Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1932-03-23

District gasoline tar and the pro-
posdlS to increase it.
vt is probable that the root of local
opposition to the proposed gasoline
tax increase springs from the
Il fundamentally important and gen.
orally recognized fact that before
tax is increased there should be a
showing Of the need for the additional
revenue resulting from that increase.
Proponents of the gasoline tax In
creases have rested their case generally
on showing of what could be done
with the greater revenues. There has
not been any attempt to show deflclt
or threatened deficit in funds available
for street work, for there is none. what
the increase in the gasoline tax would
co, generally speaking. is to relieve the
Federal Government of participation IN
the expense Of the maintenance ana
development of the highway system
here-this relief coming by withdrawal
of the Districts general taxation fund
from such participation. The Federal
contribution Is made to the general
fund.
The Mapes Committee recommended
lions were that the gasoline tax be
doubled, and, coupled with that pro-
posal, was the Mapes recomme ndatlon
that an automobile weight tax be levied.
The proceeds from these measures, plus
present revenues from motor venice
operators permits and motor vehicle
title fees, would yield an estimated
Sc, 600 There would, in addition,
be the estimated yield of 100000 under
the amended Borland law, bringing the
total revenue from these motor and
abutting property taxes to an estimated
$6,690,000. The Bureau of Efficiency,
to be conservative, reduced this estl-
mate to an arbitrary $6,500,00O. Yet
this revenue yield would, in the Bureau
of Efficiency's estimation, exceed the
total needs "for highway and related
projects" by $2,500,000 a year. The
higher gas tax, plus the motor vehicle
tax alone, would exceed the demands
for highway and bridge development
and upkeep by 100000.
Show Only Place to Spend
Instead of showing the need and
framing the increased taxes to meet
the need, the process as followed by
the Mapes Committee was to show the
yield alone-and the Bureau of Eff
cheney has pointed out that the yield
would be $4,000, 900 in excess OF the
need.
The Bureau of Efficiency was quick
to emphasize the obvious unfairness OF
this, and its alternative proposal was
to eliminate some of the Mapes Com
mittees suggested weight tax features
retaining at the same time the. gen.
eral principle that motor vehicles
should pay in some proportion to the
damage they do to highways by the
weight of their loads and the character
of their tires. 1t proposed, in addition
to the doubled gasoline tax, an amended
schedule for taxing automobiles by
weight, the resulting revenues from
these and present automobile taxation
and the Borland law yielding S4,257 900
enough to finance the construction,
maintenance and repair of highways,
roads and streets; pay the salaries and
expenses of the Highway Department,
exclusive of the bridge division; pay
the salaries and expenses Of the ONCE
of the director of vehicles and traftlc;
pay one-half the cost of construction
and maintenance of bridges; pay one
half the salaries and expenses OF the
bridge division, Highway Department,
and have an annual surplus OF $3.50
left over.
The remaining half of the bridge
work in the District would be taken
from the general fund Of the District,
to which the United States contributes
each year. under the present temporary
practice, a diminishing sum in proper
ton to the whole.
Opposition Of Citizens.
Nearly all citizens associations
which have gone on record on the
question have opposed the increase,
resting their opposition generally on
the principle that by this special
tax and kindred measures the Federal
Government would escape an equitable
part of the total burden in connection
with support Of the Capital
The Federation of Citizens Associa-
tons adopted the report Of its Commit
tee on Fiscal Relations, which, In re-
porting on all the tax increase bills,
declared:
These bills were introduced with the
object of increasing the tax burden on
the District of Columbia taxpayer and
with the further object of decreasing
the amount of the Federal approprla-
ton to the District Of Columbia.
Your committee does not oelieVe
that the District of Columbia is under
taxed and this belief is supported by
any fair and impartial comparison Of
the tax burden of the District with
that of other cities Of comparable size:
neither do we believe that there should
be any reduction in the Federal ap-.
but instead, there should
be a substantial increase.
Your committee is opposed TO any
increased taxation, whether accom-
plished by an increase in existing rates
of present taxes or by the introduction
of new forms of taxation, that has Tor
its object a reduction in the Federal
appropriation to the District OF Co
lumbia"
The Traffic Advisory Committee, at
its meeting in January, dernlteiy
opposed the proposed vehicle weight
tax and went on record as advo-
eating the principle that the gas tax
plus other motor vehicle taxes and ices.
should not exceed the proper share OF
the District of Columbia in the ex-
penses for construction and mainte-
nance of streets within the District OF
Columbia" In this connection the
committee declared the cost OF con-
struction and maintenance of sidewalks
should be excluded.
A. A. A. Platform Of Principles.
The District of Columbia division,