Evening star., 1920-04-05
Minneapolis and Washington.

tiOns subcommittee. asserted that
Washington was paying in taxes "less
than one third of what most cities
of its size were paying" and he cited
as sample his own fine, progressive
city of Minneapolis, "where they pay
43 mills, where here they pay only 10
mills"
Analysis of the facts suggests that
this comparison lacks unintentionally
something of Mr.. Davis usual fairness
it assumes and, indeed, Mr.. Davis
states later that the assessment valua-
tions in the two cities are on the same
basis.
Our basis of assessments is 100 per
cent for personally and 81 per cent
for realty. Comparisons of sale prices
with assessments in the case of realty
demonstrate that in 1915 the actual
assessment was Il per cent of the real
value and in 1918 still little more
than the 81 per cent.
In respect to Minneapolis and other
Minnesota cities the state tax commits
sion has said:
"Ever since Minnesota became
state we have had a law among our
statutes requiring that 'all property
shall be assessed at its true and full
value in money Never since the first
assessor started on his thankless task
has property of any kind in Minnesota
been assessed at its true and full
value or, with few exceptions, has
any serious attempt ever been made
to so assess it. The uniform, univer-
sal custom has been to assess at from
% to so per cent of actual value; and
this custom has had the long-continued
approval of the people, the silent sup
port of the law-making and, in large
measure, the aequiescenee of the law
enforcing departments of the state gov
ernment"
The census bulletin, Statistics of
Cities, 1918, declares that the Mime
apolis officials have reported or ad-
mitted that in that year realty was
assessed at 40 per cent and personally
at 30 per cent of its value, instead
Of the 100 per cent which the law re-
quired. If these percentages of re-
duetion are applied to the Minneapolis
tax rate the rate for personally would
q be less than for Washington, and that
for realty small fraction more than
for Washington. The census give for
Minneapolis a reported rate Of 1886
for all taxes, city, county and state,
and 1854 for city taxes alone. Wash
ington for city taxes alone is Is for
personally and 10 for realty.
Minnesota is one of the three states
commended by the census authorities
as approximating accuracy in reports
of relation of assessed to true value.
But these reports confessedly vary so
widely over the whole country in their
relation to accuracy that these COM
parsons of tax rates to measure tax
burdens are exposed as absolutely
misleading and worthless.
If Minneapolis is taxed nearly three
times as much as Washington because
its tax rate is reported at 43 mills, as
against Is mills for Washington, then
Minneapolis, using the same standard
of measurement, is taxed much more
than twice as much as Boston 07.70)
and nearly three times as much as Gin
cinnati Q5.5O), Cleveland 15j5),
Providence Q5.06) and Richmond
(15.62); and about so per cent less
than Chicago (62.75), and about half
as much as Des Moines (s563) and less
than half as much as East st. Louis
(s960), Joliet (94.sO, Cedar Rapids
(91.ss), Council Bluffs 10000, Lincoln,
Neb. QO6.3s) and Omaha QO6.2S).
These tax rates are census figures of
1918 and cover state, county and city
taxes.
The preposterous results from the
use of this standard of comparison
demonstrate its unreliability and
worthlessness.
But there are several ways in which
We can get an approximate idea of the
comparative tax burdens of Minneapolis
and Washington.
Minneapolis is a progressive, wisely
liberal city, in its outlays for mu-
nicipal upbuilding. For example, it
spends about twice as much money as
Washington upon its public library.
The real tax burden of city is the
amount collected in taxes from the
taxpayers. In 1918 Washington's city
property tax alone was $S,525,679. The
combined city, county and state tax
levy of Minneapolis was $1O,7O1, ,911 in
the same year.
If Washington's 1918 tax levy had
been figured at the proposed 21a in
stead of 11a per cent rate, Washing.
tons city tax burden would have been
$l3,O5S,s10, or $2,356, ,s99 more than the
total city, county and state tax burden
of Minneapolis. If Washington's tax
burden were only one-third of wha,
it ought to be, as alleged, then that
total burden would have been more
than $25,00O.000, or two and one hall
times the city, county and state bur
den of Minneapolis.
In view of the exemption from tax
alton of 6s,OOO,OOO of national prop
erty, and in view of the disabilities un