Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-02-03

personal property and eliminates in
the column showing Total tax levy per
capita, real and personal, general prop
erty tax 1923" which appears as the
first column in the table printed in
this article. This column shows that in
per capita total general property tax
levy Washington (a) (not including
any government property in assess
ment) exceeds two cities and is ex-
ceeded by twelve; and that Washington
(b) Gncluding certain government
property, real and personal, in the
assessment) is greater than seven cities
and less than seven.
The Bureau in calculating the figures
for Washington (b) with Uncle Sam as
a municipal taxpayer appraises the
value of government real estate ex-
Guiding parks and ground used by the
District and of certain of the Govern
ment's tangible and intangible (esti-
mated personal property at total OF
S50l ,493,975 with tax levy Of $7,440,-
939. These amounts are added to as
seSsments and tax levies Of District
property already taxable.
The significant comparisons so far as
current maintenance is concerned do
not include a comparison of interest
payments on city indebtedness, which
represent expenditures in the past of
the proceeds of loans, of which the
benefits have been enjoyed. Washing
ton, which has enjoyed the benefit Of
no loans, should not be required IN
order to put itself on a taxpaying
equality with other cities to tax itself
in the amounts represented by these
interest payments and they should be
deducted from the property tax levies
of all the cities in comparison with
Washington Of the cost of current
maintenance.
Taxation to Pay Interest on Loans.
During the World War and immedi-
ately thereafter very many American
cities INDUCED i'm a financial jag, Dor
rowing easily and heavily from our
Over-rich investors In tax-exempt mu-
nicipal securities in avoidance of in
come taxes and surtaxes. Part Of this
borrowed money went into useful per-
manent improvements by which the
cities benefited; another part was
wasted in extravaganza or graft. Con-
gressmen, whose home cities thus
heavily and in many instances un-
tons legislature to let It borrow at all.
It results that the. taxpayers of these
cities, having enjoyed the benefit OF
these loans, are now compelled to tax
themselves to pay interest and sinking
fund on the loans, and these items in
crease the amount of their property tax
levy. and of their tax rates, which in a
way set the pace for Washington. But
why should Washington taxpayers, who
have enjoyed the benefit Of no loans, be
required to pay on a basis which CO.
ordinates them in per capita and total
payments and in tax rate with cities
which are compelled to raise millions in
taxes to pay interest?
Washington, which has enjoyed the
benefit Of no loans, should not be re-
ouired in order to put itself on a SUI
perficiaI taxpaying equality with other
cities to tax itself in the amounts rep
resented by these interest payments,
and they should be deducted from the
property tax levies Of these other cities
and from the corresponding tax rates
| in a comparison with Washington.
Subtracting the Bureaus figures OF
per capita interest payments from the
total per capita property tax levies OF
the fourteen cities and Washington we
| find. that in a comparison of the re-
sulting per capita tax levies for current
maintenance and development the per
capita of Washington (a) exceeds that
| of four cities and is exceeded by that
of twelve; and that the per capita OF
| washington CD exceeds that OF nine
cities and is exceeded by that of five.
(See column S of today's table,
No State Tax Since No State Benefits.
! In comparing tax rates, aggregate
taxes and per capitaS 1t is to be remem-
bered that the total taxes in other cities
than Washington include State taxes
| Washington contends that in compar-
ing with her the State tax SHOULD not
be taken into account: that as she en-
Joys no State rights, privileges, bounties
and benefits she should not be figured
to pay justly as part of her normal tax
burden what other cities pay in con-
sideration of the enjoyment of these
State rights, privileges, bounties and
other benefits. If this equitable sub
traction of per capita State tax is
made from the per capita property ta>
levy of the cities less interest payments
Column of today'S table results
which shows that the per capita
Washington (a) exceeds those of five oil
the fourteen cities and that OF Wash
ington CD exceeds those Of eleven OF
the fourteen.
The figures are as follows: Washing
ton (a) 1922; Washington (b), 3d.
412; Cleveland, 45.625; st. Louis, 36.966
Baltimore, 30.483; Boston, 64.586; Pitts
lburgh, ,59.326; Buffalo, $3.50; Mil.
waukee, 46.525; Newark c.904; Mime
apolis, 42.195; New Orleans. 34.757;
Cincinnati, 59773: Indianapolis, 38.267;
Rochester. 53.3ll, and Jersey City
49, 100.
without Uncle Sans participation
as municipal taxpayer, Washington
per capita In the above table is 44.232