Evening star., 1930-12-09
The Bureaus Report.

As an answer to the contention that
the Federal lump sum is an excessive
contribution to Capital City expenses
and as refutation of the repeatei state
ments by uninformsd members of the
House that the tax burden here is reia-
lively low, the report by the Bureau Of
Efficiency speaks for Itself, as follows:
The amount of the Federal Govern.
ment's contribution toward the support
OF the District of Columbia fer the -iscal
year 1882. determined en- tnc basis
recommended in this rep2It is
$10,183, ,591.
Comparisons of the burden of real
property taxes in different cities cannot
be made by using the tax rates alone.
Such comparisons are meaningless un-
less it can be established that the bases
Of assessed valuations are the same.
. Furthermore, it is manifeStly unfair
TO compare tax rates and tax revenues
in Washington with those in other cities
without taking into consideration the
large property holdings Of the Federal
Government which are exempt from
taxation.
Therefore, in spite of the fact
that Washington had the lowest real
and personal property tax rates of all
fourteen cities with single exception
in the case of personal property, its
high assessment, considered in eonnec-
ton with the Federal Governments
property holdings Of q taxable nature.
resulted in levieS which on a per capita
basis were actually higher than the
average of the other cities
It will be noted that only one
city-Roctieste N. Y-shows a higher
percentage Of increase than does WASH
ington. CThiS is in relation to increase
In assessment between 1913 and 1925
RochesterS increase, Isl per cent;
Washington's increase, 229 per cent?
Therefore, though Washing
ton has a lower tax rate than any Of
these cities, when their tax rates are
adjusted on the basis of WaShington's
assessed valuation per capita, Federal
property holdings being included, as
they should be. Washingto1's tax rate
Is actually higher than the average
adjusted tax rate for the other cities.
Although Washington has no
State or county organization. it was
considered necessary to include State
and county taxes for the other cities in
order to arrive at their total tax burden.
This comparison bears out the
conclusion, based on adjusted tax rates,
that the burden Of taxation in Wash
ington, when due allowance Is made for
the exempt property holdings Of the
Federal Government, compares favor
ably with the average tax burden In q
group OF fourteen comparable cities.
It Is evident ION the basis Of
larger expenditures on account Of in
tereSt on bonded Indebtedness and capt.
tai outlay that most Of the other cities
are living beyond their means and run
ming into debt in order to undertake
extensive programs of public improve
ments. On the other hand
Washington is living strictly within its
income and has no bonded Indebtedness
The detailed expenditures
indicate that washington
spent greater amount per capita than
the average Of the other cities under op-
Grafton and maintenance for the protec-
ton Of person and property, for high
ways, for charities, hospitals and cor
rections, and fer recreation (Which in
eludes parks and playgrounds). But it
spent less for operation and mainte-
nance under the following headings:
General government, conservation Of
! 18th and sanitation, and education.
It is unnecessary to comment further
on the findings. The report represents
long and careful research. 1t is emf
nently fair to the United States and,
IS far as 1t goes. to the DistrIc: Of
Columbia. The only merited criticism,
from the standpoint Of the District of
Columbia, is that it does not go far
enough.
The report mentions State taxes and
payments on interess and bonded in
debtedness as being included in the tax
burdens for the other cities, although
no comparable levies are made in the
District Of Columbia. But it does not
deduct such taxes. 1t is contended by
the Dis.ric that such taxes should be
deducted for purposes of comparison,
as Washington does not receive the
benefits that accompany State citizen
ship. Washington does nct enjoy the
benefits in capital Improvements repre-
senting the expenditure Of borrowed
money; therefore. the payments of in
terest ami sinking fund payments that
contribute to the tax burdens of other
cities should be deducted in compari-
sons With Washington's tax burden. If
other cities are living beyond their
means, as the bureau report emphasizes,
their extravaganza should not be util-
tied in making comparisons with debt
free Washington.
In arriving at the amount represent
ing the Federal obligation on account
Of "the extraordinary expenditures oc-
easioned by the fact that Washington
Is the National Capital" the bureau
carefully computes this sum on the
basis Of parks. parkway and playground
should be other things taken into con-
sideration.
The street system, such undertakings
as the Municipal Center. the whole
broad development of q city calculated
for the magnificent Capital OF a great
Nation" as a Senate committee reported
nearly q hundred years ago. but op-
pressive from its very dimensions and
arrangements to the inhabitants, If its
execution to any considerable extent is
70 be thrown upon them" must be taken
into consideration as well as the deve!-
opment Of park system, which is only
one small feature and there is the
obligation that follows exclusive con-
troll, which transcends in Importance
and in significance, II not in actual
dollars and cents, the obligations of the
United States as mere municipal tax
payer and park developer.
Some Of these burdens, however, do
not lend themselves to the computa-
tons Of those dealing with statistical
data alone. In addition, the bureaus