Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-10-26
nd discussed generally, Mr.. Neyes

to that time had been based solely
on the question of the proportion OF
internal methods of meeting such a
burden.
Senator Chiffon said he assumed the
government would not put unreason-
able tax-burdens on the District. and as
there seems to be no standard or taxa
ton ne suggested that 1t is necessary
to find out how taxes are raised. and
what their percentages and proper
tons are in other cities.
We are anxious to get into the record,
by Congress and by this committee
everything we have to show that our tax
burden, however compared. demonstrates
we are bearing an equitable city tax
He continued further: THE bulk or our
tax is from real estate; some other cities
raise less from realty and have other
means of raising taxes. but we start with
the assumption that Washington raises
the bulk of its tax from realty.
Query by Senator Salisbury.
do you undertake to suggest any rule
for comparison other than a per capita
contribution" asked Senator Salisbury
No"
1T doesn't make any difference what
people pay on. realty or personally. as
long as the tax-rate is the same?"
NO. I should say not said Mr.. Noyes.
who then referred the committee to the
tables printed in the brief OF the joint
citizens committee.
He said, also. referring TO tables of
his own, that Washington has been
steadily going up in per capita tax
burden in comparison with other cities:
that the burden had steadily increased
since 1907, and that Washington in that
time had passed several other cities.
He mentioned municipalities where the
tax burden per capita has fluctuated.
Senator Works said: The tax in
other cities depends on the needs of
those cities and Washington. There is
able difference between the needs of
thos cities and Washington. There is
great improvement and extension and
Identification here, and that may have
considera BILE effect on the tax rate per
capita. as compared with other cities.
Pittsburgh. for instance, may not need
any further extensions and oeautifca-
lions and may not need any greater
tax
Il agree with you, senator" replied
Mn Moves. that the national aspect
makes Washington a more expensive
city, and therefore the whole burden
should not fall upon US: and if we
meet the same city expenses as are
borne by other cities we are doing all
that can be expected
Personal Property Tax.
Senator Chiffon asked about the claim
that personal property escapes taxa
ton to great degree here: also
whether that claim was not used in an
effort to disturb the present half-and-
half relations. In reply Mr.. Noyes
said he believed primary attention
should be given to the tax burden.
NO city raises all it can raise on all
kinds of property" he said. In the
District of Columbia we raise total
averaging high by a heavy realty tax
and light personal tax. Assuming
the total burden 10 be right, then If
there should be imposed higher per-
sonal tax there should be- decrease in
the realty tax Attention should be
given to just and reasonable tax bur
den; all property should be considered
as whole"
Senator Works suggested that Con-
gress should not allow one tax to re-
main low while another is high.
Our theory is that Congress should
impose a reasonable tax burden on
Washington continued Mr.. Noyes.
land that any system for raising the
proper total would be justiaabl to
itself Congress would not impose
toned"
Take the city of Wilmington" In
terposed Senator Salisbury. The as
sessment is high on real estate and
pTdCtlCaIy All revenue IS EdiScu 1toh
realty. The tax rate is low.
Further discussion back and forth
on the subject of tax systems brought
Representative Cooper to state to Mr..
Moves:
system or method. but of proportion.
Your argument now is an answer to
the opponents of the half-and-half
plan. their argument being that the
amount of your half Is the result of
NJ dar 70 "a ha1 =
District pays imposes a burden equiv
alent to the burden borne by other
cities and to change the law would be
to impose an unfair tax on Washing
ton.
That is an admirable summary Of
my contention" replied Mr.. Noyes.
Discussion Of Method.
Later the discussion of method arose
again. and Senator Works said:
You might well say that the proper
ton which the District pays should be
less, and the committee might md 1t
proper to inquire into the method of rails
ing the proportion. If a large amount Of
property here Is to be exempt"
We should like to know IL the commit
tee is going into that matter" said Mr..
Noyes. whether the methods Of taxa
ton are to be considered and discussed by
US"
''H the burden is to remain the same,
the system ought not to worry the tax
payer, suggested Representative Cooper
Mr. Noyes said he believed the system
should be fought out separately from the
great question Of the proportion the tax
payers of the District should bear.
Representative Gard said there had
been charges of evasion of taxes, and
Senator Chiffon said
The committee must report Its rea-
sons for the report IL may make. and
in that case isn't II natural to suppose
mat congress would like to know about
the methods OF taxation? / have heard
the charge that this is the tax dodgers
rendezrous, and that charge must be
met again. and the committee should
IKE to know about this. if it is to
make a report"
The exemption of personal property
is matter OF the law" said Mr. Moves
the community should be allowed to
state its position as to tax methods II
the committee is to delve Into that
phase of the question.
Senator Salisbury declared that his
state, Delaware, has no tax on intangi-
bic personality, and yet the state Is not
the rendezvous for outside millionaire
tax dodgers. -
Critics Are Answered.
.Mr Noyes.' said Representative
Rainey. stories have been circulated
through the country that property in
Washington is not paying its just
taxes. that there are many tax dodgers
here. OF course. such reports make
good NEWSPAPER stories and thew have