Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-06-09

Of Cleveland. 154 per cent of that OF
Milwaukee. III per cent of that OF New
| Orleans. 1O5 per cent Of that of Detroit,
and 1O5 per cent of that of Cincinnati.
lin whose figures real and personal prop
erty valuations are combined): or putting
all valuations on the 100 per cent basis.
Washington valuation was 151 per cent
of that of Detroit. 1870 per cent OF that
Of New Orleans. 127 per cent OF that Of
milwaukee,. 40 per cent of that of Cincin-
natl, ~ per cent of that of Baltimore.
more than twice as much as that OF Louis
vile, ST Paul or Indianapolis. more than
that OF minneapolis and ST. Paul com
/ blned. and 129 per cent of that of pros
porous and busy Cleveland.
vi course the assessment is only one
| factor in the tax burden and is to be con-
| sldered in connection with the rate.
| But the discussion of this phase of the
| question of assessments is helpful in de-
cldlng what is a fair per capita tax levy
on a population with the small resources
OF the Washington local residents and
taxpayers. with all the great manufac-
turing plants and industries cut out of
calculation, since they belong to the gov
eminent, and with population one-thrd
colored and including an unusual per-
centage of transients. both of which ee-
! ments of population reduce the per capita
tax levy without materially increasing
the tax revenues.
In comparing the per capita tax levy
of Washington with that of other cities
1t Is to be considered that the contrbu-
ton in lieu of taxes of the largest tquasD
taxpayer is in Washington's case, omit
ted from the calculation. 1t is as if the
property of Andrew Carnegie and the
steel trust and other great plant-owning
corporations were omitted from the tax
levy of Pittsburg. If Uncle Sam was
treated in the calculation as single tax
payer. his tax contribution added to the
levy and his own name added to the pop
ulaton. WashingtOn's per capita would be
doubled, amounting to 1886, a greater
per capita than that of any other city
over 100000 in population except Boston
There is no way of handling the ques
ton which makes it fair to omit from the
Washington calculation of per capita con-
tribution all consideration of the largest
property owner and quasi taxpayer in the
equation.
Eliminate the governments exempted
property from consideration and what is
there of property and resources in the re-
manning fraction of Washington to cause
it or to enable it to bear high per capita
of tax burden? What has it of business
property values to make it compare ia
vorably with much smaller American
cities? Its mills, it's factories, it's great
plants $50 far as they exist are in the
governments exempted fraction of the
city and do not count in the local assess
ment and tax levy. Then there is the
third of the population colored and an eX-
traordinarily large percentage of tran
Sients and non-taxpayers. How much per
capita OF tax levy could BuHalO or CleVe-
land or Cincinnati or Detroit afford to
pay if it's largest taxpayers, the owners
of it's mills, the manufacturing plants.
etc. were omitted from the calculation
and third of its population was colored?
Not one of these cities has SO large a
percentage of floating non-taXpaying pop
ulation as the capital. with its one-third
negro population and its thousands of
temporary visitors and the government
employees, and this non-taxpaying popu-
lot; fhn n a
levy without reducing it in fact by cash
contributions. Not one of the cities EMU
merated has so few moneymaking re-
sources in manufactures, trade and COM