Evening star., 1932-02-05

TINE people of the District in 1920
did not confine their showing to
the effect Of the proposed in
l. crease in rate. but compared
their burden, as it then existed.
with other communities. They took
II large cities in various parts of the
country, and compared them with
Washington. as of 1918.
Those cities were Chicago Philadel-
phia, st. Louis, Cleveland Baltimore,
New Orleans Minneapolis, Seattle,
Jersey City. Indianapolis and Louis
vile. The comparisons were presented
on a per capita basis, thus showing
what the individual tax burden was
when the total levy was considered in
relation to population.
Taking real estate alone, Washing
tons Per capita realty levy Of sl6.55
was exceeded by only three OF those
IL cities.
In per capita total property tax. con-
Sisting of realty and personally, Wash
cities we're ahead of it, and six showed
less. This, it must be remembered. is
still only a partial picture of tax bur-
oens, limited to that part of the reve-
nue. raised from property tax.
When per capita municipal receipts
from all sources were compared Wash
ington, with s2379 per capita, exceeded
all other cities in the comparison ex-
cept Chicago which had s2423. The
10 other cities ranged as follows: Phila-
delphia, S2057: St. Louis, s2236; Cleve-
land. s2282; Baltimore, s2105; New
Orleans, s1757; Minneapolis, s2l SO;
Seattle. s2355; Jersey City. s1898;
Indianapolis, Sl726, and Louisville,
1896.
Including County Taxes.
Even when an equitable portion Of
county taxes is included for the other
cities on this list the standing of Wash
ington next to Chicago is not changed.
In the case of all cities of 100000 or
more population the census included
county taxes il the city figures, so that
county taxes were taken into account
in the previous comparison for all cities,
except Indianapolis and Louisville
which had less than 100000 population,
The addition Of the county taxes for
those two cities raised their per capita
figures, but did not cause them to pass
Washington.
If the uu--ir comparison is made OF
including an county and State taxes
elsewhere, nine cities exceed Washing
capita statistics. In large cities which
dominate or include the counties con-
tanning them, it may be fair to consider
county taxes. But it has always been
contended in behalf of the people Of the
District that there is no justification
for requiring them to match State taxes
while they are deprived of all the bene-
fits which citizens outside OF Washing
ton derive from the payment OF that
tax With all county and State taxes
included the highest per capita on the
list was S2937, Washington was s2379,
and the lowest was Sz055.
1t was also contended then that to
measure the tax burden needed to meet
current expenses and those of city de-
velopment of the immediate future, the
per capita interest payments on lndeot-
cdnesS representing past expenditures
should appropriately be deducted. If
per capita interest payments are omitted
from the comparisons under discussion,
only four Of the IL cities had larger
per capitas than Washington.
Washington in the Lead.
When per capita receipts from all mu-
nicipal taxes, less per capita interest
payments, plus per capita receipts from
all county taxes were compared, none OF
the II cities had higher figure than
Washington's S23.21.
Washington demonstrated in 1920, RS
it had in earlier years, that it had an
exceptionally high level of assessments
"a per capita realty assessment greater
that that of 59 out of the 68 largest
cities in the country. Hence, even with
a moderate rate per 500, its per capita
realty tax burden ranked high.
In the interval between the 1915
study and the discussion in 1920, a tax
on intangibles had been added to the
tangible personal tax, making Wash