Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-10-26

\
dervalued for assessment purposes as
compared with Washington. This fact,
lis indicated by the census bulletins
and comments a,, exposing the false pre-
by local admissions and independent
nvestigation. and by the reports OF
state tax commissions: by the figures
of true value. based on typical sales IN !,
Twenty American cities. compared with
Washington, secured by the citizens
subcommittee on taxation. and finally
by careful comparison Of the census
figures of valuation.
Assessments in Other Cities.
Further. he said:
rs it not clear that the assessors OF
other cities have applied a widely diff
| fering standard of measurement from
that utilized by the Washington as
SCISSOR. and that these assessors have in
| comparison with the Washington fig
4 ures greatly undervalued the realty
| of their cities when they report that
all of Detroit is worth sixty-one mil
| lions less than the taxed fraction OF
Washington, that all of Buffalo is worth
seventy millions less. all of Milwaukee
min ty-nine millions less. all of Balti-
more 1876 millions less. all of Cincinnati
1873 millions less. all of Minneapolis.
ISL millions less. all of Newark. 2o7
millions less and that all of New Or
leans is worth far less than one-half
Of the value of the taxed fraction Of
Washington"
For the mea surement of comparative
taX-burdens Mr.. Moves contended that
the only approximately accurate standard
Is the per capita of taxes actually pa d
in the various cities. On this point he
said:
The method of mea surfing the COM
parative tax-burdens of cities which &C
cepts as accurate the census-reported
relations of assessed to true value, and
on this assumption declares that the
Washtngton!an's tax-burden is much
lighter than that OF the residents of the
average American city. is based on
false premise and leads to false con-
clusion. 1t is discredited as unrelia Bile
by the census authorities and by com
values. as ascertaned from sale prices
in many cities, and is reduced to a
logical abSurdity when the attempt is
made to apply it practically
Measuring Tax Burdens.
''In calculating the actual tax-burden
the assessment alone is Of no value, the
tax rate alone is of no value. and the
application to the tax-rate of the unre-
liza BILE reported relations of assessed to
true value to measure comparative tax
burdens gives results that are confess
eddy erroneous.
Inc only reilapie STANDARDS OF meas
urlng the taX-burdens of the various
cities are the tax-levies, the dollars ac-
tually raised by taxation, and the per
capita tax-levy which distributes the
total tax-burden among the persons
constituting the taxed community.
"The demonstration of the figures is
not that Washington's assessment Is
more than two-thfrds OF the true value
of its realty. but that the assessments
of most other American cities are less
n
the nominal full valuation prevails, and
that the reports from the cities of the
relation of assessed to true value are
SO Inaccurate and tainted with error
that Enthusiastically misleading results
follow any attempt to apply these false
reports to modify the actual tax-rate
as a measure Of comparative tax
burdens.
'.The tables of figures relied on in the
House debate to demonstrate the COM
paratfve lightness of the Washing
tonian's tax-burden are rendered value
less by the use of and reliance upon
this dfscredited and misleading factor
in their calculations"
Tax Burden Now Heavy.
Applying the standard of per capita
tax levy and tax receipts measurement
to the various groups Of American cities
from the fourteen different viewpoints of
comparison set forth in the brief. includ-
ing those combining county and state
taxes in the calculation, Mr.. Noyes ex-
planned and elaborated the tables and
comments of the brief. strengthening in
many ways the conclusion that while
Washington's equitable tax-burden should
be Tor the reasons stated among the low
est per capita of the large cities, 1t is in
fact, however measured, distinctly above
the average; that the few among COM
parable cities which exceed it in tax
burdens exceed 1t only slightly and that
many cities which ought to bear, and are
able to bear, far heavier burden fall
below 1t, even when the votes of COM
parison are employed which in effect i'm
ply the unfair taxation of the Washing
tonian for what he does not get 1t is
concluded, said Mr.. Noyes, that the Wash
ingtonian has not shirked, but has fully
met and Ia fully meeting. his obligation
to the capital as municipal taxpayer
In handling the other branch of the
comparison OF the relations Of nation
to capital in all parts of the world, Mr.
Noyes pointed out that in essence it
was measurement of the nations cap
itai obligation corresponding to that
which had been previously made of the
capital obligation of the local commu-
nifty. On the foundation of the reports
of Mr.. Barrett and DR. Bowerman, dis
closing what other nations do for their
capitals. Mr.. Noyes had prepared and
submitted a comprehensive and inter-
esting table in which were condensed
the facts in respect to the various cap
itals classified under the following
heads in the shape of queries:
Il. Does the capital pay national taxes
like other cities. and does the nation
spend literally national money on national
objects at the capital?
"2. Does the nat on encourage increase
Of local taxable resources?
49, Does the nation contribute directly
toward municipal expenses, either dis
this respect or contributing alike toward
all the cities Of the nation?
II. Are the people of the capital repre-
scented in the national government?
rs. Have the people of the capital any
voice in questions Of local taxation? Do
they control or participate in the munich
pal government?
IS. Is there any special equitable obi
cation upon the nation to maintain and
develop the capital based upon the cir
cumstances and condition of the citys
creation and early history. or upon
peculiar control exercised by nation over
capital?
Capitals Arc Classified.
For convenience Of comparison the
capitals Of the world in respect to which
tho committee has reports arc classified
In the following groups:
Il. Those of republics with capitals in
federal districts In varying degrees under
national control. Washington, Buenos
Aires. Rio Janeiro and Mexico.
2. Those Of republics without distinct
federal districts. Paris and Bern.