Evening star., 1915-03-29
Done Accurately Only by Com
pairing Dollars Actually
Paid in Tax Levies.
CENSUS DISCREDITS
PROUTYS METHOD
Reported Relation of Assessed to
True Value Worthless as Factor
in Measuring Comparative
Tax Burdens.
star broadside, Feb. Is, 1919

[Alf Impartial COMMISSION, IL
one is created, can do the capital
and the nation good service by
deciding the fairest and most ac-
curatc method of measuring the
comparative tax-burdens Of cities.
Washington urges that the dol
lars of taN-money actually paid,
shown in total census tax-levies
and especially in the per capita
tax-levy, furnish the only fair and
approximately accurate basis of
measurement and comparison.
Representative Prouty and the
anti-District faction following his
lead contend that comparative
tax-burdens are accurately meas
ured by accepting as true the
census-reported relations of as
sessed to actual value in the diff
ferent cities and by applying this
ratio to the tax-rate.
By the first method of compari-
son Washington's tax-burden is
heavier than that of the vast ma
jority of American cities. and
measures up fairly with that inn
posed upon cities approximating
the capital in population. Owing
to the capitals peculiar disabili-
ties this burden is heavier than in
any other American city.
By the second method WASH
ington's tax-burden is figured out
as among the lightest of all
American cities, and by the in
lection of some statistical factors
outside the census which Wash
ington considers irrelevant. Mr..
Prouty proclaims that the capi-
tails tax-burden is only a little
more than one-half that of the
average American city.
Congress directly, or indirectly
by commission or joint commit
tee, is petitioned to analyze these
two methods of comparison and
to decide which is fair and ap-
proximately accurate. and which:
is unsound and misleading.
Washington protests to Con-
gress that it is grossly unjust to
the capital to accept the Prouty
method of comparison and to re-
ject the per capita tax-levy meth
Cd without the thoughtful consid-
Grafton which this vital issue de-
serves.
Our method of comparison
measures the tax-burden by the
dollars of taN-monev actually paid
and divides the burden per capita
among those who have paid it
The Prouty method assumes
that unsworn statements from
American cities concerning the
relation of assessed TO actual
value are true. and that if the law
provides for full valuation the
property is assessed for taxation
at 1907 of its actual market
value But this assumption is
false. and everybody knows that
it is false. The census bulletins
expose its falsity: municipal Off
cials almost everywhere con-
fess it.
The slightest unbiased exami-
nation will convince any fair
minded investigator that the
Prouty method Of comparison. on
account OF the presence of this
factor of unreliability and mac
curacv. must be discredited as abb
so1utelv worthless.
The figures on which both
methods of comparison are based
are taken from the census buIle-
tins concerning American cities.
Let Congress consideS the testi-
monv on this issue piven bv the
census authorities Both sets of
figures are from the census: let
the census decide which of its
figures lead to truth and which to
error
Testimony Of Census Authorities.
Census bulletin No. SIS (1sSo) says:
I'm comparing the rates of taxation
between the several places II should
be borne in mind that the relation OF
the assessed valuation to the true val
uation varies greatly and what is ap-
parently a high rate of taxation may
be owing not to an excessive levy, but
to the low value placed upon the prep
erty assessed, requiring the rate to be
high in order to yield
the desired revenue. II would seea
therefore that the taxation per capits
represents more nearly the relative
burdens Imposed by the tax levy
In addition to the actual ngures of
tax rate, assessment and tax levy, the
census in recent years has collected
Ihe opinions. estimates, guesses OF
municipal officials as to the true value
of property. and has then figured out
yha. the tax rate would be on the full
value of property, If these estimates.
opinions or guesses were correct. But
he census authorities knew that these
reports of the relation of assessed to
true value were almost universally In
and misleading. and that only