Evening star., 1953-06-09
Revision Urged
In Virginia Tax
Sharing Setup
State PenuIizing
PopuIous Areas,
Report Charges

PopuIous Areas,
Report Charges
Rapidly growing Virginia COM
munities, including counties and
cities near Washington, are be-
ing driven to ruin" by the
States formula for distributing
revenue it receives from tax
payers, according to a report Of
the Tax Committee of the Fed
Grafton Of Fairfax County Citi-
ZenS Associations.
Taxpayers in Arlington, Alex
andria, Falls Church, Fairfax
County and other growing areas
must dig deeper into their
pockets every year, the report
says, to make up for the increas-
ing amount Of State funds
handed out to other areas.
If Fairfax County had re-
ceived in State revenue in 1850
the money county residents paid
in State taxes. the local property
tax could have been virtually
wiped out, the report said.
Madison County, with fewer
people than Falls Church, re-
ceived more than three times as
that city in distributed liquor
profits, the committee reported.
The ALLEGATION was based partly
on their 1910 populations.
Policies Critized.
Two State policies threaten
the solvency Of areas with rising
populations, according to the
report:
/. Funds are distributed &C
cording to the previous 10-year
census. Under the present for
mula. the 1850 census will be
used until 1861. In 1850, Fairfax
County, with a population Of
nearly 100000. was credited un-
der the States formula with only
its 1910 population of 10000.
Today, Fairfax has grown at
census figure of 98,557, the COM
mittee estimates. )
2. Even if the populations Of
the nearby areas remained sta
BILE, they still would be paying a
subsidy" to less wealthy parts
Of the State. The cities and sub
urban areas pay higher taxes per
capita than the rural areas. the
committee researchers found. In
order to "equalize opportunity
throughout the State" the re-
port says, the State determines
the average per capita share in
distributing revenues. The re-
suit is q heavy subsidy Of some
areas, "a policy which there Is
no disposition to question here"
the committee said.
Example Cited.
Charles M. Platt. chairman Of
the committee, cited this eX-
ample Of how some localities
"are being penalized for their
growth:
\ In the year ended June 80,
1850, four Virginia counties
Arlington, Fairfax. Elizabeth
City and Henrico-received a
total of $3,185, 900 from the State
to help defray the costs Of county
government. In the same year
they were paying in to the State
in just one tax alone-the in
dividual income taxa total Of
$4,950,000 or IS per cent more
than all the cash funds they got
back In State-collected revenues.
In the year ended June 80.
1850, Fairfax should have re-
ceived $529, 900 in State funds
for secondary roads. The State
actually spent $406, 800, the COM
mittee said.
In ALLEGATION Of school funds,
Fairfax will lose in 1953-54 be-
tween $125,000 and $150.0O0.
This is because school funds are
distributed not on current en-
rollment, but on attendance in
the previous year.
Special Census Favored.
The federation already is on
record as favoring use of cur
rent population figures for
communities that are willing to
pay for a special census. This
would cost about $25, 1000, the
committee estimates. "a minor
sum compared to revenue in
volved."
Creation Of a State commits
sion to study corrective meas
ures in sharing of Virginia reve-
nues is urged by the committee.
The federation has requested
General Assembly action to give
the counties border taxing pow
ers to achieve a fair distribu-
ton of local tax burdens"
None of these critically need
ed steps will be taken," the COM
mittee report concluded. until
action is demanded by aroused
taXpayerS in those localities that