Evening star., 1932-05-22

differs from that for other divisions OF 6
interest or the payment Of State taxes,
this latter item showing an interesting
variation among the cities almost as
marked as the variation in amount OF
indebtedness. These equitable cons1d-
erations will be elaborated in subse-
uuent article of this series. 1t Is enough
to emphasize here that when the effort
is made, as now, to compare actual tax
burdens for current city maintenance
as distinct from comparisons that deal
in tax burdens representing past eX-
penditures, or tax burdens imposed Tor
the maintenance of State governments
it is less confusing and more conclu-
sive and accurate to eliminate from the
comparison the interest payments ana
State taxes Such elimination should
properly be made in comparing current
city taxes of any group OF cities,
whether or not washington Is included.
When this is done the table shows
that Washingtons per capita tax bur-
dens. or more accurately per capita
municipal tax levy for current city
maintenance exceeds that of 54 OF the
So cities with which 1t Is compared.
Washington's tax burden is high When,
as thus shown, it Is greater than 81 OF
So cities of more than 125,000 popula-
ton in the United States. Only nine
cities-Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston.
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Newark, Rochester
Yonkers and Albany-Rre shown 10
have q higher per capita total munlcl-
pal tax levy, interest and state TAX oe-
Quoted, than Washington.
Another Convincing Comparison.
But while this table is convincing,
an even more elaborate and lnforma-
tive picture Of Washingtons relative
tax burden Is furnished In another
| table-this table being reproduced on
this page and for convenience here Ia
baled Table l. Ut appears as Table TX
in the volume of tables submitted to the
Senate committee)
No reasonable man would contend
that it is necessary to show that wash
ington's tax burden is the highest IN
the United States. 1t is not. There
are many reasons why 1t is not, chief
among which is the careful admins
tration of its funds by a graft-free mu-
nicipal government. responsible to the
Congress of the United States. Nor
would 1t be fair to compare Washing
toms tax burden with the lowest tax
burdens enjoyed by a select group OF
American cities-citieS that are living
within their incomes or have made
careful investment Of their borrowed
money.
Cities Selected-And Why.
The cities here selected for compari-
son with washington are Baltimore, the
nearest large city and the largest city
In adjacent Maryland; Richmond, the
capital city of adjacent Virginia; New
Orleans, the metropolis of the South
and largest city of Louisiana; Mime
apolis, the largest city of Minnesota
Minneapolis and New Orleans being, in
addition the cities nearest washington
tn population) st. Louis, the largest
city in Missouri, larger than Wash
ington, and Indianapolis, smaller than
Washington and the largest city in
Indiana.
It should be admitted as fair COM
parison If Washington's tax burden Is
placed alongside the tax burden OF
standing and to determine its adequacy.
The cities selected are certainly repre-
sentative American cities. and all OF
them come within population group
that makes them comparable.
These cities, as shown In the accom-
panying table, are subjected to the
same comparisons that were made be-
tween the GA cities Of more than 125,OO0
population. The only difference Is that
in this comparison between the six cities
the figures used are 1880 figures, instead
of for 1929, the later figures for few
cities having been furnished through
courtesy Of the Census Bureau, although
not complete for all cities.
Column III, comparing realty assess,
ments, shows washington with real
estate assessment exceeded only by that
of Baltimore. This city's realty is as
sessed at q figure that is greater than
that of Minneapolis, New Orleans and
Indianapolis combined. 1t Is twice as
large as the total assessment OF Rich
mond, Va, and Indianapolis combined,
When population is considered and
the comparison reduced to per capita,
Washington's per capita OF $2,434 .55
Column IV) is most nearly approached
by Baltimore's 81, ,489.85; it is four times
as great as Minneapolis and nearly
three times as great as New orleans.
In total property assessment Washing
tons total again is exceeded only by
that Of Baltimore Column W, and
when per capitaS are compared (Col-
umn VD no city approaches Washing
Wal wy A6bAS VA
Comparing All Receipts.
Washington's real estate tax levy is
exceeded Column VII) by st. Louis,
Baltimore and Minneapolis, but in per
capitas Column Wild Washington's
per capita of SAL. SO is exceeded only by
that of Minneapolis. Baltimore and st.
Louis, both much larger than Wash
ington, exceed this city in total taxes
Column IX). but in per capita total
taxes Column X Washington exceeds
that Of all of the cities with which 1t
Is compared.
In Column XII there is graphic illus
tration Of the part that interest pay
ments play in swelling city tax bur-
dens. The lowest annual interest pay
ment Is by Indianapolis, 81 $50 ,252, and
the highest is the $7,490, ,348 paid annu-
ally by Baltimore, while the variations
in per capita interest payments (Col-
umn KID is from st. Louis $3.50 to
Richmond's $9.43 When per capita
interest payments and per capita State
payments Column XIID are deducted,
Washington's municipal tax levy per
capita Is far in excess of that of the
other cities, this final comparison, in
Column XVI, being in the order of size
of per capita as follows: Washington,
$55.34; Minneapolis, $43.26; Indian
apolis, s42 SO; st. Louis, $38.52 Balti-
more, $3l.42; New Orleans, $29.10, and
Richmond, $25.23.
As no two cities raise taxes by ex-
actly the same method (although 1t
sometimes seems that Washington Is
threatened with all of the favored forms
in which taxes are levied In all Of the
435 congressional districts in the
United States), some cities preferring
to distribute the burden by one method,
others preferring another, 1t Is fair to
compare, without regard to the source
the total taxes levied in these six cities
with which Washington is compared,
and this has been done by the Citizens
Joint Committee In the Table X Of its
volume of tables presented to the Sen
ate committee, table which Is repro
dyred On this mage and for convenience