Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-01-31
Just Lump Sum Increases.

this temporary annual appropriation
should in order to be more equitable
be substantially increased. For this
reason Senator Bingham's proposition
Of 100000 increase for this year should
be welcomed as putting this issue in
definite shape and as promising through
discussion a final result which shall
reasonably meet the equities.
The interesting proposition Is now
under discussion of measuring Uncle
Sans financial obligation in Capital
maintenance and development-first by
figuring what he would pay as a
municipal taxpayer on his real and per-
sonal property. and second by adding
what he would equitably contribute,
personifying the Nation, to Offset
excessive expenditures made and abnor-
NAL losses suffered solely by virtue of
the fact that Washington is not self
developing commercial city but the
National Capital. A few items to be
considered in this connection are
% loss of tax revenue on account of
excess above ordinary real property
exemptions; ~ cost of excess park
acquisition and maintenance; 80 cost
Of improving, maintaining and policing
an extraordinary excess of street area;
a. the equitable obligation to pay lib
orally and to assume primary financial
responsibility for the District, based on
the absolute and exclusive control of the
Districts fiscal affairs by Congress, on
the principle that fiscal obligation fol-
lows power: and 90 the fiscal obliga-
ton of the Nation to the Capital that
springs from the circu~-stances Of the
creation and upbuilding OF the Nations
city.
When all of these items have been
thoroughly studied and converted into
dollars and cents very large increase,
amounting to millions. in the national
contribution for Capital upbuilding will
be disclosed as equitable, whether that
just contribution takes the shape Of a
lump sum or of definite proportionate
contribution in obedience to substantive
law. .. -" 8,
The formula of the Bureau of Eff
cheney for measuring Uncle Sans fiscal
obligation to the Capital applies also to
the corresponding obligation of the To-
cal taxpayers, and the Bureau consist
emily supplies the figures which enable us
to ascertain whether with Uncle Sam
as an ordinary municipal taxpayer the
local taxpayers are contributing too
much or too little for Capital upbuild-
ing in comparison with the actual tax
burdens Of comparable American cities.
The Bureau in treating Uncle Sam
as q municipal taxpayer appraises his
real and personal property holdings in
the District at $50l, 493,s75 with tax
levy of 7,440, $500, and adds this amount
to the assessment Of District realty and
personally already taxable Upon the
basis Of this total assessment per cap
ttas for comparison with those of other
cities are calculated
These comparisons disclose exceed
ingly interesting results. For example,
the Bureau figures the per capita gen.
eral property tax levies in 1928 in ID
American cities, between 100000 and
100000 population, and compares
them with Washington's per capita
with Uncle Sam participating as a tax
payer. These figures show that Wash
ingtons per capita, thus calculated
exceeds those Of seven of the fourteen
cities-namely. Cleveland, st. Louis
Baltimore, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New
Orleans and Indianapolis-and is ex.
ceeded by those of Boston, Pittsburgh
Buffalo, Newark, Cincinnati Rochester
and Jersey City.
The significant comparisons SO far
rs current maintenance is concerned
do not include comparison of interest
payments on city indebtedness, which
represent expenditures In the past Of
the proceeds of loans, of which tn;
benefits have been enjoyed. Washing.
ton, which has enjoyed the benefit Of
no loans, should not be required ir
order to put itself on a taxpayinE
equality with other cities to tax itsel
IN the amounts represented by these
interest payments and they should b'
deducted from the property tax levie'
Of all the cities in a comparison with
a e. ~ In AA1k A%
maintenance.
Subtracting the Bureaus figures o
per capita interest payments from thu
total per capita property tax levies o
the fourteen cities and Washington, w
find that in comparison of the result
ing per capita lax leyies for curren
maintenance Washington's per capiti
exceeds those of nine of the fourteen
cities-namely. Cleveland, st. Louis
Baltimore, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Ne'
Orleans, Indianapolis, Rochester an
Jersey City.
In comparing tax rates, aggregat
taxes and per capitaS it is to be remem
bered that the total taxes in other cite
than Washington include State taxes
Washington contends that in compar
ing with her the State tax should nc
be taken into account; that as sh
enjoys no State rights, privilege
bounties and benefits she should not b
figured to pay justly as part of he
normal tax burden what other cite
pay in consideration OF the enjoymer
Of these State rights, privilege
bounties and other benefits. If tn
equitable subtraction of per capita stat
ttax is made Washington exceeds in tt
resulting per capitas those OF eleven