Evening star., 1935-04-14
Report Finds D: c. Tax Rate
Lo,cest in Comparison of Cities

Ter puL CfuQe anu preliminary medS.
ure of the comparative burden of tax
alton. A similar statement must be
made about per capita costs Of govern
ment. A city which provides ampler
services Of given kind than another,
or one that provides important serv-
ices not offered by another, might well
have higher total per capita cost OF
government without commensurately
adding to the taxpayers burden
Ample fire protection, for example
may add to the per capita cost of gov
ernment, but reduce the total expenses
Of the taxpayer by reason of lower in
surance rates. The like is true of po-
lice protection and traffic regulation
Expenditures on health services
though they loom large in the per
capita costs of government in certain
cities, may be more than amply COM
pensated by better medical care, lower
mortality and reduced wage and sal
ary losses due to sickness.
Services Vary.
"The fact is that cities vary widely
both in the quantity and the quality
of the services rendered their resi-
dents. Hence, direct comparison OF
aggregate and per capita financial
outlays only. properly requires supple
mentation by an intensive analysis
of the character of the services rem
dered.
The strict compatibility Of sum-
mary figures presenting per capita
governmental costs is further impaired
by great variations in the number of
governmental organizations operating
in various communities, and in their
overlapping functions The residents
of the city of Portland. Greg, for ex-
ample, are taxed to support mu-
nicipal government, and also distinct
governmental units in charge of the
county. the school district, the dock
district. the port district and the State
of oregon. The District of Columbia
on the other hand, is single govern
mental unit and it differs from all
other cities in the fact that its tax
payers do not contribute toward State
outlays for the construction and main-
tenance of rural highways, rural
schools, agricultural and conserva-
ton projects, etc. There Is, moreover,
no clear line of demarcation between
many governmental functions of the
District and Of the Federal Govern
ment. Finally, the fact may be noted
that residents of the District are free
from inheritance and income taxes
that are in force in many States.
1T is sometimes contended that the
Government costs of other cities
should be reduced by the amounts OF
their contributions to the State gov
ernments before comparison is made
with the costs of the District gov
ernment, on the ground that the Dis
trict does not derive any benefits from
a State government. Even under this
procedure, out Of the Is selected
cities would show higher per capita
costs Of government, exclusive of debt
service, than those borne by the resi-
dents of the District.
But this procedure Is open to the
objection that State governments sup.
ply a multiplicity of educational
health, highway. social welfare. anc
other services to the cities within
their borders All the costs of such
services can hardly be excluded from
consideration because the District, ir
the absence of State government
must provide many of them itself
Further, the people in the District
would necessarily bear pro rata shares
of the costs of State services If they
lived in any of the States.
Costs Included.
"In order. therefore. to make the
figures for both tax rates and pei
capita costs of Government as nearly
comparable as might be, under all the
difficulties outlined in the foregoing
there have been included in the figures
for all cities but Washington the rates
and costs, exclusive of debt service
chargeable to State, city school dis
trict. and other overlapping govern
mental units.
THE foregoing data and discussion
provide rough answer to the first o1
the two questions posed in the intro
duction of this memorandum, namely
In point of fact, are the taxpayers
Of the District of Columbia bearing
a heavier total burden Of taxation
than the residents of other cities OF
roughly comparable size and character
IF consideration of the quality and
quantity of services received by resi-
dents of the District be excluded and
attention be focused solely on the
actual money burden Of taxation, the
clear answer Is:
1.-The evidence indicates that
Washington taxpayers bear a smaller
total burden of taxation than the
residents of other cities Of roughly
comparable size and character
On the basis of tax rates, the report
makes the following example Of the
difference between the tax burden, as
it found it, here and elsewhere:
"Q Suppose man buys small
house in Washington for $4,000. What
will his taxes be in the District?
Suppose another man at the same
time buys a $4,000 house in each OF
the other cities used for comparison.
What will the total Of his taxes be In
each of the other cities?
Other Values Brought In.
"(2) What will the total taxes be,
on the same basis, for the purchaser
or owner of a business block worth
100000?
"(3) What will the total taxes be,
on the same basis, for the purchaser
or owner of corporate business en-
terprise worth 100000?
go What will the total taxes be,
on the same basis, for the purchaser
or owner of an apartment house worth
100000?
And the report gives as the answer
to the questions the fact that the
District home owner would pay total
taxes of $93 here and compared with
SITS as the average of the IA other
cities; that the 100000 business
block owner would pay $1,500 total
here as compared with the average
taxes of IA other cities of $2,912; that
the 100000 corporate business here