Evening star., 1916-08-12


criticisms which Mr.. johnson makes. we
added certain columns of comparisons
to our tables which compared Washing
ton city taxes with the full city, county
and state taxes of other cities. We pro-
tested that these comparisons were
unfair and misleading. and stated our
reasons for so denouncing them: but as
curious information. and for what they
were worth, we stated them.
And it appears that Washington. en-
joying hardly any Of the state .bene-
fits-and not all of the. county benefits,
bears tax burden in its city taxes
alone which brings 1t almost up to the
level of the combined full city, county
and state taxes, Of the residents Of
other comparable American cities.
In presenting these comparisons OF
municipal tax burdens to the joint com.
mittee, Washington has not limited
them either in accordance with the
views of those who would exclude all
state taxes, or of those who would In
clude all county and state taxes, or OF
those who would, include only equi-
table portions Of state and county
taxes For the convenience of the COM
mittee and of Congress, we have pre-
sented the figures which show forth al
three views. We have compared Ameri-
can cities from fifteen different angles
or bases of comparison Everybody ex-
cept those who are welded to Mr.. john
sons misleading standard of measuring
tax burdens by comparing tax rates,
will find in the figures submitted by us
to the Joint congressional committee
some column or columns which he Will
approve as equitably measuring the
comparative tax burdens of cities.
The infinite pains which we have
taken to avoid the exclusion from our
comparisons of any factor which rea-
sonably or unrea -onab1y can be inquired
in this calculation iB vividly illus
trated in our table (pages 2s7-s OF Re-
L., ,,,.,,, hof@ 1n9N
Committee), which compares eleven
typical American cities under fourteen
different heads or bases of comparison.
including in column 8, per capita re-
ceipts from all municipal taxes. plus
per capita receipts from all county and
state taxes" No one who carefully
studies this liable and reads the sum
mary of Washington's taxation condi-
! tions, printed in our brief and at pages
IS to 70 of Report of Hearings. will
assent for a moment to the suggestion
of an unfair manipulation of the fig
ures for Washington's benefit.
In commenting upon this table before
the joint fiscal committee, I said:
I'm total tax burden, however meas
ured, the eleven cities find themselves
very close together. but there is con
siderable variation In the weight Of
different elements of this burden. For
instance, Washington's burden is heav-
lily on realty (14.62). lightly on per-
sonalty (1.3S), and heavily ch "other
taxes" 4.02). on account of the census
inclusion under this head Gnstead of
under personal taxes) of the tax on
the gross earnings Of public utilities and
some other corporations. Its heavy tax
ON realty exceeds that of all the other
ten cities. When personally tax is
added five cities go ahead of it on the
total-Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee,
Newark and Minneapolfs-leaving Phil
adelphia. Baltimore. New Orleans. In
dianapolis and Louisville still behind
etvfu oil t1f,.
taxes are compared. Washington goes
ahead again Of all the cities but Chi
cago The relations are unchanged
| when an equitable, proportion of coun-
the fact that the census in respect to
all the cities but Indianapolis and
Louisville (Which have less than 30o.0 900
population) had already figured the
county taxes into the city figures.
When an equitable proportion of state
| taxes is added. Milwaukee and Minne-
apolis go slightly ahead Of Washing
| ton and join Chicago, leaving the other
/ seven cities at lower figure. When
| to per capita receipts of all municipal
| taxes per capita of all county taxes
| is added, Chicago leads the list. with
| Washington second. COT the fifty-eight
cities over 100000 in population. twen-
| ty exceed Washington in this column
| and thirty seven are less. This. in my
personal opinion, is the most signifi-
| cant Of the columns In the reference
comparisons, SO far as large cities are
| concerned in which the city dominates
| the containing county. The census
| merges city and county taxes for cities
| over 100000 in population.)
"If, unfairly. all county and state
take. are added to per capita all mu-
nicipal taxes, six cities, go ahead Of
| Warrington, leaving four behind IT
| philadelphia, Cleveland. Newark 3nd
| Indiauap0lisD. The lowest per capita
in this column In 1s+ and the highest
| In 24+. That of Washington is 2Ot !.
II per capita interest payments are
| deducted to eliminate past and to pro-
! vide for present and future needs only,
| the showing In reversed and only four
| OF the ten cities show larger per
| eapitns than Warrington. II only the
| general government Item Of state ex-
| pendtfures II deducted from the total
l OF city, county and state taxes, Eve Of
1 the ten cities fall below Washington
In per capitA burden. So close does
| Wnrhin8tOn .come to exceedinG II fits
4 -aA R~s ali ~ RnauI 80