Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-03-07
FULL VALUATION
FALSE PRETENSE
Continued from First Fage.)

|
cities in which this slight advantage of
| full valuation over other valuations IS
enjoyed
| The tax-rate is not fixed by the tax
| payers. but by Congress. The amount
of money to be raised through the local
taxpayers contribution toward National
Capital maintenance IS fixed. not by those
taxpayers, but by Congress. The nation.
through Congress, will not, as long as 1t
participates in National Capital mainte-
nance and upbuilding, surrender the
| power to fix the national and local con-
| tributions for the capitals upkeep, and
| to this end to determine the tax rate.
| It is proposed by the full valuation bill
| to unsettie the tax rate and to give the
power to the Commissioners to alter IT
| from year to year, the suggestion by in
| ference being that of a decrease in case
| the full valuation is substituted for the
| two-thirds valuation. But the George re
| port in discussion of the unsettlement of
| the fixed taX-rate and the substitution OF
one altered from year to year hints that
| the present rate is too low. The House
| District committee is on record as OPP
posed to any unsettlement of the rate
| which by any possibility can result IN its
| decrease. Evidently the Commissioners
may have power to raise the tax rate.
| but none to reduce it. Unsettlement of
| the moderate rate OF tax now prevailing
! would mean only its increase.
| Thus in the District the increase of the
standard of assessment from two-thrds
| to full valuation means an increase OF
| taxation of realty by one-half at least,
| since no decrease of the taN-rate can
| reasonably be expected.
| What Washington needs is the uni
| form application of the present stand
| ard to everybody and to all kinds Of prop
| erty, and not either an increase or de-
crease of its assessment resulting in the
| unsettiement Of the rate.
Nobody's Doing 1t.
IL is not necessary for convenience in
comparison and TO assimilate Washing
ton to other American cities to SO on
| the nominal full valuation basis. Full
| valuation means full valuation as The
/ words are construed in other cities. The
| comparisons TO determine whether Wash
ingtons taxation is reasonable with
! other cities To make comparisons fair
the same construction must be placed
upon the terms employed. The census
shows that comparatively few American
states and American cities have even a
nominal full valuation of realty for tax
purposes, and the evidence is conclu-
have a nominal full valuation the as
| sessment is not at 100 per cent in fact.
| Now in the light of these facts is the
| Districts valuation to be raised from
| =
the majority class into the small mi
nority class and then be further boosted
into a class by itself by compelling the
assessors to assess not merely nominally
but actually at the 100 per cent valua-
tiono The census figures suggest that
this is done nowhere else in the United
States. hat kind of comparisons
could be made when fun valuation meant
something in Washington which it did
not mean In any other American city?
NV mol oh -,
assess at full value when very few Amer
lean cities pretend to do it, and none is
actually doing it? The aim is to have
Washington reasonably assessed and
taxed as compared with other American
cities Why should Washngton's assess
ment basis be made to exceed that of the
vast majority of American cities?
The census of 1912 shows that of 195
American cities having over 10000 popu-
| latIon, l33 are assessed at less than full
| valuation and 62 nominally at full value.
Of these g. cities. - are in Massachu-
sets. IA III New Jersey and u in Ohio.
leaving only II in all the rest of the
! United states Is Rhode Island. :: New
York tout Of II cties), > Connecticut .
Kansas, l Maryland. | New Hampshire.
Pennsylvania and ] West Virginia..
| Thus only eleven states contain any cities
assessed at full valuation and four of these
states have only one each of such cities
There are no cities with fun valuation
assessments in the remaining thirty seven
saS, California, Colorado. Delaware, Flori-
da, Georgia. Illinois. Indiana Iowa. Ken
lucky. Louisiana. Maine. Michigan, Min
nesota. Missouri. Montana Nebraska
North Carolina, oklahoma Oregon, South
Carolina. Tennessee. Texas. Utah, Viz
Sinia, Washington and Wisconsin.
Why should the representatives of these
thirty-seNen states vote to compel II
| Washington an assessment valuation not
exacted in any of their home cities" Why
should any southern congressman fix Al
| assessment basis at the capital which Is
not applied to any of his constituents?
Why should any representative from
Kentucky or Iowa or Missouri force upor
the car ital burden increasing assessment