Evening star., 1916-08-25

SHndll taxpayers III government ciipioy
constituting the citys financial back
bone, is poorer In taxable resources
than the average American city of its
size and is less able to bear the same
tax burden. No other city has SO
large a percentage of property exempt
from taxation as the National Capital,
with very large fraction of the city's
realty held from the tax list by the
United States, and within that exempt
ed fraction the city's only great in
dustria1 plants and factories The ex-
traordinary exemption of taxable val
ues makes the same burden weigh the
heavier upon the taxpaying fraction OF
the community. No other city, perhaps,
has SO large a percentage of non-tax-
paying transients. who figure in the
census but not in the tax list, as Wash
ington, which from it's very nature as
the nations city is unstab BILE and shift
ing in population. Nearly 30 per cent
of its people are colored, and this frac-
tion pays a far smaller proportion than
30 per cent Of the total taxes The
disabilities, commercial, Industrial and
political, which attach to legal resi-
dence in the nations city tend to cause
those who live within its boundaries to
secure or retain legal residence else
where and to keep off the city's tax
list Thus the non-taxpaying census
population, which reduces the nominal
per capita tax levy without, in fact,
making cash contributions, Is at a
maximum and the taxable resources at
a minimum, with the result of serious
disadvantage to the District in per
capita comparison. How much per
capita of tax levy could Philadelpnla'
Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago. Cleve-
land or Milwaukee afford to pay II It's
largest taxpayers, the owners of Its
mills and manufacturing plants were
omitted from the calculation: II one
half of the built-up section OF the CITY
were exempt from taxation, and II an
| oNfro nr-di iva rfty a
population were transients or noh-eax-
paying for other reasons!
1t is conceded also by all reasonable
people that the tax burdens OF many
American cities contain factors whlcn
represent conditions not found mere, ana
that in estimating the equitable tax bur-
den of the Washingtonian the sums rep
resenting these factors may be eliminated,
since its government by Congress, under
national safeguards, prevents graft ana
renders unnecessary and unfair any COM
pulsory local tax contribution to meet ex-
penses of this character. There are also
certain expenses OF sustaining representa-
tive government in the states which do
not need to be raised by Washington,
since it is denied all representative gov
ernment, and which ought not to be dupli-
Gated in figuring its equitable tax burden
1t is conceded that on the wholethe wash
ingtonians equitable per capita tax nur.
den should be somewhat less than that OF
the citizens of the average industrial,
commercial American city approxima ting
Washington in size, location and general
conditions.
The figures which have been given show
that Washingtons per capita tax burden,
instead of being below the average, is dis
tinctly above it. and that many cities
which ought to bear and are able to bear
far heavier burden fall below 1t, even
when standards of comparison are en-
ployed which in effect imply the unfair
tn xatfOn Of the Washingtonian for what
he does not get. The burden imposed by
Congress upon the local taxpayers is
fully as heavy as that which the average
self-governing municipality imposes upon
itself. and In view of the capitals lack
of taxable resources and other peculiar
disabilities under which the District OF
Columbia labors its tax is harder to bear
than that of the average American COM
munity.
For the reasons which have been stat
ed the WashinEtonian's total tax bur-
den should be distinctly less per capita
than that of the residents of cOmpa-
rabie cities to weigh as heavily upon the
local taxpayer. Is not the local tax bur-
den heavy enough, when in nggre-
gnte city taxes per capita 1t exceeds
those of Philadelphia, Cleveland, Baiti-
more, Milwaukee, Newark, New Orleans,
Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Louis
VILE. When in all city taxes plus all
county taxes 1t also exceeds per capita
every one of these cfttess And when
with its city taxes alone 1T exceeds per
capita the combined city, county and
state taxes of Philadelphia, Cleveland,
Newark and indianapolis, and is ex-
ceeded only n few cents by Baltimore
and New Orlennsf
In not the Washingt tonian's tax bur
den, however reckoned heavy enOughf
Can this aggregate burden be equit-
ably increased through repeal of the
haIf-and-hah Inv and reduction Of the
nations prOportionate contribution II
the personally tax and consequently the
total tax are increased by the addition
of a tax on intangibles, must not in
euuity the excessive realty and business
taxes be correspondingly decreased, SO
that the aggregate burden may remain
tho samef
Since the capitals total tax burden
cannot equitably be made heavier both
the proposed repeal OF the half-and-
half law and the pr0posed new tax ON
intanDibIes are In equity prohibited.