Evening star., 1932-02-02

tranSientS, who figure In the census
but not in the tax list as washington,
which from its very nature as the Ma
tion's City Is unstable and shifting IN
population. The disabilities, CONNER
cial industrial and political, which at-
tsch to legal residence in the Nation S
City, tend to cause those who live with
in its boundaries to secure or retain
legal residence elsewhere and to keep
off the city's tax list. Thus the nom
taXpaying census population, Whlch re-
duceS the nominal per capita levy WIN
out reducing it in fact by cash con-
trlbutionS, Is at a maximum ana tne
taxable resources at a minimum, WIN
the result of serious disadvantage 10 lne
District in per capita comparisons. HOW
much per capita of tax levy could Phl!-
adelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Chl-
cago. Cleveland or Milwaukee afford to
pay if its largest taxpayers, the owners
of it's mills and manufacturing plants,
were omitted Ir~m the calculation; II
one-half of the built-up section OF the
city were exempt from taxation and II
an extraordinarily large percentage Oh
its population were tranSlentS or non
taxpaying for other reasons?
Should Be Less
ut is conceded also that the tax bur
denS of many American cities contain
factors which represent conditions not
found here, and that in estimating the
equitable tax burden Of the WaShlng-
tonian the sums representing these
factors may be eliminated, since It's
government by Congress, under ma
tional safeguards, prevents graft and
renders unnecessary and unfair any
compulsory local tax contribution to
meet expenses of this character. There
are also certain expenses OF sustaining
representative government in the States
which do not need to be raised by
Washington, since it is denied all rep
resentative government and which
ought not to be duplicated in figuring
its equitable tax burden. 1t is con-
ceded that on the whole the Washing
tonianS equitable per capita tax bur
den should be somewhat less than that
of the citizen of the average industrial
commercial American city approximate
ing Washington in size, location and
general conditions.
The figures which have been given
show that WaShingtons per capita tax
burden, instead of being below the aV-
erage, is distinctly above 1t; that the
few among comparable cities which ex-
coed it in tax burden exceed it only
slightly, and that many cities which
ought TO bear and are able to bear
far heavier burden fall below it. even
when standards of comparison are en-
ployed. which in effect imply the unfair
taxation of the WashingtOnian for what
he does not get
40. The burden imposed by Congress
upon the local taxpayers is fully as
heavy as that which the average self
governing municipality imposes upon
itself and, in view Of the Capitals lack
of taxable resources and other peculiar
disabilities under which the District of
Columbia laborS. its tax is harder to
bear than that of the average American
community. Under the operations OF
the 'half-and- half law the Washington
nian is clearly paving all the taxes that
he should His per capita tax burden
cannot equitably be increased Dis
turbance of the 'half-and- half law and
reduction Of The Nations proportionate
contribution would inevitably increase
the Washingtonian's tax burden and
thus violate equity
This argument was upheld BY the
findings of the Congressional Joint Com
mittee that taxes as imposed then
represented a reasonable tax levy at
this time; that the present assess
ment of real estate is fair and reason
able: that the assessment made
against all classes OF property in the
different locations in the city are
equitable" and that the payment OF
taxes on real estate as they are now
constituted is a fair and reasonable re-
spOnse in such taxation for municipal
benefits received by citizens of the
District"
The Same Arguments Apply,
The argument of 1915 applies in the
vital issues involved in full force to the
argument for the District in 1882, and
in some respects the argument in 1915
is not only sustained, but notably
strengthened
l. The greater thoroughness of as
SeSSment and the higher standard of
assessment in the District have been
demonstrated repeatedly and con-
vincinglv in the interval between 1915
and 1882.
The MapeS committee report showed
that the assessed valuation of only two
cities-Cleveland and Boston-in the
list of % cities with which Washington
was compared exceeded that of Wash
ington. When the Mapes committee
raised the assessed valuation Of all these
cities to what it called full value"
only six cites-Cleveland. st. Louis,
Boston, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and
BuffalO-are found to have higher as
SeSSment than Washington, while such
cities as Milwaukee, Baltimore and Gin
Cinnati are valued below Washington.
Sustained in 1880.
The report of the Bureau of Efficiency
of 1929 and again in 1880 again sus-
tained strongly from several angles
WaShingtons contention and demon
stration that its standard of assessment
is SO high in comparison with those OF
other cities that its comparatively low
tax rate is offset and its total tax bur
den is on a level with those Of other
cities. WaShington'S property assess
ment should be low in comparison with
other cities as no other city has so
much exempt property as washington
and as Washington Is denied the MIL
lions of taxableS in the shape OF great
industrial plants which the large COM
mercial cities enjoy Here Uncle Sam,
exempt from taxation, is great en-
ployer and industrial plant owner.
Since only a fraction Of Washington is
assessed and taxed, and since its ex-
empt fraction contains its greatest In
duStrial plant, the assessed valuation Of
Washington should be comparatively
low. In fact, however, owing to higher
standards of assessment and to the in
Clusion of more taXables on its assess
ment roll, Washington heads the list
among the cities of it's size and equals
or surpasSes that of many larger, richer
cities.
The fullness and high standards Of
WaShington's assessment, in relation TO
those of other cities, we're strikingly
illustrated by the bureaus list OF cities.