Evening star., 1922-05-16

Change of standard Of assessment
from two thirds to full valuation Is
peculiarly hurtful to the District,
whether the tax-rate is or is not re-
duced in proportion.
II it is not thus reduced. the present
heavy realty tax burden is unbear-
ably increased. If 1t Is thus reduced.
the present moderate rate.< which, ap-
piled to Washington's high assess
ment valuations, produces the capi-
tars reasonable and fair tax levy.
will be so cut down as to excite the
hostile comment of those critics who
are misled into the belief that the
tax-rate alone Is reliable standard
of measurement Of comparative tax
burdens.
How often do we hear some citizen
of a state exclaim: What! You only
pay from one and a half to two dol
lars in tax-rate? Why, In my city we
are twice as heavily tax-burdened
Our rate Is three or four dollars"
How much stronger would this ex.
the assessment, our tax-rate ranged
between one and one and third
dollars!
Yet the Districts tax-burden would
be the same whether the rate were
81 on 100 per cent assessment, or
$1.50 on 66A per cent assessment.
And owing to the wide variations
Of actual assessment in different
American cities under nominal full
valuations-ranginS from 70 to 90 per
cent-the tax-rate alone In as yard
stick to measure comparative tax
| burdens meaningless or mfsleadfng.
The only reliable standards of COM
pairing tax burdens are the tax levies
or the total tax receipts, the dollars
| actually raised by taxation. and In ad-
| dition, for convenience of compart-
| son. the per capitas based upon and
| derived from these figures Of actual
taxes paid. In calculating the actual
| tax burdens the rate standing alone
Is of no value; the assessments stand
| ing alone are of no value, and the ap-
! plication to the tax rate, either Of the
| legal basis of assessment, the nominal
! legal basis Of assessment, or the un-
reliable reports Of the relation OF as
sessed to true value as a measure OF
comparative burdens, gives results
| that are confessedly erroneous. a
yardstick which is made up in part OF
i reliance upon guesses at the relation
, of the assessed to the true value fiuc-
| tuates in length In the different
states. 1t Is not the same In any two
| states of the Union. 1t is about seven
| six inches long In Ohio. 1t Is unre-
| liable, worthless and misleading as a
| common standard of measurement. In
most Of the states the rate is mercy
| a percentage figure that must be ap-
piled to the assessment valuation 10
l nf TO
that the self-taxing community DE-
| cides that 1t will spend upon itself IN
| that particular year. II 1t has valued
| its property for tax purposes on hten
| standards of assessment. then the
percentage rate to produce the desired
| it's property on a low standard its rate
to produce the same amount must De
high. For example, in the Ohio cities
Gas in Washington. the rate Is low
and the assessment is high. In Iowa
| the rate is very high and the assess
ment Is very low. 1t results that, COW
ering states as a whole. we find the
| widest diversity that is conceivable OF
| tax rate and this diversity is aoso-
lutely immaterial. for no one dreams
| Of taking the tax-rate alone as the
standard Of comparison. Now. wheth.
er the application to this tax-rate Of
| the nominal legal basis OF assessment
or the reported relation of assessed to
true value will bring about a. stand
ard that is reliable. depends in the
first place upon the closeness WIN
! which the assessor adheres to the legal
ratio, the closeness with which he ad-
heres to the actual full valuation OF
the property. and in the second place.
upon the accuracy with which the city
officials guess at the actual relation
confessions. official and unofficial, OF
assessing bodies, census reports ana
comments, experience and knowledge
of human nature all combine in the
demonstration that as q rule, with
very few exceptions. no reliance
! whatever is to be placed in claims OF
full valuation for taxation purposes,
either in accordance with the lawful
rates or that reported In actual prac-
| tice.
Naturally, the most dependence
would be placed upon the truthful
ness or accuracy of those who claim
| to obey the law and follow the legal
| ratio. One is presumed to be law
| abiding. But thirty-four out Of
| sixty-eight cities. excluding Wash
| ineton, over 100000 in population
| in 1910, admit that they have de-
". from the legal ratio. With them
s1o0 of legal full valuation means
anywhere from $50 to $40 in differ
ent states. Going step further
can we rely upon the accuracy OF the
euesses concerning the extent OF de-
parture from the legal ratio made by
| those who have admitted some de-
gree of departure: or the accuracy @
of the officials of the thirty -four
| cities which claim full valuation and
adherence to the legal rate? Anso-
lutely we cannot. The census au-
thorities themselves slur the accu-
The case of some cities in Mime.
| sofa, Wisconsin and the state OF
| washington, in respect to which the
! 6rnres given were obtained from the
| state tax commission, and represent
| approximately the proportion tnas ia
safl;nr value, the figures given hav-
ing Been determined by a critical
| Investigation involving e comparison
hatween the assessed Valuation OF
| the property sold and the cons1dera- ere
| tion received at such sales Inc
| nstrict assessor adopted in 1915 this
nrrnved method Of aseertaining the
aa;etion Of assessed valuation to true
value and as q result Of infinite and
| eSact;nr labor, presented in maps
end tables comparisons OF selling
| nrices, with assessments IN IN transac-
| tions numbering over over s,vso, S assins ass
| eating over $34. 4.0o9,ooo ana 81 o1serrs e,,ars,
kinq Ths q saies iHathi that compared with as.
| ,.s.rents were so numerous, SO
widespread and SO varied IN cnar-
! ectar that they checked one another
and became typical me resuM ~ oi
ehio SSsiat,on of assessed to the