Evening star., 1935-01-03
Fiscal Equity for Washington.


The series of articles on fiscal equity
for Washington which have been ap-
pearing as editorial correspondence in
The Star for the past week is con-
cluded with today's article, in which
some of the many detailed COMPARE
sons of tax burden between Washing
ton and other cities are presented in
tables and explained in text.
But, as pointed out in the preceding
articles, the comparison Of local tax
burdens is merely one of the many
considerations which should govern
careful study of the fiscal relationship
between the local taX-paying COM
munity and the exclusively controlling
National Government. These other
considerations take into account, first,
the National Governments obligations
to the Federal City-obligations which
have been enumerated in detail, and
which may be described in general as
those incurred by the Federal Govern
ment as by far the largest single owner
of untaxed real estate in the Capital,
as the despotic controller of the seat
of government and as the recipient Of
more in national taxes from the Dis
trict Of Columbia than from any one
Of twenty-four States.
In discussion of the local tax bur-
den, the selection of proper yard
stick for measuring comparative tax
burdens is of first Importance. The
proper yardstick is constructed of
actual figures, reduced in certain
cases to per capitas. The use of mis-
leading. worthless guesses at ratios Of
assessed to real value has been widely
condemned. And in the comparisons
of city tax burdens, the interest which
cities pay on their funded indebt-
edness should be eliminated in equity
from the comparisons, as this is a
confusing and misleading factor.
State taxes should likewise be elm
mated when the comparisons include
Washington, for Washington enjoys
none of the great State benefits for
which States taxes are levied.
The concluding article in today's
Star discusses some of the past and
present results that are reached when
equitable comparisons of tax burdens
are made and tends to refute any
suggestion that Washington is under
taxed. 1t should not be the purpose
of any comparison to show that
Washington is not as heavily taxed
as the most heavily taxed cities in
America, or that Washingtons tax Is
far heavier than the fortunate cities
where the tax burden Is relatively
small. If Washingtons tax levy
(Which does not, of course, include
the Federal lump sum- is far in ex-
cess, in both total and per capita, of
the two cities most nearly approx
mating Washington in size, that alone
might demonstrate that the local
community Is not escaping its fair
share of the tax burden. If Wash
ington's per capita tax burden Is
heavily in excess of six representative
cities-St. Louis, Baltimore, Min
neapons, New Orleans, Indianapolis
and Richmond, Va.-then Washing
ton cannot be said to be undertaxed.
And II Washington'S per capita tax
burden, after the equitable deduc-
tions described above have been made.
exceeds that of flfty-four out of
sixty-three cities Of the country with
a population Of more than 125,Oo0,
there Is no other reasonable con-
clusion than that Washington is
now paying its fair share of Capital
City expenses.
The decreasing lump sum payment
accounts for the existing inability of
the municipality to undertake i'm
provements and to maintain its i'm
portant functions according to the
high standards demanded in the Ma
tional Capital. In the declining lump
sum, and the failure of Congress to
recognize just national obligations in
support Of the seat of government,
are represented those inequities which
Washington hopes to see corrected.