Evening star., 1932-02-05
1929 study, the resulting per capita tax

1929 study, the resulting per capita tax
| levies for current maintenance and de-
yelopment compare as follows: Wash
| ington, with Uncle Sam omitted as
| taxpayer, exceeds 4 cities and Is ex-
ceeded by 10; Washington, with the
Federal property holdings included, ex-
| ceeded Of the cities and was exceeded
by 5.
When the per capita State tax is
deducted from the figures for the other
cities, as Washington contends it should
be. the per capita property tax levy Of
the other cities. less interest payments,
compare as follows: Washington, with
Uncle Sans property left out, exceeds
of the II cities; Washington, with
the property actually used by the Fed
eral Government included, exceeds IL
of the IA cities.
Comparison Of Tax Burdens.
In this comparison Washingtons per
capita figure, emitting the Federal prop
ertv was 44232. Including the Federal
property, Washington became 584l2.
The other cities ran as follows: Clev" .
land 45,625; st. Louis, 1896; Balti-
more 3O.483; Boston, 81 .586; Pittsburgh
50 326: Buffalo, 56839; Milwaukee,
1926 Newark, 52.9O4 Minneapolis,
42l95; New Orleans, 34757; Cincin-
natl 5e773; Indianapolis, 38267; Roch-
ester, 53.311, and Jersey City, 4sl00.
The foregoing comparisons have dealt
with property tax burdens. When the
| comparison is broadened to cover all
city taxes (including county and all
other taxes except State, less city in
terest payments, the result is as fol-
lows: Washington, without Uncle Sam
considered as taxpayer, exceeds OF
the ID cities; Washington, with the
propertv used by Uncle Sam included,
has a per capita exceeding every one
of the other cities except Boston. In
| this comparison Washington, with Uncle
Sans property included, had a per
CAPITA of 55983. The per capitaS for
| the other cities were: Cleveland, 46.582 ;
| St. Louis. 36483; Baltimore, 3l.736;
Boston. 1880: Pittsburgh, 54 658; Buf-
falo 5l653: Milwaukee, 40 852. Newark,
48294; Minneapolis, 40589; New Or
leans, 32257; Cincinnati, 53162; Indi-
annapolis, 40.021; Rochester, 45232, and
| Jersey City, 1891.
Even when the Federal property is
eliminated and the computation is con-
| fined to the limited portion of the Dis
trict which is actually taxable, Wash
| ingtons per capita OF 43.l9O exceeds
that Of Baltimore (31736), New Orleans
| C33257). St. Louis (36483). Indianap-
oils (4O.O2D and Minneapolis (40589)
Bureaus Second Report.
In making IT'S second report to Con-
gress a year ago the Efficiency Bureau
revised these 1928 tax statistics on the
basis of later information, and when
these are analyzed in similar fashion
washington stands better in the per
cspita comparisons. When Washing
tons contention that it should not be
required to match State taxes and IN
terest on bonded debts is applied it
STANDS again near the top of the list.
There is presented herewith a table
showing how the cities stand with these
revised statistics
In his testimony before the Special
House Committee conducting the pres
ent inquiry into fiscal relations, Th0maS
F. Murphy. assistant chief OF the Eli
cheney Bureau. insisted that the value
Of the property used by the Federal
Government in the conduct Of the Ma
tjon's business here should be included
in per CAPITA comparisons of Washing
| ton with other cities, since the Federal
! Government in this case takes the place
! of some of the rich taX-paying corpo-
rations of other cities whose holdings
naturally tend to raise their per capltas,
| The Efficiency Bureau. however, was
careful to present the washington sta
tistics both with and without the Fed
eral property. and this system is ad-
hered to in the table which is presented
| with this analysis Of the data.
Total Tax Burdens.
| The Efficiency Bureaus table 2 COM
pared 1928 assessed valuations. total
! and per capita tax rates, tax leyleS total
and per capita, for real and personal
property and ended in column giving
total tax levy per capita, real and per-
sonal, general property tax. 1928. which
| is used as column l in the table pre-
sented herewith. This shows that Wash
| ington. omitting the Federal property,
! had a per capita general property tax
! levy Of s4sO2, which was greater than
! 3 and less than IL of the cities. But
when the Federal property is included
| in this column WaShingtCn'S per capita
! becomes s64 SO, which was greater than
| 10 Of the IA cities This was gain for
| washington in the standing, compared
with the analysis made the year before.
Since Washington has not indulged
| in large bond issues. 1t should be borne
| in mind again in this analysis that, in
| so far as current maintenance is con-
| cerned, the significant comparisons
should not include interest payments
! on such Indebtedness elsewhere, which
represent past expenditures. 1t is con-
tended on behalf of the District that
such interest payments should be de-
Quoted from property tax levies in COM
pairing Washington with the others on
| the cost of current maintenance.
Living Beyond Income.