Page images
PDF
EPUB

would be affected in the District are those with small incomes, retired Government workers, unemployed, and employees in Government and private industry, and we feel now this is a time of rising prices and declining incomes, and it is a very uneven tax to impose.

Then we go into the fact that the general sales tax is undesirable because of the cost of administration, and it might be apt to drive business out of the District. It would adversely affect the value of property and income taxes.

A high level of business activity and full employment is necessary to maintain a high level of demand for goods. The sales tax reduces consumption and cuts down the demand for goods and services.

We should like you also to note that of the nine cities in the country in the same size class as the District of Columbia, only one imposes a general sales tax-St. Louis. Only three of the States in which these cities are located impose a sales tax-California, Ohio, and Missouri—and one of these three States has no income tax-Ohio. The sales tax had a rebirth before the war, during a period of severe

a stress when the revenue of most cities fell drastically. It is the product of depression and fiscal desperation. Washington is by no means in that position.

Side by side with low incomes in the District, there are high incomes. On a per capita basis it is one of the highest income cities in the country. There is no need to strike at those with low fixed incomes, there is no need to drive people into debt in order that they may live, there is no need to deprive people of necessities in order to obtain the necessary revenues to maintain the services of the District government. There are sources of revenue which can be tapped—sources that are reasonable, and in accord with accepted standards of equity.

We believe that the income tax should be the principal source of additional revenue. We, therefore, give our full support to the proposal of the Commissioners that the income tax be expanded so as to include all residents of the District and not only those who are legally domiciled in the District.

We have several reservations about the Commissioners' recommendations on the income tax, however. We fail to see why taxable income should be so defined as to exclude interest on bonds issued by State and local governments. It is common practice in the States having income taxes to include in income the interest received on such bonds. We also fail to see why capital gains should be exempt from tax. The profits received from the sale of property held for more than 2 years should be treated in the same way as any other profit.

It should be observed, moreover, that the exemption of such profits involves an inconsistency since depreciation deductions will always be taken by the owners of property no matter how long they own property. These two loopholes should be closed. Our most important objection to the Commissioners' income tax proposal, however, is that it does not go far enough.

The personal income tax should be a much more important source of revenue than is contemplated in the Commissioner's program. It is by all odds the best tax that we have. It is sound from the point of view of equity; it fits in with the needs of our economy; it is both productive and flexible; and it is not costly to administer.

Virtually every State that imposes an income tax collects a much more significant proportion of its taxes from this source than is the

Percent

1

case in the District. We believe the personal income tax can be made
to produce a total of about $11,000,000, or about $7,000,000 more than
at present. To achieve this we propose a schedule such as the
following:
On taxable incomes of-

0 to $2,000.-
$2,000 to $4,000-

2 $4,000 to $7,000

3 $7,000 to $10,000

4 Over $10,000.

5 A tax schedule such as this would be in accord with schedules imposed in many other States.

A second source of additional revenue which should be used is the property tax, according to the Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research, property in the District bears a lower tax than that prevailing in any other city of comparable size. If the property taxes in the District were increased to the same level as that prevailing in the city with the next higher rate-San Francisco—the yield would be increased by $10,000,000.

We do not suggest that the property tax be increased to that extent. It is our conviction, however, that at least an additional' $5,000,000 should be collected in property taxes. This sum should be raised principally from income-producing properties, particularly those which have profited so enormously in recent years.

Small owner-occupied homes should contribute only a small amount to this total. We do not take the position that the current high property values will necessarily be maintained indefinitely. Nevertheless, we see no reason why property should not be valued on a more or less. current basis. The property tax, like others, can be a flexible one.

Finally, we urge an increase in the Federal contribution toward the cost of the District government. From 1925 to 1932, the Federal contribution was $9,000,000 or more. In those years it represented 20 to 25 percent of the District's general fund. Today the Federal contribution represents only a little over 10 percent of the general fund.

