Evening star., 1935-01-02
Why State Taxes Should Be
Eliminated When, City Tax
Burdens Are Compared.

Z. WNen COHpdIulS Idh Idtco ~ 10
to be borne III mind that the total
taxes in cities other than Washing
ton include State. county, school, dis
trict and city taxes.
1t is here contended for Washing
ton that all State taxes should be
excluded equitably from the COM
parisons of city tax burdens; that
% taxes to be equitably compared
should be paid by contributors sub
stantially in the same area, to be
distributed to benefiCiarieS in the
same area and for the benefit Of that
area alone; that in the light of this
principle the municipal tax and State
tax are as wide apart as the poles,
being separate and distinct in per-
sonnel of contributors. in purpose Of
creation, in scope and area of dis
tributiOn; that (2) Washington does
not receive the same benefits" that
accompany State citizenship and
should not, therefore, bear the bur-
dens which compensate for these
| benefits.
Large cities dominate or include
| the counties containing them, and
in the case of these large cities it is
| fair to consider county taxes as well
as city taxes Indeed, in substance
| they are part of the city taxes. The
| taxpayers, the beneficiaries and the
! area for the collection and distribu-
ton of taxes are practically the same.
The cities having over 100000 pop
ulation constitute so large part of
| the containing county that the NOM
| inal county contributions and pay
mentS are mainly city receipts and
| payments, and county taxes may in
| such cases be included in the COM
| pariSon without violating seriously the
principle that in comparing the
Washingtonian's tax burden with that
] of the taxpayer of another city it Is
| fair only to compare local taxes con-
| stituting a fund to which only munich
pal taxpayers contribute and which
is spent exclusively in the city and
for municipal purposes.
As Wide Apart as the Poles.
| But the municipal tax sometimes
including the county tax and the
| State tax are as wide apart as the
poles, considered in the light of this
| principle. They are separate and dis
tinct in personnel of contributors, in
purposes of creation, in scope and
area of distribution.
| If the comparison, for instance, Is
between Washington and Baltimore,
there should equitably be compared
what Washingtonians pay for ex-
penditure in Washington and what
Baltimoreans pay for expenditure in
Baltimore. What Washingtonians pay
! for expenditure in Washington can
| not equitably be compared with what
Baltimoreans pay for expenditures in
| Baltimore plus what they pay as
! Marylanders for the maintenance of
/ a sovereign State and for expenditure
! in that State.
One might as well inject into the
comparison of city burdens con-
| sideration of what the Baltimorean
pays in national taxes as an Ameri-
can, for expenditure on account of
the United States, including Balti-
more.
In other words, the taxes that the
Baltimorean pays as Marylander or
| as an American have nothing to do
with the city calculations and COM
parsons. In the different cases there
| are not the same persons contribut-
| ing, not the same area within which
| expenditures are made and not the
same beneficiaries of these expendi-
lures.
Baltimore taxes are paid by Balti-
mOreans only and are spent in Bal
timore only. The MaryIanders who
are in Baltimore contribute State
taxes in common with thousands out
side of Baltimore to be spent, not in
Baltimore, but in all Maryland.
Washington has not the benefit of
| outside contributions to a State tax
in the enjoyment Of which it partici-
pates. 1t has no State relations or
privileges or benefits.
1t has been contended that the
Washingtonian receives the same ben
efits through his city government
alone that are enjoyed by the resi-
dents of other cities through their
! city, county and State governments
and that the Washingtonian's city
| tax should equal the combined city,
county and State taxes of residents
of other cities.
No State Tax Since No State Benefits.
What are the benefits enjoyed by
! the citizen of State which consti-
| tute the real consideration for the
State taxes which he pays? If he
lives in a large city of the State, is
it the driblet of State expenditures
which the counties permit to get
through to the city? No. The State
tax which he pays is essential to his
status as citizen of State and to
his enjoyment as such citizen OF
political and judicial rights of in
estlmable value and Of large finan-
cial benefits.
What comparable benefits are en-
| joyed by Washington?
State taxes are paid that one may
enjoy with thousands outside of ones
home city the privileges and benefits