Evening star., 1932-02-04
Double -Barreled Threats.

QOuDle- -DarTeleQ dDJdCk on Ulc DlSJrlCJ,
represented in the Mapes tax bills and
the bill to abolish fixed ratio, is the fact
that should both attacks be successful
the District would be paying $4,000, 900
more a year in order to receive approx
mately s1o0o,00o a year additional
revenue. The figures may not be exact.
They are the estimated revenue receipts
of the proposed tax bills. coupled with
the $4,000 900 proposed reduction Of the
lump sum. But under the House pro-
posals the District would be denied the
single compensatory feature of higher
taxes, which Is additional revenue
with which to finance needed public
improvements.
To consider essential improvements
that must be made and to levy taxa
ton to meet the increased revenue de-
nands is one thing; to curtail expendi-
lures to avoid higher taxation is still
another. But to increase taxation and
TO deny the taxed any single benefit,
and in addition to threaten them with
a varying and uncertain program of
development in the future, is another
radically differing procedure, demand
ing searching examination.
It is a fact of damaging significance
that proposals to boost local taxes are
In some manner always connected with
proposals to relieve the Federal partner
of self-imposed obligations The House
proposals probably surpass in bold
frankness similar attempts Of this ma
ture. But today's article Of The Star
series on District taxation recalls the
situation confronting the District in
1920, similar in many respects to the
situation today. At that time the Dis
trict was threatened with higher taxa
ton that would have increased its
burden excessively In comparison with
the burden Of taxation borne by other
cities, and with two efforts, by two
different routes. to repeal the fixed
ratio provision and to reduce the Fed
eral contribution.
Had it not been for the thankless
labor and pains Of Washingtonians who
collected the data TO refute charges
against Washington leveled by mem
bers OF the House, and the firm stand
taken by the Senate and minority of
the House, the District would have
been paying grossly excessive taxes and
the system Of fixed appropriations
would have been supplanted perma-
nently by the variant and uncertain
practice that again Is recommended
today.
The District Is confronted now not
only with an increase in taxation but
an increase that would be excessive in
comparison with what other comparable
cities pay.
The danger of accepting unquestioned
the conclusion of the Mares Committee
that the District is undertaxed may be
pointed out here by partial analysis
OF some Of its figures. Discussing per
capita comparisons, the MapeS Com
mittee says that the Districts per
capita realty tax levy is s41.29. or s7o6
less than the average per capita of the
% other cities. Yet the Mapes Com
nittee does not show anywhere the far
more important fact that the Districts
per capita realty tax levy exceeds the
per capitas Of 10 of the % cities with
which 1t is compared, and approximates
the per capitas Of at least two others.
The Mapes Committee finds that wash
ington's per capita of total taxes levied
is S55.21, or $306 less than the aver
age per capita for the 90 other
cities compared. Yet the Mapes Com
mittee does not state that the Districts
per capita of total taxes levied exceeds
II of the cities compared-St. Louis,
Baltimore, San Francisco, Minneapolis,
Kansas City, Louisville, Denver, At
lanta, Dallas, Memphis and Providence
closely approxin1ating the per cap
ttas of three-Cincinnati, Cleveland
and Portland Miraculous results
may be achieved by comparison of
averages. In this case the miracle is
made less difficult by the fact that
Boston and Newark, N j. have high
per capitas that are not approached
by such cities as Cleveland, St. Louis,
Cincinnati, Portland or Washington.
Is 1t not as important to list the fact
that Washington exceeds in per capita
of total taxes levied II of % cities as
to state that it is below an average"
that would be materially reduced by the
elimination Of Boston alone? Should
not some attention be given to the rea-
sons for the excessive per capitas in
some cities as well as to the low per
capitaS In others? If Washingtons per
capita exceeds in per capita Of realty
and total taxes such cities as Balti-
more and st. Louis and closely approx
mates the per capitas of Cleveland,
Cincinnati and Portland, is not that
significant?
And why does the Mapes report fail
to mention the highly significant fact
that Washingtons actual per capita
assessment is far in excess of that of
any Of the cities compared, It's per
capita Of $2,42S.7O being most nearly
approached by Bostons $2,32126?
Such findings were reached. Why
were they not announced?
These are some Of the reasons that
the fair investigation promised by the
Senate is necessary to prevent a grave
injustice.