The reduction in Federal contributions occurred during a period when the property owned by the Federal Government increased substantially and services to the Federal Government increased accordingly. We believe that an increase in the Federal contribution by about $6,000,000, as recommended by the Commissioners, should be enacted.

We should like also to point out that the budget provides for capital outlays of $25,000,000—about one-fourth of the budget.

If part of this large capital investment were financed by borrowing, as is the customary practice in municipal governments, it could reduce the amount of new revenues needed. Such a step, together with the tax program which we have recommended, would meet the needs of the District.

Six million dollars would come from the Federal Government, $5,000,000 from the property tax, and about $7,000,000 from the income tax. To the extent that capital outlays are financed by a bond issue these amounts could be reduced.

This is the kind of a program which is in accord with the principle of ability to pay. It is the kind of program which we believe

[ocr errors]

a

would be affected in the District are those with small incomes, retired Government workers, unemployed, and employees in Government and private industry, and we feel now this is a time of rising prices and declining incomes, and it is a very uneven tax to impose.

Then we go into the fact that the general sales tax is undesirable because of the cost of administration, and it might be apt to drive business out of the District. It would adversely affect the value of property and income taxes.

A high level of business activity and full employment is necessary to maintain a high level of demand for goods. The sales tax reduces consumption and cuts down the demand for goods and services.

We should like you also to note that of the nine cities in the country in the same size class as the District of Columbia, only one imposes a general sales tax-St. Louis. Only three of the States in which these cities are located impose a sales tax-California, Ohio, and Missouri—and one of these three States has no income tax-Ohio.

The sales tax had a rebirth before the war, during a period of severe stress when the revenue of most cities fell drastically. It is the product of depression and fiscal desperation. Washington is by no means in that position.

Side by side with low incomes in the District, there are high incomes. On a per capita basis it is one of the highest income cities in the country. There is no need to strike at those with low fixed incomes, there is no need to drive people into debt in order that they may live, there is no need to deprive people of necessities in order to obtain the necessary revenues to maintain the services of the District government. There are sources of revenue which can be tapped—sources that are reasonable, and in accord with accepted standards of equity.

We believe that the income tax should be the principal source of additional revenue. We, therefore, give our full support to the proposal of the Commissioners that the income tax be expanded so as to include all residents of the District and not only those who are legally domiciled in the District.

We have several reservations about the Commissioners' recommendations on the income tax, however. We fail to see why taxable income should be so defined as to exclude interest on bonds issued by State and local governments. It is common practice in the States having income taxes to include in income the interest received on such bonds. We also fail to see why capital gains should be exempt from tax. The profits received from the sale of property held for more than 2 years

should be treated in the same way as any other profit. It should be observed, moreover, that the exemption of such profits involves an inconsistency since depreciation deductions will always be taken by the owners of property no matter how long they own property. These two loopholes should be closed. Our most important objection to the Commissioners' income tax proposal, however, is that it does not go far enough.

The personal income tax should be a much more important source of revenue than is contemplated in the Commissioner's program. It is by all odds the best tax that we have. It is sound from the point of view of equity; it fits in with the needs of our economy; it is both productive and flexible; and it is not costly to administer.

Virtually every State that imposes an income tax collects a much more significant proportion of its taxes from this source than is the

[ocr errors]

case in the District. We believe the personal income tax can be made to produce a total of about $11,000,000, or about $7,000,000 more than at present. To achieve this we propose a schedule such as the following: On taxable incomes of—

Percent 0 to $2,000.

1 $2,000 to $4,000

2 $4,000 to $7,000

3 $7,000 to $10,000.

4 Over $10,000_ A tax schedule such as this would be in accord with schedules imposed in many other States.

A second source of additional revenue which should be used is the property tax, according to the Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research, property in the District bears a lower tax than that prevailing in any

other city of comparable size. If the property taxes in the District were increased to the same level as that prevailing in the city with the next higher rate—San Francisco—the yield would be increased by $10,000,000.

