STATEMENT OF E. L. MERZEREAU, REPRESENTING NORTH RANDALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Mr. MERZEREAU. We in open meeting oppose the 2-percent sales tax. We feel that although it is the easiest way to extract taxes from the public, we also feel that it would hit those in the lower income brackets, those with large families, a great deal more than it would those who are able to pay that tax. We say that from this consideration: You take a family with three or four children, and in my particular neighborhood, we have mostly families of that type, those people are exempt, as a general thing, from most income tax on account of the size of the family and although on account of this 2-percent sales tax, food and drugs would probably be exempt. Every time the families would go out to buy something for the children, they would be hit by that sales tax and eventually they would be hit harder by that sales tax. Those are the ones we are trying to protect. We feel, again, that the businessman would have to collect that tax, keep a record of that tax, in order to make his returns to the District government, and in doing so he would have to add a great deal of help for bookkeeping and various other things in connection with that tax, and in adding them to that pay roll, he would have to add a little bit to his prices and as a result it would come right back on the public who are paying that sales tax and would have to pay a heavier tax because he must do so much more bookkeeping and employ extra help. În reference to the 1-percent gasoline tax, we feel that, after an investigation with the petroleum industry, the figures that they quote. and we have no reasons to believe that those figures are wrong, we feel that with the work laid out, which would be paid for by money taken in by the gasoline tax, that we have enough taxes coming in for the next 3 years to take care of that without any additional raise in the gasoline tax. We feel that gasoline is not a luxury. Gasoline at the present time is an absolute necessity. Most people have to have an automobile and if they do not have gasoline they cannot drive the automobile so we cannot consider that as a luxury. It is something we must have, and we feel that charging people more for a thing they have to have is not proper at this time. We understand, and I believe from my own experience, that we do have a District income tax. A lot of people that I have talked to either do not know or do not want to know that we have to have a tax. There are many of the residents in the District of Columbiaand I mean residents, not people who live in Virginia and Maryland-who do not and have not paid income tax. There is no way, as I understand, to check up on how much income tax they would owe the District government, and we suggest that some sort of a law be put into effect that the employer would have to turn over to the District government a report of what each and every employee made during the year so that in that way they would be able to get the taxes which are due them, and I think that would raise many, many thousands of dollars of revenue. I have talked to a number of people in the last month, and this one paid no tax, and this one paid not any tax. I happen to know a number of these people should. It was none of my business whether they do or not. It should be enforced, and I do not think it is being enforced at the present time. I think if the employer was empowered to withhold from the envelope or salary of the employee, a certain sum, say one-half of 1 percent of the salary, he would not feel the effect of paying that tax, although he would necessarily have to pay it, because his report would be in by the employer, and that money would be paid by the employer, and yet he would not feel the effect of that, and the amount paid by each individual would be so small that it would not affect them, but the amount paid by the entire population in the District of Columbia would raise so many thousands of dollars that some of these other taxes, I think we could get away with. We recommend the income-tax structure be changed, a graduated addition to the income-tax structure, and, of course, we have no idea of telling Congress how to do this; we just suggest that one-half of 1 percent up to $1,500, 1 percent up to $2,000, and 112 percent up to $2,500, and 2 percent up to $3,000, all over $3,000, 3 percent. I think that would be fair and equitable, and people in low-income brackets would not have to pay so much, and the people making plenty would be able to share in their portion of the burden. Another thing we have discussed here, I believe the other day, and it seems to me a very good idea to raise taxes. People laugh at it, but we have discussed for many years a lottery in the District of Columbia. I was just checking some figures of money that has been taken out of the District in the last few days: On Friday, our race track at Bowie, the take was $700,000; on Monday it was $921,000; and on Tuesday, which was yesterday, it was $800,000. Those are just round figures. I would say