Evening star., 1924-03-30

substituted for the f1s rate in 1918
thert would have been collected from
! the 31l,933 residents of non-indus-
trial, non commercial, comparatively
! reSourceless Washington, from its re-
! Stricted personality and a fraction of
! IT'S realty almost as much in city
J taxes alone the 594,637 citizens Of
great. rich and busy Baltimore paid
IN all kinds of taXes-city, county,
state. school district. etc, etc.--and
! It's city tax per capita would have
| been % per cent more than Balti-
more's per capita of total city, coun-
ty and state taxes.
poD,,atio, nonnia mE,a, lion csPif. PTr
Baltimore. RE-, 504,637 I3,689003 23.O4
Let us make similar comparisons
with some others of our great. rich,
commercial, industrial cities, practi-
ically all of whose realty is on the
nation. as Washington does, of 36S
millions of exempt realty.
/ Washington city property taxes
alone would be more than the COM
bineti city, county and state taxes of
Newark by s1.290,319, of Milwaukee
i356,S99, of Cincinnati by sl,7SS.456
of Seattle by $1,652,090 of New
Orleans by S5,767,7S6. of indianapolis
by more than six million, of Kansas
lily DN IlNe ana a ndl1 or SIX mllllOnS,
NEARLY double Jersey City, consider
ABLY more than double st. Paul and
Louisville, a little more than In
dianapolis and St. Paul combined.
In per capita the other cities would
have to be increased from % to 81 per
cent to reach that of Washington.
Seattle is an exception. Its per
ICapita would have to be increased
|only IL per cent. Like the other great
Pacific coast cities, Seattle produces
big thoughts. big projects, big ex-
smaller Pacific coast cities have
caught this spirit. San Diego, for in
stance, shows in the census the
largest property tax per capita in the
United States Washington is not in
the Pacific coast city class for the
purpose of these comparisons. Com
parable cities are its conservative
neighbors of Atlantic slope and south
ern and middle west environment.
Onc-third Tax Increase Also Grossly
Excessive.
This two-thirds increase of Wash
ington's tax burden is so obviously
and grossly excessive that few will
believe the House proposed it serious
ly, expecting il to become law with
out radical reduction through COM
promise. But the $500 taxpayers,
including the 10000 small taxpayers
of the District. already struggling
desperately with the high cost of liv-
ing, protest vigorously and with rea-
son that IA compromise one-third in
crease of their tax burden is itself
grossly excessive.
We have figured what the result
would be if our tax rate had been
2i2 per cent instead of liz per cent
for 1918. Let us now figure how we
would have been burdened if the tax
rate in 1918 had been per cent In
creasins the realty and tangible per-
Sonalty taxes of 1918 each one-third.
our general property tax for that year
per capita of s29O2
This amount of city taxes alone
would have exceeded the combined
city, county and state taxes of such
larger cities as Milwaukee. Minneapo-
lis and New Orleans; from $4,000, 900
to S3.500,000 more than Kansas City,
Portland Greg, and indianapolis:
nearly S4,000,000 more than Jersey
City. nearly s5.O0O,O00 more than
Louisville and st. Paul and almost as
much as st. Paul and Louisville COM
bined.
In per capita it exceeds every city
in the list except Seattle, which, as
already explained, is not. as COM
but one which is included in the COM
parisons because it is next below
Washington in population, and be
cause it's inclusion emphasizes the
raise the Capitals tax burden.
If our tax rate had been , per cent
in 1918 our city tax per capita would
have been greater than the city,
louis. Baltimore, Milwaukee. Newark,
Cincinnati, New Orleans, Minneapolis,
Kansas City. Jersey City, Portland.
Indianapolis, Louisville, ST. Paul, Los
and San Francisco. 1t would
have exceeded the city, county and
state per capita of 53 out of IS cities
of over 100000 population and 191
out of 226 cities of over 10000 popula-
tion. 1t would have exceeded the city
per capita of 62 out of 6S cities above
OO,00O and the city per capita of PA
out of 226 cities of over 10000 popu-
laton.
So our protest and our objection
are just as vigorous, and we claim as
convincing. through the showing
made by the figures, against one
third increase of our tax burden, as
they are against a two-thirds in
crease.
ID. c. Realty Already Heavily Taxed.
Without any increase of tax rate
whatever Washington realty, on ac-
count of the comparatively high
standard of assessment applied to it
and on account of the vast realty val
ues exempt from taxation, is already
heavily taxed
tFrom argument by Theodore W Noyes before
House District committee December L., 1s19.)
In one important respect the COM
parison of the census per capita tax
levy is not fair to Washington. No
account is taken in the calculation of
the heavy taxable values (s36S,635.-
$500 held exempt from taxation by the
United States on which, as quasi
taxpayer, Uncle Sam pays millions of
in lieu of taxes. If only
d part of this subvention is viewed as
realty values owned by
the United States and Withdrawn
from the assessment roll and tax list.
the addition of this part of the fund
to the total tax levy in calculating
the per capita tax levy will swell the
latter to a figure which would sug-
gest the truth as to the comparative
rate of Washington's tax burden.
I'm comparing the per capita tax
levy of Washington with that OF other
cities it is to be considered that the
in lieu of taxes of the
largest (quaSD taxpayer is, in Wash
ington'S case, omitted from the calcu-
lation. 1t is as if the Steel Trust and
the other great plant-owning corpora
tionS were omitted from the tax levy
of Pittsburgh If Uncle Sam was
treated in the calculation as single
if his tax contribution was
added to thellevy and his own name
added to the population, Washington's
per capita would be doubled-a
greater per capita than that of any
other great city in the United States.
Millions of Exempt Property.
There is no way of handling the
question which makes it fair to omit
from the Washington calculation of
per capita contribution all conSidera-
ton of the amount paid in by the
largest property owner and quasi tax
payer.
"Eliminate the governments ex-
empted property from cOnsidern tfon.
ard what is there OF property and re-
sources in tie remaining fraction of
Washington to cause 1T or to erabie
it to bear high per capita of tax
burdcnt What has 1t of business prop
arfx- x-.I.rcx Ea fn-