The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-10-06
RICHMOND PLACES
HIGHER VALUATION
TAX LISTS SHOW UP HrG IN COM.
rARIsoN WITH THE OTHER
CITIES.
ONE-THIRD INCOMES
AMOUNT OF TAXES FROM THIS
SOURCE Is MORE THAN FROM
ALI OF THE COUNTIES IN
THE STATE

The boast that Richmond paopl.
place higher value on their prop
erty for assessment than those of any
other city in the State and that this
CITY pays far more money in taxation
10 the State in proportion to popu-
iation than any city in the State Ia
made good by the annual statement
OF the state auditor, made public
yesterday.
A short while ago II Was shown
that number of Richmond people
hhd lodged their taxes when incomes,
returns Tor taxes on their -acumes,
but IN spite of this fact. Richmond
paid nearly one-thrrd the tax on in
comes paid by the entire State and as
much. approximately. as all the coun-
ties in the State combined.
Fine showing ON Incomes.
More people In Richmond paid
taxes on their Incomes than In any
two cities In the state Almost as
many people in Richmond with a
population tof about 1876, o00 paid
taxes on incomes as in the cities OF
Norfolk, Newport News and Ports :.
mouth combined with a population
OF 10000. The Number for Rich
mond was S73. and for the three
Clues iItHIiDntft S94.
The aggregate amount OF the in
comes returned for taxation In Rich
moni was nearly twice that IN Nor,
folk. Portsmouth and Newport News
combined, the total for Richmond
being s3,277,667 and for Newport
News, Portsmouth and Norfolk, 81
'4s.68l. The amount OF the tax
received by the State from these
sources was s32.77s, or about twice
that received fron the three Tide
water cities,
Property Taxes Compared.
Using the same three cities for
comparison with Richmond. the CAPT
tai city shows up as well in the
amount 1t pays the state on prop
erty. The average wal<s of horses
mules, cattle, hogs, etc, returned ror
taxation, is larger Ia Richmond than
in any other city in the State. The
number OF horses and mules return
ed for taxation is larger in Richmond
than In the three cities we are using
for comparison; the aggregate value
Of these Is larger and the average
Va3ie Jig larger. and consequently the
taxes received on them from the State
more.
Almost as many carriages auto
mobiles and other vehicles vera re-
turned for taxation in Richmond as
IN these other three cities and the
total valuation given the assessor is
about SO per cent more. The average
value Of vehicles in this city is
larger than In any other city in the
State, according to the returns made
the assessor
Excels in Tis1iepieces.
The three cities OF the Tidewater
haV 4
for taxation and the aggregate value
Is larger. but the average value is
lower. Richmond returned more
clocks for taxation and placed a so
per cent higher valuation upon the
total than Norfolk, Newport News
and Portsmouth combined. The ay-
erasc valuation given the assessor
was larger than given in any city In
the State. The average value Of
pianos and other musical Instruments
was larger and the value Of books
returned for taxation larger than
Norfolk and Portsmouth combined.
Rfchmond returned more articles |
for taxation than any city in the
State. as would be supposed: returned
more articles of nearly every class
ifcation than Newport News, Nor |
folk and Portsmouth combined; re-
turned a higher average value on
articles OF every classification in |
nearly every instance and paid more |
in income taxes to the State than all |
the counties; than any city: twice as !
much as three OF the Tidewater cities /
combined and one-third of that paid !
by the entire State
This sums up briefly what Rich |
mond does in the way OF taxation for |
the State of Virginia