about 40 percent of that money was taken out of the District of Columbia. Now, the State of Maryland is going to get taxes and tremendous taxes on that money. Yet we are allowed to take our money over there and bet it-and I think most of us like to bet occasionally-but we cannot do that legally in the District of Columbia. Yet we know, and I do not think anybody would deny it that there are not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of dollars bet right in the District every day on horses and numbers and various other things. The District of Columbia is getting absolutely no revenue from that money and it seems a very fine thing would be to change this law so the District could get the tremendous amount of money they lose by not having recognized betting in the District of Columbia. The four tracks, basing my figures on what I just stated, the four tracks in Maryland, on a 30-day basis, which they usually run, will take in $96,000,000 in a year's time. That is a tremendous sum of money. You can figure yourself that the amount of money that Maryland is getting from that legalized betting that the District of Colum bia is not. Another thing that strikes me is, we have a zoo in Washington that is called the National Zoological Garden for the benefit of everyone. I think everybody that comes here goes to the Zoo. It is a wonderful 99538-47-48 place to go to. It is educational and fine for the children, but who keeps up the National Zoological Garden? The District Government. The Federal Government pays nothing for the upkeep of the National Zoological Garden. The District of Columbia has to pay every cent and the tremendous amount of money takes quite a large slice out of our budget, and it could be used for other things if the Federal Government would pay their share of keeping up the National Zoological Garden. We think that the Federal Government should contribute more to the funds of the District of Columbia. I believe the figures show we have 51 percent of the Government which is controlled tax-free in the District of Columbia, and 49 percent is taxable. Now the Government at the present time, I understand, is in the act of buying up considerable property on East Capitol Street down toward the river. A number of residents in that area whom I know have been accosted on that particular subject and that land is going to be tax-free. Now if the Government is going to control so much of that land, tax free, it seems to me that a larger Federal contribution to the District to help out on account of taking so much of that land would be the thing to do. We recommend, instead of the $8,000,000, which we are getting at the present time-I think this is the first year, if I recall right—we suggest between twelve and fourteen million dollars. We do not think that would be too much. I can cite an instance in my own area, and it sounds to me ridiculous, where the National Capital Park and Planning owned a piece of ground which they donated for the use of barracks for ex-GI's. It is a mighty fine thing to do and we approve it very much, but on the other hand, two blocks away, they demanded that a plot of ground which is connected with the park in that area, be taken over by the National Capital Park and Planning organization, and those houses be torn down and that land be turned over for the use of the park. Now, this particular park is not being used at the present time, and I have been out there 10 years. It never has been used. The portion they bought still has two cellars where they had torn down two homes 10 years ago; those cellars are still there. They have done nothing to improve that piece of park. Yet they took this land that these people were paying taxes on, and make it tax-free and yet they were giving land which was already tax-free, over to build barracks for the boys. That does not seem right. Under the conditions, I think the Federal Government should pay a larger portion of the money to the District of Columbia so that we would have a little relief from the heavy tax burden which we are undergoing at the present time. I believe that is all, Mr. Bates. Mr. BATES. Thank you, Mr. Merzereau. Mr. MERZEREAU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BATES. We will next hear from Mrs. R. B. Rands. STATEMENT OF MRS. R. B. RANDS, CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WOMEN'S ANTI-SALES-TAX COMMITTEE Mrs. RANDS. I am Mrs. R. B. Rands, or Mrs. Minnie Frost Rands; I am known as both. I am chairman of the District of Columbia Women's Anti-SalesTax Committee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read some remarks. Mr. BATES. How was that committee organized, Mrs. Rands; what is the membership of it, and give us a little background of it. Mrs. RANDS. This committee was organized in a way a great deal of consumer work is being done today-and that is, a few women get together who think things are not going right and we say, "Let us see what we can do about it." It is just simply the people taking a hand in Government. I have the names of the committee here. Mr. BATES. How many members are