Evening star., 1924-03-30
Member of the Associated Press.
A Tax Increase That Will Please.


to $3.50 per hundred or to any other
figure, the easy and just way to do
go has been opened to it by it's own
wise legislation. Under the flexible,
Sliding tax-rate law which Congress
enacted, the District has no fixed per-
nanent rate. The Commissioners de-
sernine each year what the tax rate
hall be, and Congress by its appro-
Driations for the District controls the
commissioners in fixing the tax rate.
-'or the latter merely calculate the
percentage figure which when applied
o full assessment valuation of The
Districts realty and tangible person
atty will produce with other District
revenues 60 per cent of the amount
that Congress appropriates for the
National Capitals maintenance, de-
- elopment and upbuilding.
If Congress will thus automatically
Increase Washington's tax rate for
'ach year by appropriating more lib
rally and adequately to dispose of
he unmet municipal needs accumu-
lated in the war time the District will
rejoice.
1t is assumed however. that there
, will be no abandonment of the wise
liding scale tax rate: that there will
ne no permanent increase of mini
mum tax rate to meet merely tenn
torary conditions; that there will be
10 substantial increase of any perma-
Aent tax rate until accumulated tax
Mrpluses have been utilized, and that
10 more will be raised through tax
Increase than is found necessary after
careful figuring to meet the current
needs and the unmet accumulated
needs Of the past.
Washington's objection to Mr.. Blan-
,.on's proposition is that it offends
these principles from every conceiva-
lie viewpoint. 1t would disrupt and
fverturn the sliding scale system of
king annual tax rates and would
permanently increase our tax burden
- meet the temporary demand for
ttrger appropriations to satisfy mu-
nicipal needs neglected in the war
iHme. 1t ignores the unexpended
surpluses of local taxes accumulated
4 the war time, collected under the
aw for the very purpose Of meeting
lhese neglected municipal needs.
1t proposes to add far more heavily
} the District tax burden than could
s;ossibly be needed from today's tax
sayers to meet their share of pay
,lent for these wartime neglects. For
example, this tax-rate increase, if ap-
lied to the census figures of 1921,
would have caused the District to
aise from purely property taxes alone
.1ore than twenty-one millions of dol
lrs; millions more than the great
-ity of Buffalo raised and about as
much as St. Louis; with a greater per
7apita of city tax levy than that of
my larger city in the United States;
% much that Uncle Sam would have
oeen spared the necessity of making
in that year any appropriation of ma
.ional money whatever for Capital up
suilding.
1t ignores as if they did not exist
the laws by which Immediately pre-
ceding Congresses disposed of these
issues. 1t was proposed in 1919-20 to
increase the Districts tax rate from
$3.50 to $3.50 per hundred ION two
thirds assessment valuation), with a
suggestion of compromise on an in
crease to 50 per hundred. Neither of
these increases was made, but in the
end the wise system of a flexible tax
rate, adjusted annually to meet cur
rent needs, was adopted.
f. Mr.. Blanton would destroy the fiex.
ible tax-rate system and restore the
old arbitrary surplus-producing fixed
rate A two-thirds and one-third tax
Increase were rejected in 1919-20. Mr..
Bianton proposes today more than
doubling of the present rate.
Elsewhere in The Star is reprinted
part of Washington's protest against
the 1919-20 taxincrease proposal,
which is interesting and pertinent to
day.
OF course, Congress will not, after
a moments reflection, scold the Dis
txict for q rather low tax rate this
tuar when Congress itself, under the
sliding scale system of annual tax
rate fixing, is solely responsible for
the tax.rate figure and when Con.
gress has overruled and rejected the
Districts effort to make the tax rate
higher, i'm order that the appropria-
fions might be larger for meeting cur
rent and accumulated municipal
needs
When the Commissioners, represent
ing the District, have proposed that
the appropriations for the next fiscal
year should be largely in excess of
thirty million dollars, they have Pc
titioned, in effect, for District tax
rate as much larger than $L20 or
$1.30 as the thirty millions plus of
their estimates shall exceed the twenty
millions plus of the final actual appro-
prfations. "
1t is inconceivable that Congress,
after rejecting the Districts plea for
a larger tax rate, because under the
60-40 ratio it meant larger national
contribution for Capital upbuilding,
should revile the Capital for it's al
legged low tax rate, and should repudi-
ate its obligation to contribute rata
bly, I'm accordance with this taxrate
and should thus extort from