Evening star., 1935-11-24
Distressing Tax Dilemma.

Distressing dA DIIeU1mds
There is an ominous threat to the
District taxpayers in the new tax pro-
poSalS now under consideration by the
Commissioners Special Tax Committee
under which, it is calculated, approx
mately $7,00O,0OO additional revenue
would have to be raised. Even If an
increase OF the Federal share is made
by adding $3,0O000O to the lump sum
there would have to be a tax increase
of approximately $40oO,OOo, according
to the committees calculations. If the
the whole 100000 would have to be
raised by new additional taxation or
the proposed municipal expenditures
would have to be drastically cut.
The studies of the committee cover a
period of Is years and analyze by table
and graphic chart the annual municipal
expenditures as whole and in each
general department or classification OF
the District government. The trend for
maintenance and operating expense has
been generally upward while capital
outlay has shown little advance except
when the S7,0000O0 Municipal Center
site was purchased and has since shown
q sharp decline and has continued at
O very low level.
The prospective report by the special
tax committee injects new element
into the Districts already distressing
budget and taxation situation and in
wolves the additional danger that hurt
full advantage will be taken in Congress
of any local proposal of tax increase.
Experience shows that any local recon-
mendation for increased taxation is apt
to be quickly granted while conditions
that modify the proposal, as that the
new tax shall be substituted for an ex-
listing tax, are apt to be ignored.
Aside from this report the fiscal stu
alton remains about as it was when
the Citizens Joint Committee on
Fiscal Relations presented a petition
to Congress last session on behalf
of the citizens of the District. In
this petition. which is reprinted else
where In The Star, the petitioners urged,
first, that the United States contribute
largely to the upbuilding and mainte-
nance of the National Capital and, sec
ond, that this share should be a fixed
and definite proportion. The contention
between the definite proportion plan
and the lump-sum plan is not an i'm
mediate issue and may be temporarily
laid aside.
AS to increased taxation, either in the
form Of new varieties or the increase
of old, the joint committee, for the Dis
trict's civic, business and labor organiza-
tions, took the position that the District
taxpayers are now reasonably, and, in
view of their peculiar disabilities, even
heavily, taxed, and that no increase of
their tax burden should be considered
unless it is clearly demonstrated that
such additional taxation is absolutely
necessary to meet urgent municipal
needs which cannot otherwise be
satisfied.
The petitioners further asked that as
long as lump-sum payment is the
appropriation practice temporarily on
annual appropriation acts immediate
correction should be made of some of
its grosSer and more obvious injustices.
ITO prevent glaring inequity, your
petitioners therefore urge, for reasons
stated in the argument hereto attached
as part Of this petition, that Congress
should I'd make a substantial increase
in the basic lump-sum payment by the
United States in the pending 1896 supply
bill for the District of Columbia: (2)
that great national or semi-national
projects be excluded from the District
bill and financed through some supply
bill other than the District supply bill,
30 wording the items thus excluded as
to set forth the exact method of
financing in relation to the amounts OF
contribution by Nation and Capital that
is thought to be just, or 80 provide
for local as well as national maxi
mum of contribution, on the assumption
that it is the impotent partner tthe
District Of Columbia) who alone needs
this protection, or "a by referendum or
otherwise, the local taxpayers be per-
mitted to have some effective say in
regard to the amount of local taxes and
the purposes for which the tax money
Is to be expended"
But the special tax committees tenta-
tive suggestions, made, it is thought, to
get definite reaction of community SEN
timent, negative the thought that the
citizens committees proposals meet the
situation adequately. According to the
special committees suggestions, increase
of the lump sum as proposed will not
sufice to balance the budget, and if the
new taxes and increased special taxes
are levied in addition the budget viii
still be unbalanced. And to attain this
balance there must also be an increase
in the general property tax (already too
heavy or a drastic cut in the expendi-
lures contemplated in the proposed