there? Mrs. Rands. There are nine members of the committee. Mrs. RANDS. Yes. Mr. BATES. That is all right. That is perfectly all right, but we like to hear such testimony coming from citizens in a spontaneous manner. Mrs. RANDS. That is what it is; spontaneous. These are individuals. We have gotten a sponsorship now of 14 other organizations. There are many, many organizations that are against the sales tax besides, these, but these just happened to be 14 organizations that we contacted and asked them to bring a vote up and see whether or not the membership was for or against the sales tax, and these 14 said that they were against it and would appreciate our doing anything we could. Due to the splendid cooperation of the Washington newspapers, you no doubt have heard of the work of our committee-how we enlisted the sponsorship of 14 women's organizations of Greater Washington-the outlying areas are interested because they shop here and how 40 volunteers from our committee and from those organizations afforded the passers-by at one corner in Washington, viz, Twelfth and F Streets NW., an opportunity to register their opposition to the proposed iniquitous sales tax on Saturday, March 22, between the hours of 10 a. m. and 5 p. m. Meanwhile, many other volunteers on that same day collected signatures in their own neighborhoods by going from door to door. The day was raw and very windy so that many of the women contracted colds from the exposure; however, their work was essential to the feeling of the public pulse, since this is the one city in the United States where we have taxation without suffrage. A total of 3,800 signatures was collected from people who, in many cases, had to stand in line in the wind waiting to write their names. Many others told us they wanted to sign but that they were Government workers and were afraid to sign anything nowadays for fear they would lose their jobs. Nevertheless we collected signatures against the sales tax at the rate of 300 per hour on the four corners of that one intersection at Twelfth and F Streets. During the three and a half hours that I stood at that corner, I noticed that the more alert, intelligent-looking passers-by were the ones who wanted to sign. The ignorant, vacant faces seemed never to have heard of a sales tax; in fact, they said they did not know what it was. They evidently just do not read the newspapers because the Washington papers-at least the ones I read-have covered the subject very well, I think, and I have yet to read an editorial in favor of this tax. The fact is, I got that word "iniquitous" out of an editorial in the Washington Daily News. They called it an inquitous sales tax. I think they were right about it. Many people remarked how badly the sales tax had worked out, in the cities from which they came-New York, Chicago, New Orleans, St. Louis-a man from the latter said that their State legislature finally passed a law forbidding any Missouri city to adopt a sales tax. People from sales-tax States and cities said it was such a pleasure to shop in Washington because this city was not cluttered with that nuisance. Our own residents, if people of means, said they would much rather pay semiannually more real estate and income taxes than to be constantly annoyed by the ghastly nuisance of a sales tax requiring the continual handling of small change, debating over the amount due, and so forth. The people of slender means said, with a sigh of bleak despair, that the prices were already so high that another penny would be like the straw that broke the camel's back, and I think they feel more or less that way even without the sales tax. In fact, they just did not see how they were going to manage. They especially thanked us for taking the time and trouble to fight it for them. Some asked in all seriousness if it would cost them anything to sign; we laughingly told them no, but it would cost them if they did not. The drastic drop in milk consumption here proves that prices are already so high that people are having to give up necessities. Therefore this tax would cause real hardship to the lower-income third of our population, and since the highest third would not feel it at all, it would be grossly unfair. Our committee is amused and disgusted with the recent resolution passed by the Maryland State Legislature. They have fixed a bad tax on themselves and now want to make sure that Congress clamps an unjust tax on us. We feel sure that you gentlemen will do nothing of the kind and thus most courteously and eloquently tell them to mind their own business. Let me summarize our objections to the sales tax as follows: 1. It taxes most heavily those least able to pay. 2. It penalizes the larger families. 3. It raises still further already inflated prices. 4. It is a nuisance to the shopper, an added burden to overworked clerks in the stores, and a nightmare to merchants. We think those pusillanimous individuals who want a sales tax clamped on the District of Columbia so the Congressmen will have to pay it are very unkind to the city's poor, who will feel it a hundred |