Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-02-04
NO D. c. STATE TAX
I. SINCE We ENJOY NO
STATE BENEFITS
In Comparing Tax Burdens
With Washington State Tax
Should Equitably Be
Deducted.
STATE BENEFITS WHICH
ARE DENIED DISTRICT
Editorial Correspondence OF The Star.
BY THEODORE w. MOVES.

BY THEODORE w. MOVES.
Many of us contend that all State
taxes should he excluded equitably
from the comparisons of city tax bur-
denS; that % taxes 10 be equitably
compared should he paid by contribu-
tors substa ntially in the same area. to
he distributed to beneficiaries in the
same area and for the benefit of that
area alone; that in the light Of this
principle the municipal tax and State
tax are as wide apart as the poles, be-
ing separate and distinct in personnel
of contributors, in purpose of creation,
in scope and area of distribution; that
~ Washington does not receive the
same benefits" that accompany State
| citizenship. and should not therefore
bear the burdens which compensate for
these benefits.
Varying Factors of Comparison.
Let us consider If the principle is
not sound which requires that taxes
to be equitably compared should be
paid by contributors substantially in
the same area, to be distributed to
beneficiaries in the same area, and for
the benefit of that area alone.
Large cities dominate or include the
counties containing them; and in the
case of these large cities it is fair to
consider county taxes as well as city
taxes. Indeed, in substance they are
part of the city taxes. The tax
payers, the beneficiaries, and the area
for the collection and distribution Of
! taxes are practically the same.
The cities having over 100000 popu-
lation constitute so large a part of the
containing county that the nominal
county contributions and payments
are mainly city receipts and payments;
and county taxes may in such cases
be included in the comparison without
violating seriously the principle that
in comparing the Washingtonian's tax
burden with that OF the taxpayer of
another city it is fair only to compare
local taxes constituting fund to which
only municipal taxpayers contribute,
and which is spent exclusively in the
city and for municipal purposes.
Eut the municipal tax sometimes
including the county taxi and the State
tax are as wide apart as the poles,
considered in the light of this principle.
They are separate and distinct in per-
sonnet of contributors, in purposes Of
creation, in scope and area of distri-
button.
IL the comparison, for instance, is
between Washington and Baltimore
there should equitably he compared
what Washingt0nians pay for expendi-
ture in Washington and what Balti-
moreans pay for expenditure in Baltl-
more. What Washingtonians pay for
expenditure in Washington cannot
equitably be compared with what Bal
timoreans pay for expenditure in Balti-
more plus what they pay as Maryland
erS for the maintenance of sovereign
State and for expenditure in that State.
One might as well inject into the
comparison of city burdens a cOnsid
U
in national taxes as an American for
expenditure on account of the United
States, including Baltimore.
In other words, the taxes that the
Baltim0rean pays as Marylander or
| as an American have nothing to do
with city calculations and COMPARE
sons. In the different cases there are
not the same persons contributing, not
| the same area within which expendi-
lures are made, and not the same
beneficiaries Of these expenditures.
Baltimore taxes are paid by BaIti-
| m0reans only. and are spent in Balti-
| more only. The Marylanders who are
/ in Baltimore contribute State taxes in
common with thousands outside OF
Baltimore, to be spent not in BaIti-
more but in all Maryland. Washing
| ton has not the benefit of outside con-
| tributions to State tax In the enjoy
ment of which it participates. 1t has
no State relations or privileges or
| benefits.
| No State Tax Since No State Benefits.
1t has been contended that the
| Washingtonian receives the same ben
efits through his city government
alone that are enjoyed by the resi-
dents of other cities through their
CITY, county ana SLate governments,
and that the Washingtonians city tax
| should equal the combined city, cOun-
| ty and State taxes of residents of other
cities.
What are the benefits enjoyed by the
citizen of a State which constitute the
real consideration for the State taxes
which he pays? If he lives in large
city of the State. is II the driblet Of
| State expenditures which the counties
| permit to get through to the city? No.
| The State tax which he pays is essen
tial TO his status as citizen of State
and to his enjoyment as such citizen
of political and iu 'cial rights Of in
eStimable value anu of large financial
| benefits.
What comparable benefits are enjoy
ed by Washington?
State taxes are paid that one may
Fenjoy with thousands outside Of ones
home city the privileges and benefits
| of citizens of the State, including rep
resentation in Congress and the cleo
tOral college and in State Legislature
n recognized status in the United
States Supreme Court. and the finan-
cial benefits which come from enjoy
ment of the land grants. bounties and
so forth, which the Nation has Law
ished upon the States.
These land grants amount 10 1885,
| 524.123 acres of the public domain
These money donations include hun.
dreds of millions.
The payment of taxes as the citizen
Of a State gives the taxpayer his pro-