Evening star., 1930-12-11
Per Capita Tax Burdens.

It's first report on fiscal relations in
1929 the findings were Immediately
capitalized by some members of the
House as indicating the extreme gen.
erosity of the million dollar lump
sum. That report placsd a tax" of
$7,440,939 on Federal property here,
and, while suggesting that a certain
amount was in addition due the Dis
trict, left the amount unfxed
The last report of the bureau how
ever, becomes a horse of another color.
Federal holdings in the District have
increased, raising the fictitious tax"
to $8,915,722. In addition, the bureau
actually computes the remainder due
the District, bringing the total Federal
obligation to $40, 1873, 3,391-substantiall
above the lump sum-
Now the bureau report is seen as an
alarming proposal for the Federal Gov
ernment to tax itself, thereby creating
q dangerous precedent. If it is not a
proposal to tax the Government, it is
a proposal to regard the Federal Gov
ernment as private corporation, when
1T is public. -profit-making agency
ALI sorts of objections are raised
Il know what you're thinking about"
said Tweedledum to Alice in Wonder
land, but it isn't so, nohow Contrari-
wise, If 1t was so, it might be; and If
1t were so, 1t would be; but as it isn't,
1t amt. That's logic"
One of the points raised by the
House Fiscal Inquiry Committee in its
1fr,aE Ef1,, oF n
the Bureau of Efficiency concerns the
bureaus Justification for including Fed
eral holdings in Washington in making
comparative estimates of WaShington's
per capita tax burden. Why not, it is
asked, disregard Federal holdings en-
tirely; proceed to find out the tax bur-
den here regardless of Federal holdings
and eliminate the Federal Government
from the picture altogether? Why has
the incidental presence here of the Fed
eral Government establishment any,
thing to do with what the people of
the District actually have to pay in
taxes? Why cannot the tax burden be
measured without regard to the Fed
eral holdings?
Mr.. Murphy has very properly point
ed out that any comparison of per
capita tax burdens between Washing
ton and other cities is worthless unless
the comparison takes into consideration
the Federal holdings, which in this
case represent the holdings of rich and
powerful corporations contributing to
the tax payments in other cities.
And the answer to the question may
be approached in another way. The
per capita real property assessment in
Pittsburgh is $2,424 That figure, of
course, does not represent the actual
assessment Of the real property of each
Pittsburgher. Ten thousand Pitts
burghers may each own that much, and
one Pittsburgher Cor a Pittsburgh cor
poration) own ten thousand times that
much, and pay taxes accordingly. The
per capita tax burden would show one
figure. But actually it requires 10000
P1ttsburghers to equal the tax payment
Of one Pittsburgher who owns ten
thousand times as much taxable prop
erty as any one of them. Now-do for
Pittsburgh what Mr. Mapes suggests be
done in the case Of Washington.
Eliminate the ten-thousand- -times-as-
rich Pittsburgh corporation from the
picture entirely. Leave out its property
assessment and its tax payment. The
ten-thousand-t -times-as-poor Pittsburgh
er's taxes will not be affected one way
or the other. His actual tax burden re-
mains the same. The population Of
Pittsburgh (the divisor) also remains
the same, but the tax levy figure (the
dividenO is reduced, thereby reducing
the per capita tax levy (the quotient)
The decrease in the per capita tax levy
flgure denotes decrease in the tax
burden, where comparative statistics are
concerned, although the taxes actually
paid by the average Pittsburgher are
not reduced.
In Washington the Federal Govern
ment represents the large tax-paying
industrial corporations of other cities
whose holdings swell the assessment
base and increase the tax levy and raise
the per capita figures. To deduct the
Federal holdings and the Federal con-
tribution reduces Washington's per
sA2tta tax burden, although it does not
affect by a single penny the actual
amount of taxes paid by the Washing
tonian. When the basis of comparison
is the per capita tax burden-which is
the most reasonable and practical basis
the Federal holdings must naturally
be included. If they are not, the only
way TO make the comparison fair would
be to deduct from the tax payments of
other cities an amount paid by a few
corporations, or single corporation,
whose tax contributions are proportion
ately equal to the Federal Government
contribution here. That would be a
foolish way to go about it. but no more
30 than emitting the Federal holdings
and contribution here in computing the
Districts per capita tax burden for pur-
poses of comparison.
SA9OS