Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1918-05-07

| Warrington with these groups OF
cities every possible factor that goes
to make up the city tax burden is
taken into account and is made the
basis Of a column Of comparison. Even
county ara STATE taxes IN
under protest into these columns of
| comparison.
Local Per Capita Tax Should Be Low
washinston's equitable tax burden
should be among the lowest per capita
In the country. It is conceded by the
mercial Washington with the small tax
payers In government employ constituting
the city's financial backbone. is poorer
tara6ie ~, ts than ma ne ,es ae
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 ne
the United States, and within that ex-
lempted fraction the city's only great in
dustrial plants and factories. The ex-
Itraordinary exemption of taxable values
makes the same burden weigh the heavier
upon the taxpaying fraction Of the COM
munity. No other city. perhaps. mas ,,s 80
1arge percentage OF mountaineering
not in the tax list. as Washington. which
from its very nature as the nations city
is unstable and shifting in population
Over 2e per cent Of its people are eolered'
portion than 20 per cent Of tho total
taxes. The disabilities, commercial. in
dustrial and political, which attach to
to cause those who live within its bound
aries to secure or retain legal residence
elsewhere and to keep of the city's tax
list. Thus the mountaineering census
per capita tax levy without, in fact. max
Ing cash contributions is at q maximum
and the taxable resources at a minimum,
with the result Of serious disadvantage
How much per capita Of tax levy could
Philadelphia, Baltimore. New Orleans.
Chicago. Cleveland or Milwaukee afford
to pay II its largest taxpaysrs the , own
were omitted from the calculation. il one
half Of the built-up section Of the city
were exempt from taxation. and il an
extraordinarily large percentage Of its
paying for other reasons?
It Is conceded also by all reasonable
people that the tax burdens Of many
American cities contain factors which
and that in estimating the equitable
tax burden Of the Washingtonian the
sums representing these factors rlay
be eliminated, since its government by
prevents graft and renders unnecessary
and unfair any compulsory local tax
contribution to meet expenses OF this
character. There are also certain ex-
penses Of sustaining representative
government in the states which do not
need to be raised by Washington. SINCE
it Is denied all representative govern
| ment, and which ought not to be ,lu-
plicated in figuring it's equitable tax
| burden. It is conceded that. on the
per capita tax burden should be some
what less than that Of the citizens Of
the average Industrial, commercial
American city approxinating .Washings
ton IN size. location and general fondfs
Local Per Capita Tax Is High.
joint committee show that Washing
being below the average, is distinctly
above 1t: that the few among COM
parable cities which exceed it in tax
turden exceed it only slightly; and
and are able to hear a far heavier
burden fall below IL eyen when stand
lards Of comparison are employed which,
In effect imply the unfair taxation of
the Washingtonian for srhat 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
liar disabilities under which the Dis
triet OF Columbia labors it's tax is
harder to bear than that OF the aver-
ase American cofnmuhity.. Under the
WashihBtonian is clearly paying all the
taxes that he should. His per CAPITA
tax burden cannot equitabiy be In
creased. Disturbsnoe Of the balf-and-
half law and reduction Of the nation 3
propeftictate contribution would in
evitably increase the Washingtonian's
tag burden, and thus violate equity.
Ihe Joint congressional committee
gave thoufhtful consideration to these
standard OF measuring comparative
city tax burdens and the results OBJ
taihea when this standard of measure
ment 10 applied to Washington and
other American cities.
The 1slnt congregational eoinnsittee
6eellel against the tax rate standard
~ Measurement, aisefeaited NJ uhre.
liable ~ the census authorities. and
i ss1pte .,,t sss ser eapit. preperty tax
Df0vea by the eensus authorities.
the evidence before this. joint COM
mfttee demonstrated that Washington 8
property tax burden, combining its
ahy tax. ID heavily than those Of most
American cities Ind averages up to
| those OF cities ORIGINATING 1t In size
and keheraf conditions. One hundred
and nifty six out Of 100 American cities
over 10000 In populate bear a lighter
burdeh. Only Dfe Of the neighborinS
kroup OF cities and only two Of all the
southern cities show a higher prop
| efty tax per capita.
Washington has been steadily I'm.
proving rs position In the list Of cities
uHder this head. passing each year
some cities In the per capita total
property tax fevy.
| Total nuhhss Of cities larger -''~ 1'i''
| thar 10000 .................. 1ep INA ina
| Larger per capita than Wash :.
| lnEton ........ ....,. "a ~ A
efnafief per capita than Wash.
'0s'on '..:,..'...e.......... 12s A7 1850
! Verdict Of Joint Committee.
Tho joint committee, applying the per
capita property tax standard of meas
urement to comparative tax burdens,
declares that Washin Eton's burden, In.
| stead OF being a half burden an con.