Evening star., 1930-12-09
MURPHY CONTINUES
TAX EXPLANATIONS
Assistant Bureau Chief Con.
tends S10,1s3,3e1 Should
Be Given D. C.
CONTINUED From First Page

taxes than those in other cities because
OF this sttuation7"
My personal opinion" Murphy re-
piled, lis that the people In washing
ton ought to pay rs much As the peo-
pie IN comparable cities without refer
ence to the Federal holdings The only
purpose in presenting this data to the
committee Is to provide q foundation
for determining whether District resi-
dents are bearing the same tax burden
as the taxpayers in comparable cities >
Murphy brought out that In 1928
only 2 Of the IL comparable cities
had higher assessed valuation Of real
property than Cleveland
and Boston-and only 2 cities-Cleve-
land and Baltimore-had o higher as
se.sed valuation on personal property.
When the Federal property holdings are
included, he said, only Boston and
Cleveland had higher assessed valua-
ton OF real property and no city had
higher assessed valuation Of personal
property.
Per Capita Companions.
Murphy also explained that on a per
capita basis the comparisons are even
assessed valuation per capita for both
real and personal property, he declared,
was higher than for any of the other
cities, being e2,353.SS, az compared with
an average Of sl,522.23 for real prop
erty in the IA cities and 81 ,266.45 as
compared with an average Of $523.77
for personal property In nine of the
cities. Five Of the cities which have
an income tax were excluded in arriv-
ing at these figures
Washington's assessed real property
valuation when the Federal property
holdings are included, Murphy de-
for the other cities and its assessed
personal property valuation per capita
was over three times the average of
nine comparable cities.
The tax levies per capita for wash
ington excluding the Federal holdings,
Murphy explained, were $4,000 for real
property and SO for personal property.
Including the Federal holdings. he
said, the tax LEWIS per capita were
s5l so for real property and S13.1s for
personal property as compared with
averages for the other cities Of $4S.64
for real property and Si1.52 for per-
sonal property.
Cites Other Cities.
Explaining further the mass of data
laid in the Bureau OF Efficiency report
before the committee, Mr.. Murphy
brought out that the average net per
studied was S7O33. The same figure
for Washington's actual tax collection
was s57.48, he said. He added, however,
that If the State tax revenues we're
omitted from the average for the i3
cities other than Washington the re-
suit would be almost exactly comparable
to the per capita tax revenue for this
city,
Mr.. Murphy brought out, also, that
II the Federal contribution to the Ma
tional Capital we're regarded as cover
ing what would be its tax payments en-
existing tax-exempt property, the re-
suit would raise the Washington per
capita net tax revenue to S13.15, or
higher than the average for the IA cities
as q whole.
Discussing the per capita personal
property tax, Mr.. Murphy said the
survey showed that this flgure for the
IL cities would be S9.01 as of 1923, and
that for the preceding flve-year period
would average S8.77. For Washington,
excluding consideration of the Federal
contribution, the figure would be %
even for 1928, and 1919 as an average
for the five-year period.
Including consideration of the Federal
OOhiu hUuOAOil M OliC iASttI Vi dlCOIcV1C0l
tax payment, the per capita personal
property tax here would have been
S13l9 for the one year and an average
Of sl2.12 over the five-year period, as
an average, or higher than the average
for the 13 cities.
Not Against inheritance Tax.
In reply to questions by Chairman
Mapes. Mr. Murphy said he saw no rea-
son why Washington should not have an
inheritance tax Of its own, in addition to
the Federal inheritance tax already in
effect.
Chairman Mapes added that while in
many States cities do not receive any
Of the inheritance tax revenues directly,
cities In Ohio, Minnesota, New jersey
and Wisconsin do receive such in
heritance tax funds.
Concluding explanation OF the volumi-
nous tax survey document, Mr. Murphy
arranged with the committee to COM
plete his testimony tomorrow with an
explanation Of the suggested formula
for arriving at what should be the divi-
sion of cost of the National Capital as
between the Federal and local gov
ernments.