Evening star., 1916-08-11
D. c. TAX XRATELOW;;
ASSESSMENT HIGH
This Condition Has Been
Claimed or Conceded for
Twenty-Five Years.
NO EXCESSIVE TAX RATE
CLAIMED FOR CAPITAL
Washington Pleads Not Guilty to
Charge of Using Unreliable Tax
Rate Standard of Measur-
ing Tax Burdens.
No. II.
Editorial Correspondence Of The star
BY THEODORE w. MOVES.

BY THEODORE W. MOVES.
Representatives johnson accuses WASH
| ington Of having used in the past tne
| false standard of measuring compafa-
tive tax burdens which he employs now'
and of having claimed that it's results
| were favorable to Washington uhth
the falsity Of this claim was shown ana
then Of abandoning this standard OF
measuring comparative tax burdens and
resorting to another. The charge In not
Of primary or vital Importance. but
1t IL apparently unfounded.
The Washington papers and the
! Washington lobbies at first insisted
that the rate of taxation in the District
of Columbia was as much as tnat IN
any other city in the United States Oh
comparable size to Washington. Ihey
have been driven from that false POSI-
| ton by an exposure of the 1acts.
The newspapers and advocates
of the half -and-half plan in the
| District of Columbia formerly un-
| dertook to establish it as a fact
| that Washington paid higher tax
rate than most of them But, rail-
ling in that, they have abandoned that
| statement and now come and assert the.
proposition that the per capita tax IN
Wa Washington is greater than In tne
other cities Of the United States. so
says Representative Johnson. l have
| been unable to find any evidence 70 sus
| tain this charge OF claim Tor " ash-
excessively high AS far back as 1898
| 1 printed in pamphiet ana IN .ns
newspapers. as president Oh tne oos.o
of>Trade, an analysis of the census ne
hA cn
tax burdens of Washington and other
American cities, in which ] said: II ls
| further showp that Washinstoh ,oao
assessment was much hlene! III -
than that of most other municipalities
, approximating it in size and that con.
sequently it's apparent low rase 's.'o
ner hundred) gives a false idea con.
cerning its actual tax buroen. 49,
citizen OF Omaha was taxed more than
f73fee times as heavily as the reslGent
ofsWashington, and the citlzen oL III
cako more than four times as ne.s
h,sf owinr to the low assessment o!
these two cities, the Omahaite palo
less in actual cash into the treasury
than the washingtonian ana the Uni
ca goite only a trife more. a,
The same conclusions nave peen
reached in the analysis of successive
census bulletins since that OF 1891 for
| instance. my conclusions in respect 10
! the Washington taxpayer based on ehe
| His tax assessment is excessively
high His tax rate is comparatively
| low. His resultant per capita tax ievy
| imposes a reasonably heavy tax ourden.
heavier than in the great majority OF
American municipalities, and heavier
under the, surrounding conditions tnan
| in the other American municipalities
approximating Washington in size HIS
erty tax burden. Owing to the peculiar
conditions of the National Capital. fts
| lack of industries. property and money
| making resources, the tax burden of
| the Washington taxpayer Is especially
| hard to be borne.
The same note that was sounded in
| respect to the Washington of 1880 and
| of 1907 is duplicated in respect to the
| Washington of 1913 in the citizens
| brief argument and evidence before the
| congressional joint fiscal committee
! wherein it is declared: 'Washington's
realty tax burden is very heavy. It's tax
| rate In moderate. but its assessment is
/ excessively high. Washingtons
! personally tax burden is comparatively
! light Wasningtons property
| tax burden. combining its heavy realty
| tax and it's light personally tax, is
\ heavier than that of most American
cities and averages up with that of
| cities approximating it in size and gen.
| eral conditions. The burden
| imposed by Congress upon the local
! taxpayers is fully as heavy as that
4
! municipality imposes upon itself. and
! in view of the capitals lack of taxable
/ resources and other peculiar dis
abilities under which the District of
| Columbia labors. its tax is harder to
bear than that of the average Ameri-
| can community"
l cannot find that within the last
| twenty-five years at least Washington
| has been guilty % of the blunder of
| thinking that the tax rate alone is
! any measure of comparative tax
| burdens and (2) of the falsehood of
| asserting that its own tax rate is ex-
| cessively high compared with those of
, other cities Apparently it has during
| this whole period appreciated intel
| ligantly the real measure of COM
| parative tax burdens, and has con-
sstently conceded that while its as
! sessment was excessively high its tax
| rate was moderate.
| II .WashlngtOn has never assumed the
| stupidly fake position attributed to 1t.
| Of course 1t has never been driven from
| TINT position by detection and exposure.
| II Washington had become convinced
| that Its tax contentious were rooted In
| fnlsehOOd II would promptly abandon
| them, c0nfessing its unintentiOnal error.
In the Imagined contingency WASH
ington could do mo- less In constituency;
its congregational tax critics reciprocity
| In conscientious fair play. involving
prompt nnd complete abandonment Of
the false standard of messurfnx conn
| paratfve tax burdens which they have
| employed and cessation of the unjust
| and hurtful assaults upon the capital
| community. based upon false premises
and grossly erroneous conclusions.
|