Evening star., 1936-12-01
Comparing Tax Burdens.

comparing lax Burdens.
Cities, like individuals, vary in their
spending habits and spending policies
With identical incomes and responsible
tiles to begin with, one man manages
to live within his means and to save
money while another is unable to make
both ends meet and becomes heavily in
debted. So it is with cities, which show
a wide variety both in expenditures and
tax burdens.
Some of the differences in spending
policies and tax burdens between cities
may exist because of differences in char
acter of population. Some may be due
TO differences in environment. The
effect Of economic changes may throw
extraordinary burdens on some cities
that do not fall on others. Some cities
may suffer from careless, even dishon-
est, administration, causing wasteful
extravaganza, while others insist on strict
economy and accomplish it under hon.
est and efficient administration.
Whatever the causes, these differences
render difficult the definition of what
constitutes fair" or adequate" bur-
den Of taxation by comparison of city
tax burdens, unless the comparisons take
note of the special considerations that
should be applied to some cities.
In their attempt to measure the ade-
ouacy of the tax burden in the District
of Columbia, If such an attempt is made
through comparisons of cities in expend-
itures, ETC., the Presidents special COM
mittee now studying fiscal relations will
doubtless guard against manifest un-
fairness to Washington by special at
tention to the choice Of cities with which
Washington is to be compared.
To be included In the comparison
cities should be comparable, not only in
population, but in general environment,
location and character of population
From the list should be excluded those
cities which, for one or more reasons,
are notoriously high in their expendi-
lures and in resulting tax burdens.
This process of selection does not imply
manipulating to produce desired re-
suit, but merely the exercise of caution
In determining whether cities are COM
parable. 1t is difficult, for instance, to
find common ground for comparison be-
tween residential Washington and heav-
lily industrialized centers of dense popu-
lation, or between Washington and cities
located in the Far North, where eli
matte differences play an important part
In municipal expense. The effort should
be made to select cities which, by popu-
iation, environment or character of pop
ulation, naturally suggest comparison,
and, in addition, to include cities which
are noted for progressiveness and good
government, rather than those noted for
heavy spending and lax government. The
effort is not, of course, to show that
washington's tax burden is lower than
the highest or higher than the lowest,
but to determine whether, in total and
per capita expenditures and receipts,
which indicate the tax load, it is bearing
o tax burden commensurate with what
other cities choose to bear.
Averages sometimes distort the picture
because of the inclusion of extraor-
dinarily heavily taxed cities. If Wash
ington compares favorably in total ex-
penditures with comparable cities of
approximate population, or compares
favorably in per capita expenditures with
cities where the population is either
larger or smaller than Washington, the
question of adequacy OF local taxation
should rest That Washington may be
below or above mathematical average
Of tax burdens may be without signifi-
canoe as far as the adequacy of local
taxation Is concerned.
The statistical tables printed in the
brief or argument of the Citizens Joint
Committee on Fiscal Relations show
that in per capita total tax levy WASH
ington exceeds st. Louis, Baltimore, New
Orleans, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louis
vile and Richmond, and is exceeded, in
the list of eleven cities compared, only by
Chicago (slightly), Buffalo and Minne-
apolis. When per capita interest pay
ments are deducted Gas it is now gen.
orally agreed they should be- Chicagos
per capita falls below and Buffalo's
closely approximates that of Washington.
Is not Washington adequately taxed
when its tax burden nearly equals or
largely exceeds those Of these cities,
most of which enjoy the reputation of
being progressive, up to date and well
governed?
Are all Of these cities dncluding
Washington undertaxed because such
cities as Boston, Jersey City and Yonkers,
to meet special conditions, have taxed
themselves far more heavily?