpOrations
were omitted from the tax levy Of
Pittsburgh. II Uncle sam was treated
In the calculation as n single taxpnyer,
his tax contribution added to the levy
and his own name added to pOpula-
tion. WashinRtOn's per capitn. would nc
doubled, amounting to x31 30, n greater
per capita than that of any other city
In the United states, more than
doubling Philadelphia. Baltimore and
New Orleans, and nearly doubling Chi
| cagO. Cleveland and Milwaukee,
| ,. Not one of the cities with which
WashlngtOn Ii compared ha. NO large
| q percentage of floating non tn xpay wing
| population as the Capital, with It's one
THIRD negro population and Its thou
aands of temporary visitors and the
| taxpay1nG population reduces the
| nominal per capita tax levy witl.Oui
| reducing 1t In fact by cash cOntribu-
| ttons. Not one Of the cities enumerated
has 80 few money-nnakinE resources I'm
proportion to its population, to meet
- drain OF taxation.
| 4. Clearly Washinxton's tax levy no,
| only averages up In actual figures witt I,
| those OF other American clties. hut Tor
, the reason stated II must he doubled in
| order to make . fair comparison with
! other cities. and even without tl,j.
| doublin4 itn tax-burden ts. owing Ia
It's Peculiar conditions. harder to he
horse thaD that of any other nupicj.
paltty with approximately the sam~
| ccnsUs figures Of tnx levy.
| Accurate Measure of Tax Burden.
The following table gives the 81
l