Evening star., 1916-08-12
Our Tax Burden Should Not
Include State Taxes, Since
State Benefits Are Not
Enjoyed.
OUR TAX BURDEN EXCEEDS
THOSE OF OTHER CITIES
Even When Standards of Compare
son Are Employed Which Imply
the Unfair Taxation of the
Washingtonian for What
He Does Not Get.
No. III.
Editorial Correspondence Of The Star.
BY THEODORE w. MOVES.
No. III.

| Editorial Correspondence of The Star.
BY THEODORE w. MOVES.
Washington of ignoring or denying the
| "self-evident fact" that all state and
county taxes should be calculated ms
part Of comparative city tax burdens
and OF thus manipulating the figures
to make an unfair showing advan-
taEeous to the capital community.
| The "so-called citizens committee" in
Its analysis of municipal taxation of
various cities in per capita comparisons
with Washington ignores. says Mr..
Johnson, the self-evident fact that the
District of Columbia combines in its
government the functions elsewhere
separated into state, county and munic-
| ipal administrations. and receives the
same benefits. Thus ignored or denied.
the document excludes from the mu-
its tabulations certain items Of con-
tributions to county and state support
for the specific purpose OF maintaining
its argument that the District of Co
lumbia bears a heavy tax in the aggre-
gate and per capita in comparison with
the other cities named therein.
| With these exclusions the tabulations
are easily manipulated to make show
| ing favorable to the contention that
! Washington pays per capita tax COM
parable with the average of cities over
| 10000 in population.
| We deny that Washington "recefves
| the same benefits" that are enjoyed by
| the residents of other cities through
| their state and county relations and
! government. We deny that all state
| and county taxes without exception
| equitnbly enter into the comparison Of
! city tag burdens. We deny that we
| have excluded from 0ur companions OF
city tax Gardens even tn unfair conn
| parison OF Wnshington's city tax with
| the comblned city, county and state
| taxes Of other cities.
| % Many Of us contend that all
| state taxes should be excluded equita-
! bly, from the comparisons of city tax
| burdens: that taxes to be equitably
| compared should be paid by contribu-
| tors substantially in the same area. to
| be distributed to benefciaries in the
| same area and for the benefit Of that
| area alone; that in the light Of this
| principle the municipal tax and the
| state tax are as wide apart as the
! poles, being separate and distinct in
personnel Of contributors. in purpose
| of creation, in scope and area of dis
| tribution: that Washington does not
1
company state citizenship. and should
not, therefore, bear the burdens which
| compensate for these benefits.
| State taxes are paid that one may
| enjoy with thousands outside of ones
| home city the privileges and benefits
| Of citizens Of the state, including rep
resentation in Congress and the cleo
| tora1 college and in state legisIa-
States Supreme Court and the financial
| benefits which come from enjoyment
| Of the land grants, bounties, and so
forth, which the nation has lavished
| upon the states.
These land grants amount to 1885,
| 524,723 acres of the public domain.
| These money donations include more
than s1G000,00O from public land
sales. $4,000 900 as deposits" under
the act of 1896, and more than $63. .OOO,-
900 under the Morrill, act.
| The payment of taxes as the citizen
Of a state gives the taxpayer his pro-
portionate share in these financial ben
| eits. The Washingtonian enjoys no
part in these grants. bounties and BEN
| efits as citizen of a state. Why should
| he pay or have charged against him
as part of his equitable tax burden
| the taxes which are incidental to the
status of state citizens and which are
! one condition Of the enjoyment of these
| financial benefits?
| The Washingtonian has none Of these
| political or judicial rights or privi-
| leges. Why should his fair tax burden
| be held to include what the state citi-
zen pays in connection with the actual
enjoyment Of these inestimable rights,
| privileges and benefits?
| When Washington is part of a state
and enjoys the expenditure within 1t
of it's due share of the state fund to
| which thousands Of state citizens out
| side of its limits contribute it Will be
time to permit state taxation to enter
into its comparative per capita tax f1g-
| ures. When Washingtonians are like
Baltimoreans. Marylanders again, with
| all the Marylanders' rights and prfvi-
time to charge against the Washing
| tonian in comparison with the Balti-
morean the state tax which the latter
pays, not as a Baltimorean. but as
Marylander When washington mas
senators, representatives and state
! legislature 1t will be time for 1t to pay
for such luxuries in the shape OF
| state tax.
| Our argument for the exclusion OF
the state tax as well as the national
| tax from the comparison of municipal
burdens of other American cities with
| that of Washington is fully stated at
ings Before the Joint Fiscal Committee.
and we ask for it in fairness careful
readine and consideration
t2) Many Of us hold that certain
items of state and county taxation
eauitabIy enter into a comparison of
Washin gton's tax burden with those of
other municipalities. and that other
arabic benefits being enjoyed by Wash
inrton. so far as these items are con-
cerned. Statistician Beales OF the census
bureau discusses eiaborately and ably
this theory in the memorandum accom-
panying his tables which were submitted
10 the Joint fiscal committee and are
found at pages 1S6-24s Of the report of
the hearings.
Statisttcian Beales analyses state and
county benefits OF city residents and
separates those I'm respect to which
4 washington enjoys comparable benefits
and which in his opinion should be
eouitably added to the capitals city
taxes to constitute an absolutely fair
comparative tax burden for the Wash
ingtonian. The discussion Is illuminat-
ing. and several columns of interesting
and significant comparisons result
(3S But In our hearing before the
ioint committee, we did not confine our
selves to comparisons of per capita tax
burdens involving only the factors
(which we thought equitable and truly