Evening star., 1936-04-08
DEDUCT|NG STATE
| TAX IN STUDIES
Argument Shows 1t Does Not
Figure When City Levies
! Are Compared.

taTeS.
The contention in WGShing-
ton has al1UayS been that State
tareS should be eliminated for
the reasons tUhich follo1D:
When comparing tax rates it is
% be borne in 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-
aonnel of contributors, in purpose of
creation, in scope and area of dis
tribution; that (2) Washington does
mot 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 a part of the city taxes. The
taxpayers, the beneficiaries and the
area for the collection and distribu-
ton of taxes are practically the same.
Thus the cities having over 800, 600
population constitute so large part
Of the containing county that the
nominal county contributions and
payments are mainly city receipts and
payments and the county taxes are
in such cases fairly included by the
United States census experts as city
taxes in these comparisons 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 COM
pare local taxes constituting a fund
to which only municipal taxpayers
contribute and which is spent exclu-
sively in the city and for municipal
purposes.
As Wide Apart as the Poles.
But the municipal tax sometimes
Including the county taxi 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
q 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 Anaeri-
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 Marylanders 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 bene1t of
outside contributions to a State tax
In the enjoyment of which it partici-
pates. It 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 apd 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
1t 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 a State and to
his enjoyment as such citizen of
political and judicial rights of in
estimable value and of large flnan-
cial benefits.
What comparable benefits are en-
5oyed by Washington?
State taxes are paid that one may
enjoy with thousands outside of ones
home city the privileges and benefits
OF citizens of State, including rep
resentation in Congress and the Elec-
toral College and in State Legis-
lature, recognized status in the
United States Supreme Court and the
financial benefits which come from
of the land grants, boun-
ties, and so forth. which the Nation
has lavished upon the States.
The payment Of taxes as the citi-
zen of State gives the taxpayer his
share in these financial
benefits. The Washingtonian enjoys
NO part in these grants, bounties and
benefits as citizen Of State. Why