Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1932-02-03

v y . dI GlCIt VI I'LL
! " series showed that the create
\ thoroughness of assessment
i and the higher standard O.
assessment in the District hav'
been demonstrated repeatedly and con.
vincingly in the interval between 1917
and 1882. 49,,
Today'S article is concerned witt
! development of two other importan
points of the argument Of 1915 BY
the Citizens Joint Committee on F1Sca
Relations between the United States
and the District. as those arguments
bear on the condition today.
2. The argument for eliminating IN
terest and sinking fund expenditures II
comparing today'S current munlclpa
expenditures in comparable cities Il
strengthened by the orgy OF borrowing
and spending INDUCED in by cities ant
States during and after the war.
Taxation to Pay Interest on Loans.
! During the World War and immedi
! ateIy thereafter very many American
| cities INDUCED in a financial jag, Dor
rowing easily and heavily from ouI
OyerriCh investors in taX-eXempt mu-
nicipal securities in avoidance OF IN
come taxes and Surtaxes. Part OF TINS
| borrowed money went into uSefui per
| manent Improvements by when th'
cities benefited; another part "a'
wasted in extravaganza or graft con
pressmen, whose home cities thus
heavily, and in many instances un-
| wisely, borrowed refused as Washing
toms Legislature to let it borrow at all
1t results that the taxpayers OF theSe
| cities. having enjoyed the beneht o.
! these loans, are now compelled to tar
| themselves to pay interest and SINKING
| fund on the loans, and these items IN
! crease the amount of their property tax
| levy and of their tax rates, which IN a
way set the pace for Washington. But
why should Washington taxpayers, who
have enjoyed the benefit of no loans, be
! required to pay on a basis which co.
! OrdinateS them in per capita ana total
payments and in tax rate with cities
which are compelled to raise millions III
taxes to pay interest?
Washington, which has enjoyed the
benefit of no loans, should not be re
CURED in order to put itself on su-
perficial taxpaying equality with other
cities to tax itself in the amounts rep
resented by these interest payments
and they should be deducted from the
property tax levieS of these other cities
and from the corresponding tax rates
in comparison with Washington.
3. The argument for diSregarding
State taxes in comparing municipal tax
burdens is strengthened BY the vast and
increased subsidies paid by the Nation
to the States.
1t has been contended for Washing
ton that all State taxes should be eX-
Guided equitably from the comparisons
of city tax burdens; that % taxes TO
be equitably compared should be paid
hSf MT
same area, to be distributed to bene-
ficiaries in the same area and for the
benefit of that area alone; that in the
light of this principle the municipal
tax and State tax are as wide apart as
the poles, being separate and distinct in
personnel of contributors, in purpose OF
creation, in scope and area OF distribu-
ton; that ~ Washington does not re
ceiYe the same benefits" that accom-
pany State citizenship, and should not
therefore bear the burdens which COM
pensate for these benefits.
Varying Factors of Comparison.
Large cities dominate or include the
counties containing them; and In the
case of these large cities it is fair to
consider county taxes as well as city
taxes. Indeed, in substance they are
a part of the city taxes. The tax
payers the beneficiarieS and the area
for the collection and distribution OF
taxes are practically the same.
The cities having over 100000 popu-
lation constitute so large part of the
containing county that the nominal
county contributions and payments are
mainly city receipts and payments
and county taxes may in such cases
be included in the comparison without
violating seriously the principle that
in comparing the WaShingtonian'S tax
burden with that of the taxpayer OF
another city it is fair only to compare
local taxes constituting a fund to which
only municipal taxpayers contribute,
and which is spent exclusively in the
city and for municipal purposes.
But the municipal tax sometimes
including the county tax and the State
tax are as wide apart as the poles, con-
sidered in the light of this principle.
They are separate and distinct in per
sonnet of contributors, in purposes of
creation, in scope and area OF distribu-
ton.
II the comparison, for instance, is
between Washington and Baltimore
there should equitably be compared
what WaShingtonianS' pay for eXpendl-
ture in Washington and what Balti-
moreans pay for expenditure in Baltl-
more What WashingtonianS pay for
expenditure in Washington cannot
euuitably be compared with what Bal
timoreans pay for expenditures in Bal
tiRore plus what they pay as Mary
landers for the maintenance of a SOW
ereign State and for expenditure in
that State.
One might as we'll inject into the
comparison of city burdens conSld-
Grafton of what the Baltimorean pays
in national taxes as an American for
expenditure on account of the United
States, including Baltimore.
In other words, the taxes that the
Baltimorean pays as Marylander or
as an American have nothing to do
with the city calculations and comparl-
sons. In the different cases there are
not the same persons contributing, not
the same area within which expendi-
lures are made. and not the same
DeneficiarieS of these expenditures
Baltimore taxes are paid by Balti-
moreanS only, and are spent in Baltl-
more only. The MaryIanders who are
in Baltimore contribute State taxes in
common with thousands outside of
Baltimore, to be spent not in Balti-
more but in all Maryland. Washing
ton has not the benefit of outside con-
tributions to State tax in the enjoy
ment of which it participates. 1t has
no State relations or privileges or
benefits.
No State Tax Since No State Benefits.
1t has been contended that the
Washingtonian receives the same ben
efitS through his city government alone
that are enjoyed by the residents of
other cities through their city, county
and State governments, and that the
Washingtonian's city tax should equal
the combined city, county and State
taxes of residents of other cities.
What are the benefits enjoyed by the
citizen of a State which constitute the
real consideration for the State taxes
which he pays? If he lives in large
city of the State. is it the driblet Of
State expenditures which the counties
permit to get through to the city? No.
The State tax which he pays is essen