Evening star., 1915-03-29

The above comparisons OF the tax
figures of Washington and Cie"e!a!.o
for 1910 and ,19l2 are interesting pc
cause Cleveland had in the interval pc
tween the two censuses cnanseo ..s
basis of assessment from 60 per ceill
to 100 per cent. and had thus radically
altered it's 1916 figures and destrosed
comparisons based upon tEeSe Hso &c.
1t will be noted. however. that. While
Cleveland raised it's basis OF ASSES; asSsss
uent and enlarged by many miilions
its figures of assessment. 1t reduced d.
the same time its tax rate. so thas It's
actual tax burden. rep scented oS .ne
per capita tax levy. increased se.y
slightly. Thus. while CieveiaMm .nn, zo5 90
in 1910 to S51S,552.210 in 1917, IT'S TAX
rate was radically reduced. ana as !,
result its per capita tax levy. It's actua. ~
tax burden. increased only from Sio.so
in 1910 to sl6.1s in 1912. Washington
per capita tax levy increased from
sl1.os in 1910 to s15.15 in 1912. a Tar
greater enlargement OF it's actual saN
burden than in the case OF cleveland.
The Johnssn-Prouty proposition Is to
adopt the George proposal OF u CieSe-
land Increase in realty nssessnent
without making n Cleveland decrea"e
in tax rate. and to inapose i'm addition
with the result of much more than
cOubiing the per capita tnA levy.
These comparisons omit from Wash
inRton's tax assessment and ta,. levy
and calculation of per capita ta. levy
Washinston's largest property owner
largest factories and Industrial plants
indeed, the only large factories and
industrial plants in the District II
Uncle Sam owned only one-llalf as
much property as individual taxpayers
the addition OF this amount to Wash
ington's assessment and tax levy would
make the per capita tax levy larger
than that of any other city in the
above sub-lists.
II Washifagton's tax levy were III
creased one-half. as by raising the
standard Of assessment from &c % TO
100. the per capita tax levy would be
larger than that Of any other city III
the above sub-llsts. If the govern
the per capita would be 31.50--greater
than that of any other city in the
nited States.
1t may be of interest to figure What
capita tax levy is proposed by the
various taX-boostine proposals that
have been made in the campaign
against Washington. First. there is the
actual I912) per capita levy OF sla..a;
Then if the realty assessment is raised
from Ct 2-3 per cent to 100 per cent
without reduction OF the tax rate there
results a per capita levy OF SEP. Ine
Browne-Georse Isl2) per capita (oi.
which the George bill is based1 is
s3s.S6. The per capita imposed by Rep
resentative Crisp's figures Con which
the Johnson-Prouty proposal Is hasedl
is sss61. Mr.. II. J. Browne ngures
1s1E II single tax levy OF sl1.ouo,"ro ,.omn""
ite tax levy of the same amount. The
per capita levy under their proposals
is $42.45. Representative Proutys per
capita capt LEY. lev pronSsess ssses IN 'ne FeesA@
The following table shows the detail
Of these figures:
WASHINGTON. Ia1:-ACTE.AL AND SpEcULA-
TIVE PEE CAPITA LEv1Es.
Total Per cap.
Aetna, ,o,. rsR; sssss5ss f. syS ia: sis35 sss
At 1s,s f"'l ~ 'A'u...oa. ..s.s.4o. =2.a7
f;ss ;s,s la,s 1ssssss 1ssssst sssi g,
promty. 1914 . ' l3.797.20l 39O5
Browne isfng'e tax.
Eor!aud, 1914 80. l5.O0O,ooo 42.4o
Compare these speculative proposed
tax leyies with those actually imposed
throughout the United States. Applied
to resourceless Washington they are
clearly banlrupting and confiscatory.
Questioning the fairness of these
comparisons of per capita tax levy OBJ
lection is raised that the census figures
do not take into account county and
state as we'll as city taxes, and that
Washington, which has no county. or
state taxes, bencfts by this omission.
"a, The .censu. yer capita tax levy
does take county taxes into the cai-
cuIatiOn In the eighteen largest elites
Of the United States. where the county
wAere the city II 10 -aeaFSy the whole
COUNTY M TO make coUnt, tases In
spbstance city tn1es. nnd 10 make the
-