Eugen Peter Schwiedland · 1889
Schwiedland’s review assesses Munk’s comparative study of taxation in Vienna and Berlin, following its division between nonmunicipal and municipal levies. Its central finding is that Vienna’s substantially heavier tax burden chiefly benefits the state, not the city. The comparison thus concerns both what residents pay and how revenue is distributed between levels of government.
Munk draws on tax legislation, statistical returns, and administrative practice. His calculation assigns indirect taxes to consumers and includes the proceeds of Austria’s tobacco and salt monopolies. Fees are excluded because separate figures for the capitals are unavailable and because only a small share is borne by their residents. Schwiedland traces disparities in building, land, business, and income taxation before identifying the strongest contrast:
Den größten Unterschied zeigen aber die indirekten Steuern.
English translation: The greatest difference, however, is shown by the indirect taxes.
The Vienna consumption-tax boundary and tobacco monopoly account for much of this disparity. The review also places each capital within its national fiscal system: Vienna’s per-capita nonmunicipal burden is 5.77 times that of the remaining Austrian population, whereas Berlin’s corresponding ratio is 2.02. Vienna’s disadvantage is therefore more than a difference between two cities; it reflects an unusually concentrated state claim on metropolitan resources.
The discussion of municipal taxation shifts from the magnitude of burdens to the institutional means of financing urban government:
Während die deutsche Reichshauptstadt ihren Haushalt nach einer eigenen Grundlage besorgt, ist die österreichische Hauptstadt im großen Teil auf das Zuschlagssystem verwiesen.
English translation: While the German imperial capital manages its budget on a basis of its own, the Austrian capital is for the greater part referred to the surcharge system.
Vienna relies heavily on supplements to state taxes, together with levies on rents and property. Berlin obtains much greater revenue from its municipal income taxes. Schwiedland reports a total per-capita burden of 71 florins 88 kreuzer in Vienna against the equivalent of 25 florins 18 kreuzer in Berlin, but Vienna receives only 21.70 percent of its inhabitants’ total tax payments, compared with Berlin’s 51.88 percent. The decisive conceptual move is to distinguish residents’ fiscal sacrifice from the resources available to their municipality:
Die absolute Mehrbelastung der Bevölkerung Wiens kommt nicht in die städtische Kasse, sondern ausschliesslich dem Staat zu Gute.
English translation: The absolute additional burden on the population of Vienna does not come into the municipal treasury, but accrues exclusively to the benefit of the state.
This imbalance is especially troubling because Vienna performs substantial delegated state functions, including direct-tax collection, without compensation. Schwiedland’s criticism consequently extends beyond high taxation to the mismatch between municipal responsibilities and municipal revenues.
His final judgment combines recognition of the study’s diagnostic value with dissatisfaction at its limited practical remedy:
Verf. tritt zur Besserung der mißlichen Finanzlage Wiens mit keinem konkreteren Vorschlage auf, als jenem der Reform des Staatssteuerwesens.
English translation: For the improvement of Vienna's unhappy financial position the author comes forward with no more concrete proposal than that of a reform of the state system of taxation.
Although the anticipated removal of Vienna’s consumption-tax barriers promises some relief, Schwiedland regards the figures as deeply concerning and as evidence of an important fiscal basis for the city’s much-discussed decline. He nevertheless credits Munk with a valuable contribution to municipal financial and statistical literature, particularly for connecting tax comparisons with social and economic conditions. The review’s lasting analytical interest lies in showing why a heavily taxed capital can remain financially constrained: the burden imposed on its inhabitants does not measure the revenue available for its own government.
This work was divided into 3 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 3 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian