Evening star., 1939-06-18

0r01nateS them In per capita ana
total payments and in tax rate with
cities which are compelled to raise
millions In taxes to pay interest:
Washington, which has enjoyed
the benefit Of no such loans should
not be required in order to put itself
on = superficial taxpaying equality
with other cities to tax itself In the
amounts represented by these inter-
est payments, and they should be
deducted from the property tax levies
Of these other cities and from the
corresponding tax rates in . COM
parison with Washington.
COL. of the table, with fig-
ures furnished by the Census
Bureau, shows the per capita in
terest payments for general de-
partments of the cities compared
with Washington. 1t is interesting
to note the varying amounts of
indebtedness represented by these
figures. About 100000 of Pitts
burgh's annual tax burden, for
instance, represents payments on
Indebtedness. Baltimore pays more
than $5,000,000 annually in in
terest and sinking fund payments
on Indebtedness. The smallest
annual debt payments in the cities
compared is in Minneapolis, which
pays $2.389,000 per year on debt.
The size OF the debt, In each case,
is OF the municipal taxpayers own
choosing. In Washington, of course,
Congress must enact legislation
even to permit the District to ac-
cept an advance, on a grant and
loan basis, from the P. w. A.
Final Showing Of Tax Burdens.
COL. 4 of the table shows the
result in tax burden for current
maintenance and normal deuelop-
ment; that is. the tax burden when
the item representing debt pay
ment is deducted.
Here Washington is shown to
exceed in debt burden 7 of the II
cities with which it is compared.
Can Washington be considered as
undertaxed when it's debt burden
is greater than 7 of the II cities
which most closely approximate it
in population? OF the four which
exceed it, Pittsburgh t$60.7O and
Milwaukee t$6170 are close to
Washington (s5982) and only the
notoriously expensive cities of Bos-
ton ts85.96) and Newark ($744O,
are greatly in excess.
Recent Tax Increases.
These figures. Of course, while the
latest available, are for the year
1886. 1t is unfortunate that usable
flgures for the past year or so are
not obtainable. If they were. there
is little doubt that Washington's
heavier tax burden assumed in these
years would be shown to greatly ex-
ceed all of the cities compared, with
the possible exception of Boston
and Newark
For the revenue acts of 1887 and
1888 add a tax burden to Washing
ton that is not generally appre-
ciated. 1t is doubtful that any
comparable increase took place in
any OF the cities here discussed. Ex-
cluding the Federal payment, Dis
trict tax revenues jumped from s3O.-
100000 in 1887 to S36 300 900 in
1888, with an estimated $4,000 900
for the current year. That repre-
sents an increase in the local tax
burden-not including such Federal
tax additions as the social security
taxes-of 81 per cent. That is a
tremendous increase in the tax bur-
den within a space of three years.
There should be less talk, in Con-
gress, of Washingtons low tax rate
which is one of the lowest in the
country-and more attention paid
to Washington's tax burden. which
ranks high when compared with
cities near it in population
Tomorrow: The Orerton PlanJ