Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1918-05-07
FALSE STANDARD
Of MEASUREMENT
The. Johnson FIuctuating
Yardstick, Which, Measur-
ing Falsely, Indfcts the
,Washingtonian as Only
HaIf-Taxed.
OUR TAX NOW TOO GREAT
Editorial Correspondence Of The Star.)
THEODORE w. MOVES.


In the recent House discussion Of
| the repeal of the half-and-half law Of
1873, Representative Ben Johnson said:
t"The claim is made, particularly by
the editor of The Star. who seems to be
| the spokesman for the District OF
| Columbia, not that the District of
Columbia pays a greater rate of tax
| than any other city of comparable size,
| but that the people here pay a greater
per capita tax than is paid in other
cities. There are a number of rich men
here, and there are a number OF poor
people as well. The poor people own
| nothing or but little. and the rich own
| great deal, and in that way the per
capita tax is great. When it comes
down to the property tax, I maintain
| that it is less In this city than in any
other city of comparable size in the
world. Three years ago I made a
speech on the subject, and at that time
I had before me forty cities. twenty.
little larger in population than the
District of Columbia. and twenty just a
little smaller than the population OF the
District of Columbia. The property tax
in the District of Columbia was less
than in any of them"
Indictment Of UndertaxatioD.
The first vital issue in respect to
which Representative Johnson and the
capital community differ is as to WASH
ington's comparative tax burden.
He says that Washington is the light
est taxed of American cities, and that
its property tax is less than that of
any other city of comparable size IN
the world. We say that Washington
lc ~ fIn hoe oyyin Of q IN
Of comparable American Cities and
! that its peculiar conditions and dis
| abilities render its tax burden harder
to bear than that of any other COM
parable American city.
Both Mr.. Johnson and Washington
use census figures to justify their con-
clusions, but not the same census fig
ures. The census authorities discrfMf-
nate between the two sets OF figures.
and approve tho&e which We use and
discredit those used by Mr.. johnson as
unverided gueaSw0rk.
Different standards Of measurement
of comparative tax burdens are en-
ployed to reach these contradictory
conclusions.
We compare the total tax burdens in
dollars and cents actually paid in taxes,
the aggregate tax levies or tax re-
ce:pts, in respect to cities mos. closely
approsimating Washington IN popula-
tion and environment, and we compare
the per capita contributions OF the re-
spective cities to the total tax lcvies
and tax receipts in respect to all COM
parable cities whether much larger or
| smaller than Washington.
Mr.. Johnson takes as his standard of
measurement comparative tax rates.
| modified by the application to them of
the reported relation of. assessed to true
valuation. Thus Washington's tax rate
| Is $1.50 on reported two-thirds as
sessment. which makes Washington's
| nominal rate on true value $1.0O Bal
timore's tax rate in 1913 was 1.791 and
Its reported assessment was full value,
or 100 per cent, with the result that its
| tax rate to compare with Washineton's
| was 1.791 under this misleading stand
ard of measurement: and SO with the
other cities that are compared with
Washington.
False and True Standards.
The factor in this standard of meas
urement which falsfhen 1T and renders
IT worthless is in the reported relation
ports are not made by census omcials
or verified by them. They are the
| gucsswOrk Estimates of irresponsible
municipal ohcials, who do not tell the
truth about them and who do not Dre.
tend to tell the truth about them.
Reported full or 100 per cent assess
| ment valuations are found to vary in
different cities from 25 per cent to IS
per cent Of full value. The standard
| of measurement applied to these cities
which involves this f1uctuating factor
| varies correspondingly. and becomes
absolutely worthless on this account
to give accurate results in comparing
| cities. 1t lacks the vital essential Of
uniformity.
| Mr.. Johnson's yardstfck of measure
ment contracts and expands while in
use. The facts and figures brought be-
| fore the joint congressional committee
| show that this kind of yardstick is
| over thirty-six inches in length in
measuring Washington's tax burden. is
approximately thirty-six inches in
length in measuring the tax burdens
of very few other: cities, and in the
| mass of American cities varies from
| twelve inches to thirty inches in length
What accuracy can be expected from
| the use of a standard of measurement
| which, instead of being uniform.
shrinks from one-half to one-quarter
of it's nominal length in its application
| to some cities and is not to certainty
| OF precisely the same length in any two
| cities? The preposterous results Sc
cured by the application of this sfand-
ard of measurement to comparative
city tax burdens are inevitable, and re-
duce to an absurdity the claims Of this
standard of measurement to any relia-
| bility whatsoever.
| The figures Of comparative tax burden
resultinE from use OF this standard Of
ing and worthless. NOT only by the cen
sus authorities in discussing the basia
ON which these figures rest and by the
admissions of tax omciais in states and
cities. hut by the gr0tesque results
which follow acceptance of the accu-
racy OF the reports of the relation Of
assessed to true value and the attempt
to uxe this false reported relation N. n
| factor in measuring comparative tax
burdens
1
Washington's Heavy Comparative
| Tax Burden.