Evening star., 1939-06-18

estimating which, in the light of
conditions peculiar to Washing
ton, tends to show a. higher pop
ulatlon than actually exists-cer :
talnly a higher population of non.
direct taxpayers than anywhere
else. Thousands of persons in
cluded in the population estimate
retain their residence and tax
allegiance in their home States.
Ihese non-direct taxpayers figure
IN the population for census pur-
poses, but do not figure on the tax
collectors rolls.
COL. 2 of the table shows the re-
suits of the comparison of tax bur-
dens submitted to the Overton SUBJ
committee by the Census Bureau.
Inc showing here is city govern
ment revenues from all sources. ex-
elusive OF public service enterprises.
grants-in-aid, donations and pen
slons-eXpressed in per capitas.
washington, ranking eighth in pop-
ulation tthe position of Washington
Is placed sixth in the table to indi-
cate the present population rank
ranks NTH in tax burden. exceed
ing of the II cities with which il
is compared.
Washlngton's tax burden is high
er than that of larger St. Louis. of
larger Baltimore, of larger San
Francisco, of Buffalo, of Minneap-
oils or New Orleans. 1t is exceeded
only by Boston, Pittsburgh. Mil
Waukee, Cincinnati and Newark.
Boston and Newark are notoriouslv
high IN their tax burdens. But
surely Washington cannot be un-
! dertaxed when it exceeds 6 of the
IL cities which most closely ap-
proXlmate 1t in size of population.
Includes Debt Payments.
The comparison. moreover, shown
in Col. of this table includes the
money which is collected in taxes
by the other cities to pay off mu-
nicipal Indebtedness.
In comparison of city tax bur-
dens between all cities the payments
representing interest on indebted
ness or to sinking fund should be
eliminated, in order to reduce the
comparison to the expenditures for
current maintenance and normal
improvements.
The fact that the citizens of one
city decide to burden themselves
With debt in order to undertake pub
llc service enterprises expected to
Yield them a return in the future.
or to launch a program of public
improvements. or because their city
officials and politicians have per-
suaded them that it is right to bor-
row money, while another city de-
cldes to live on its income from
year to year. should not be factor
in comparing their tax burdens. if
the object of such comparison is to
attempt to decide what constitutes
an equitable tax burden. The COM
parsons should be limited to the
money that the citizens must raise
and spend for annual maintenance
! and normal improvements and the
matter of Indebtedness should be
left out Of such comparisons.
Particularly in the case of COM
parisons between Washington and
other cities it is illogical and unfair
to include debt payments in COM
parsons of tax burdens. For during
the World War and Immediately
thereafter, very many American
cities indulged in a financial lag,
borrowing easily and heavily from
our wealthy investors in tax-exempt
municipal securities in avoidance of
income taxes and Surtaxes. Part of
this borrowed money went into USE
ful permanent improvement by
which the cities benefited: another
part was wasted in extravaganza or
graft. Congressman, whose home
cities thus heavily and, in many
instances, unwisely borrowed, refused
as Washington's legislature to let ii
borrow at all.
1t results that the taxpayers of
these cities, having enjoyed the
benefit of these loans, are now COM
PEELED to tax themselves to pay in
terest and sinking fund on the
loans, and these items increase the
amount OF their property tax levy
and of their tax rates which in a
way set the pace for Washington.
But why should Washington tax
payers who have enjoyed the benefit
of no such loans. up to the emer-
gency loans Of the recent past lin
the form of p. w. A. loans), be re-
quired to pay on a basis which CO.