Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1934-05-13
Tax Burden Comparisons.

The local community has never
asked favors or special dispensation of
any sort from Congress in the mat
ter Of local taxes. Assessor Richards
presentation of comparative real
estate tax burdens before the Sem
ate Subcommittee on District APP
preparations forcefully demonstrated
that Washingtonians enjoy no privi-
legged status in their local tax pay
ments. The showing, on the other
hand, was exactly the opposite.
Assessor Richards compared Wash
tons per capita real estate burden
with twenty-one American cities.
Entering into the tax burden Of these
twenty-one cities are State and county
taxes and interest and sinking fund
payments on municipal Indebtedness.
When the item representing State and
county taxes is included, along with
payments on Indebtedness, Washing
tons realty tax burden is slightly less
than the average of the twenty-one
cities, although it Is higher than
or about equal to ten Of these cities.
When State and county taxes alone
are eliminated from the comparison
Washington's per capita realty tax
burden exceeds the average.
The significance of this showing
is that Washington's tax burden,
levied without the offsetting benefits
OF State taxes or the expenditure of
borrowed money, is relatively high
among the cities which enjoy the
benefits of both. In other words,
Washingtonians are shown to be as
highly taxed, without reciprocal ben
efits, as cities which enjoy the ben
efits of State taxes and the expendi-
ture of borrowed money.
To get the true measure of WASH
ington's tax burden by comparison
with that Of other cities, State taxes
and interest and sinking fund pay
ments on indebtedness should be
eliminated from the comparison, since
Washington enjoys neither the bene-
fits of State taxes, nor the benefits of
expenditures on improvements repre-
sented by Indebtedness. Since large
cities often dominate the counties in
which they are located, county taxes
may be considered as correctly being
a part of city taxes. But State taxes
and city taxes have no relation.
They are separate and distinct in
personnel of contributors, in purpose
of creation. in scope and in area OF
distribution. What the Washingto-
MAN pays in taxes for expenditure in
Washington should be compared with
what the Baltimorean pays in taxes
for expenditure in Baltimore, not
what he pays in taxes for mainte-
nance of his sovereign State Of
MARYLAND and for expenditure in that
State.
Benefits of State taxes include
citizenship in a State, the right OF
representation in Congress, in State
LEGISLATURE, in the Electoral College
and access to the Federal courts.
They include enjoyment of the huge
bounties distributed among the States
by the National Government; great
land grants; aid in a dozen different
forms. When Washingtonians enjoy
the benefits of States taxes, the State
tax item should be included in
comparison of city tax burdens, but
not until they do.
Benefits of loans include the en-
1oyment of improvements-in the
case of cities that have borrowed
wisely-while they are being paid for.
Sometimes Indebtedness is more rep
resentative of extravaganza, and
sometimes Of graft and corruption.
But when the comparison OF tax
burdens is between current city taxes
the item representing debt should be
eliminated from the comparison
Until washingtonians enjoy the bene-
fits of borrowed money, their tax pay
ments should not be compared on an
equal basis with the cities which DO
These as pointed out in an article
which appears elsewhere in today's
Star, are some of the considerations
which enter into a comparison Of
washington's tax burden with that
Of other cities. Other considerations
should be given to Washington's ex-
traordinarily large realty assessments
which, despite the large amount OF
tax-exempt property here, show
higher valuation for tax purposes
placed on the small District OF Co.
lumbia than is placed on the whole
of larger, richer st. Louis, Baltimore
San Francisco, Milwaukee or Buffalo
to mention some of the cities In.
cluded in Mr.. Richards table. Con-
sideration likewise should be given te
the fact that the area of the District
cannot, like that of other cities, bt
extended at will to include suburban
development and add 1t to the ia,
base. And, perhaps more important
than anything else, equitable consid'
Grafton should be given to the fact tina
Washington, the American Capital
was laid out and planned and ha