Evening star., 1936-04-05
What Is This ''Burden"?

Some members of Congress demand
reduction and even elimination OF the
Federal lump-sum payment on the
ground that it will relieve their tax
burdened constituents back home OF
supporting the Capital City.
How much substance is there to such
an argument?
In the appropriation bill passed by the
House and pending before Senate SUBJ
ommittee-totaling about s42 SOC, ,oo0-
the local taxpayer would contribute in
local taxes alone about s39, 100000.
Should the total Of the bill remain the
same but the lump-sum payment be re-
stored to the minimum $5,700,000 rec
commended by the Budget Bureau. the
local taxpayer would contribute in local
taxes alone about $36,800,000.
In addition to furnishing between
eighty-flve and ninety-four per cent Of
the Capital City expenses, the local tax
payer pays, in addition. s12,638,144 in
national taxes according to 1885 fig
ures); more than the national taxes
paid by twenty-three of the States and
more than nine of the States combined.
The Districts national tax payment is
more than twice the amount of the cur
rent lump sum, almost five times the
amount of the lump sum proposed by the
House.
With such facts in mind, what is the
lump-sum burden imposed on the
people of the States?
An article elsewhere in today's Star
Is accompanied by table showing the
amounts contributed by the States
toward the lump sum, computed on the
basis of their internal revenue payments:
showing the per capita contribution in
relation to a s5,700,O0O lump-sum pay
ment.
The lump-sum contribution reflects
per capita burden" ranging from
fractions of a cent to a maximum of
twenty-three cents in one State. The
burden" in South Carolina, for instance,
for National Capital maintenance and
support is about half a mill. It is less
than that in Alabama. In the great State
OF Texas it is two cents. In the great
State of Nebraska it is about one cent.
In the great State of Michigan it is about
five and a half cents In the great State
of New York it is about ten cents. Only
eleven of the States bear a greater per
capita burden for lump-sum payment
than the District. In thirty-seven of
the States the per capita tax burden is
actually less than the District of Co.
lumbia.
When the computation is based on the
lump sum of s2,7O00oO proposed in the
House bill the showing is even more
startling. Under such an arrangement
three of the States would be less than
one cent, with only four States pay
Ing more than four cents.
The obligation of the United States for
maintenance and development of the
American Capital imposes a negligible
burden on the people of the United
States. The greater share of that burden
is already imposed on the local taXpay-
ers, unrepresented in the Government
which taxes them.
If the people of Washington were es-
Gaping their fair share of taxation there
would be legitimate argument in be-
half of increasing the local contribution.
But the fact that they are now paying
their fair share is demonstrable. It Is
the national obligation which is being
shirked. The claim that the lump-sum
payment meets the equitable Federal
obligation, or that it imposes any bur-
den" on the people of the States, is
without foundation