Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-15
Uncle Sam AS a Taxpayer
If the Lump Sum Is to Be Made Theoretical Tax
Levy on Value of Property as Shown by Bureau
of Efficiency, the Assessment" Should Be
Brought Up to Date-Other Factors.
(Editoral Correspondence Of The star.)

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 comparison Of the result
ing per capita tax levies for current
maintenance Washington's per capita
exceeds those of nine of the fourteen
cities-namely. Cleveland. st. Louis,
Baltimore. Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New
Orleans. indianapolis, Rochester and
Jersey City.
State Taxes Elsewhere.
In comparing tax rates, aggregate
taxes and per capitas it 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
enjoys 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 consideration of the enjoy
ment Of these State rights, privileges,
bounties and other benefits. II this
equitable subtraction of per capita State
tax Is made Washington exceeds in the
| resulting per capitas those of eleven Of
| the fourteen cities-that is, all Sut
Boston, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. The
figures follow:
Washington, 58412: Cleveland, As
625; st. Louis, 1896; Baltimore, 3o.483;
Boston. 64.586: Pittsburgh, 59.326; Buff
falo, $3.50; Milwaukee. 46.525; New
ark, 52.904: Minneapolis 42.195: New
Orleans. 34.757; Cincinnati, 59.773; In
dlanapoliS, 38.2G7; Rochester, 53.311,
and Jersey City, 4810O.
Without Uncle Sans participation
as municipal taxpayer, WashingtOn's
per capita in the above table Is 44.232.
which Is almost 50 per cent greater
than that Of Baltimore. ;0.4S3; almost
one-third greater than New Orleans,
34.7s7; almost one fourth more than
st. Louis. 1896: almost one sixth more
than Indianapolis, 3s267; distinctly
more than Minneapolis. 42.195. and
nearly as much a. Cleveland. 45.625,
and Milwaukee, ASSES. Is not Wash
ington's per capita city tax burden for
current maintenance and future de-
velopment greater than the city should
be called upon to bear. when in spite
of its vast excess Of tax-exempt prop
erty 1t exceeds by nearly 30 per cent
that of the great and rich city of
Baltimore and exceeds by nearly 25 per
cent that of the even larger and richer
city of st. Louis?l
1t thus appears that with Uncle Sam
participating equitably as municipal
taxpayer in Washingt0n's per CAPITA
city tax for current maintenance and
development this tax burden of the
Washingtonian is nearly double that Of
the Baltimorean, 6S per cent more than
that Of the New Orleansite and IS per
cent more than that of the st. Louisan
On the hypothesis that Uncle Sam
participates as municipal taxpayer in
meeting the city tax burden for capital
maintenance, and contributes equitabIy
In addition as personifying the Nation.
1t has been established that his annual
contribution of 100000 toward cap
ital upbuilding should be increased by
several million dollars. When tax
burdens are compared on the basis of
the same hypothesis Is IL not equally
clear that the Washingtonian's city tax
burden for current maintenance is too
great when IL nearly doubles that of the
neighboring BaltimOrean?
Uncle Sam as Municipal Taxpayer.
If Uncle Sam is. as proposed. to be
viewed as an ordinary municipal tax
payer in Washington. a substitute for
the owners of the greatest industries of
the commercial cities, then the hy-
pothesis must be carried out in thor
oughgoing way in order to make fair
the comparison with other cities. The
Bureau of Efficiency has been Justly
consistent in this respect. Carefully
excluding every item of which the tax
able equity is dubious, 1t assesses Uncle
Sans realty and tangible personally on
the same basis as the similar property
of the individual taxpayer, and 1t esti-
mates his tax on intangibles on a basis
which causes tine estimate to constitute
an insignificant fraction of Uncle Sans
actual intangibles and millions less than
the probable intangibles Of the owners
of the great industries (like the auto
mobile houses of Detroitl whom
Uncle Sam in this hypothesis repre-
sents. The only reasonable criticism of
the bureaus estimate of Uncle Sans
equitably taxable intangibles is that it
is too low. The difficulty in making a
reasonable appraisement of taxable in
tangibles attributable to Uncle Sam
should not cause these intangibles to be
inequitably cut out of the calculation
altogether. The very conservative esti-
mate of the Bureau OF Efficiency on this
point may perhaps be wisely accepted
by everybody.