Evening star., 1916-08-21

Washington's total city tax burden
is declared by the joint congressional
committee to be heavy enough. not
equitably to be increased. The Senate
has now noted the fact disclosed by
the above table that Washington per-
sonalty contributes less toward the
total tax than in many other cities
because Congress in 1902 refrained
from taxing Intangible personally and
imposed instead extraordinarily heavy
license taxes and taxes on the gross
earnings of certain corporations. The
Senate now proposes that Congress
shall increase Washington's personally
tax contribution in conformity with
the percentage of such taxes con-
tributed in other cities. If Congress
increases this tax to conform to the
practice in other cities, must 1t not
also in equity reduce Washington s
its 'other taxes" contribution to con-
form also to the practice in other
cities?
II the proper aggregate tax burden
is carried what difference does it
make to anybody out of Washington
whether the capital community meets
that obligation with a heavy tax on
realty and on business and light tax
on personally, or with heavy tax on
personality and lighter tax on realty
and on business?
Surely it is not proposed by alien
tax gatherers.f by taxing body in
which Washington taxpayers are not
represented, to exact from the helpless
applied In any other American city
and under each tax to burden the
! Washington taxpayer with the high
est rate anywhere imposed.
Washington bears a heavier per cap
ita aggregate. city tax burden than
Cleveland. Baltimore, Milwaukee and
Louisville. What difference does it
make that its personally contributes
much less toward this total burden
than the personally in these other cities
IL it's realty and business taxes con-
tribute far more?
And will any legislative body, en-
deavoring to do equity. increase Wash
ington's personally tax burden to the
point endured in these other cities
without at the same time reducing the
realty tax and the business taxes to
conform to those imposed in these
other cities?
Ought not q community to meet its
tax obligations by the methods which
ing community exercise this privilege .
Ought not Congress I'm taxing the un-
represented District 10 ascertain its
wishes in respect to forms of taxation.
which would exist II the capital COM
munity were sek-taxinEf
II the District wished to raise its
necessary revenue by a single tax on
land values should it not on American
principles be permitted to do so? Why
should 1t not be permitted to raise this
necessary revenue in the way to which
it is accustomed by a. heavy tax on
realty and business and a light tax on
personally until it asks itself for a
readjustment? 1t. is perfectly natural
for a congressman to think that the
objects and rates of taxation Of his
own city are those which should apply
in the nations CITY,, and to declare. for
instance: my constituents pay tax
on intangibles; there is no reason why
Washingtonians should not be similarly
taxed" But, as we have seen from
the census figures. there are no two
American cities which tax tho same
objects and at the same rates. It is
impossible for Washington's tax sched-
ule to conform to all Of the widely
and radically varying schedules Of
other American cities. Since 1t cannot
conform to all It should not be required
to conform to any. Its equitable total
tax burden should be approximately
ixed. and then conEress should 80
lesislate ss to Unit the community m M
manner and hl Ae methods which the