We do not suggest that the property tax be increased to that extent. It is our conviction, however, that at least an additional' $5,000,000 should be collected in property taxes. This sum should be raised principally from income-producing properties, particularly those which have profited so enormously in recent years.

Small owner-occupied homes should contribute only a small amount to this total. We do not take the position that the current high property values will necessarily be maintained indefinitely. Nevertheless, we see no reason why property should not be valued on a more or less. current basis. The property tax, like others, can be a flexible one.

Finally, we urge an increase in the Federal contribution toward the cost of the District government. From 1925 to 1932, the Federal contribution was $9,000,000 or more. In those years it represented 20 to 25 percent of the District's general fund. Today the Federal contribution represents only a little over 10 percent of the general fund.

The reduction in Federal contributions occurred during a period when the property owned by the Federal Government increased substantially and services to the Federal Government increased accordingly. We believe that an increase in the Federal contribution by about $6,000,000, as recommended by the Commissioners, should be enacted.

We should like also to point out that the budget provides for capital outlays of $25,000,000_about one-fourth of the budget.

If part of this large capital investment were financed by borrowing, as is the customary practice in municipal governments, it could reduce the amount of new revenues needed. Such a step, together with the tax program which we have recommended, would meet the needs of the District.

Six million dollars would come from the Federal Government $5,000,000 from the property tax, and about $7,000,000 from the income tax. To the extent that capital outlays are financed by a bond issue these amounts could be reduced.

This is the kind of a program which is in accord with the principle of ability to pay. It is the kind of program which we believe

a legislature responsive to the needs of the people of the District would enact.

Mr. BATEs. Thank you very much, Mrs. Evans.

Now, we have a representative here of the chocolate candy manufacturers.

We will be glad to hear from Mr. Peyton.

I would like to put into the record at this point a letter that I am in receipt of from Charles E. Sands, international representative, Hotel and Restaurant Employees' International Alliance and Bartenders' International League of America.

Mr. Sands will not be here this afternoon. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE

AND

BARTENDERS' INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Headquarters: Cincinnati, Ohio

WASHINGTON 11, D. C., April 5, 19.7. Senator CAIN, Congressman' BATES, Cochairmen, District of Columbia Tax Committee,

Washington, D. C. HONORABLE GENTLEMEN: I had intended to appear personally before your subcommittee, but our international convention now being held in Milwaukee looks like it will last another 10 days, so I herewith file my brief in connection with the District of Columbia tax bills.

We are a part of the Washington Central Labor Union and subscribe fully to the position as taken by said organization on the various tax bills, and in addition offer the following additional reasons for so opposing.

We are opposed to the sales tax and to any increases in excise taxes on our industry, disguised which are really sales taxes.

Over 8,000 of our members are employed in the hotels and restaurants of the District; most of them are employed in establishments licensed for the sale of liquors and beer, or beer. To up these taxes would be a serious threat to full employment of our members; the industry just cannot stand additional taxes at this time if we are to prosper.

Business in the hotels and restaurants has fallen off to an extent that is really alarming. To further burden the industry at this time would drive business outside the District and would have a tendency to set up again the bootlegger, private stills, and home brew, because present high prices would have to be raised to meet the new taxes.

You have read in the press about the consumption of liquor in the District; much of that liquor charged as being consumed here was no doubt consumed in many of the Southern States that until recently were under the rationing system. Now that these States are not now under rationing it is fair to assume that sales will be curtailed, as visitors to these ştates can now obtain needed refreshments at prices lower than prevail in the District.

In my judgment, it is a mistake when needed taxes are considered to consider the industry of which our members are employees as one of the easiest to taux without protests. It is true that we are liberal, progressive, and our record will show that we have always wanted, even demanded, that we pay our fair share of the cost of government, but there is a limit if we are to continue the wellregulated license system for the control and sale of liquors, .beer, and kindred beverages. Very truly yours,

Chas. E. SANDS, Labor Union Representatire (registered).

« PreviousContinue »