Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-12-13

as if the steel trust and other. great
plant-owning corporations were omitted
from the tax levy of Pittsburgh. Elmi-
nate the governments exempted prop
erty from consideration and what is
there of property and resources in the
remaining fraction of Washington to
cause it or to enable it to bear as high
per capita of tax burden? What has it
of business property values to make it
compare favorably with Thuch smaller
American cities? It's mills, it's factories.
its great plants, so far as they exist are
in the governments exempted fraction
of the city and do not count in the local
assessment and tax levy.
How much per capita of tax levy
could any of our.great cities,'' asked Mr.
Noyes. afford to pay if its largest tax
payers, the owners of it's mills and
manufacturing plants, were omitted
from the calculation? Not one of these
cities has so large percentage OF
floating nom taXpaying population as the
capital, and this mountaineering popula-
ton reduces the nominal per capita tax
levy without reducing it in fact by cash
contributions. Not one of these cities
has SO few money making resources in
manufactures, trade and commerce in
proportion to it's population to meet this
drain of taxation.
Taxable Washington Shrinking.
1T is also to be considered that the
taxable area in the District is a stead
lily reducing fraction of the whole
government condemnations periC d.
lcally and frequently removing large
areas from the taxable to the exempt
class-as in the area south of the
Avenue, the Rock Creek parkway.
arlington Hotel site. etc-while most
other cities have been expanding some
very largely. Chicago. for instance. has
added 9.S square miles since 1913;
Portland, Ore, 1885 square miles; De-
tro1t, 39,43 square miles nearly dou-
ping the city area; Baltimore U919.
o. square miles. and Los Angeles,
250.15 square miles. the additions to
Los Angeles aSgregating more than
twice the 1913 area of l1492 square
miles.
NO wonder that Detroit makes a
better showing in 1918 than in 1913
in comparison with Washington. since
taxable Washington is smaller now
than then and taxable Detroit has
doubled in size
The Total Tax Burden Heavy.
In conclusion of his argument for
the afternoon session Mr.. Moves called
special attention to the matter of the
total municipal tax burden. present
ing figures which demonstrated that
in this respect Washington's own
contribution to the capital mante-
nance and development funds COM
pares favorably with the municipal
tax receipts of the other cities of
similar size. He said:
Washingtons tax burden. measured
by the per capita receipts from all
municipal taxes. including the taxes
on the sale of liquor and tobacco and
those on all public utility corpora
tions. banks and trust companies is
distinctly heavier than those of the
American cities with which Washing
ton is appropriately compared. This
comparison fairly measures the re-
Washington's burden exceeds that of
of cities and of all but one in the
northern central group and forty nine
group.
Under this head are, to be COM
pared total and per capita municipal
receipts from all taXes-general prop
erty taxes, special property taxes,
poll and occupation taxes. business
taxes and non-business license taxes.
Washington's large item under this
head is the tax on gross receipts of
public utilities, banks, trust compa-
MES, etc. This tax is classed among
business taxes and is really per-
sonal tax on franchise. good will, etc.
In Washingtons case the receipts
from it are larger than from the per-
sonal tax on tangible property.
a Convincing Table.
"Washington's receipts from all
taxes in 1918 We're $S,S47.672. a larger
total than that of any smaller city
and larger than that of New Orleans