Evening star., 1926-03-22
Are Not Our Property Tax
Twenty Millions and Per
Capita S43.21 High
Enough?
MUST WE INCREASE
OUR S1.70 TAX RATE?
Editorial Correspondence of The star
B\ THEODORE W. MOVES.
ARTICLE l.

sentative citizen organizations ana
all thinking WashinGtonians nave
for The last half year been thoroughly
and intellgently considering the suo'
iect of wise and liberal expenditures
I'm 1927 for capital maintenance ana
development.
The House OF Representatives mas
inst acted upon the budget recoinmen-
,jations of commissioners and Budget
E,Ireau: the Senate will soon consider
thouchtfulv the District bili ana
record its decisions; and, lastly, Con-
cress. composed of both House anu
Senate. will in conference, as our court
OF appeals. render final decision
How much should the District spend
in 1927, and how should this amount De
spportioEed among the varied ufgeh%
municinal needs? How much OF TINS
total should the Nation, including the
District, pay toward Capital upouiio'
ing? How much in this connection
should the Nation equitably exact
from District taxpayers in municipal
taxes"
All loyal Washing gjonians wish
maximum OF development OF the
Greater Washington as the City Beau
tiful, the City Healthful, the City Wise
and the City Good and also maxi
mum of far play in the taxation OF
them for National Capital purposes by
taxing body in which they are not
represented.
All of Washington desires that the
millions necessary TO meet the accumu'
lation of neglected wartime munict
pal needs. to maintain adequately the
fine progressive Capital of today. ana
to develop worthily the Greater WASH
ington Of the future shall be appfo-
priated and spent. All Washington
also desires with equal fervor that
equity shall dominate the division OF
the cost of this great projected develop
ment between the Nation and the Ma
tional Capital local community ana
between the taxpayers of today ana
those of the future, in such fashion as
TO cause the latter to bear their fair
share of the cost Of great permanent
improvements of which they among
Washingtonians will be the main
heneficiaries In short. how much oil
the cost of great projected improve
ments should we all as national tax
payers pay: how much from our con-
tribution as municipal taxpayers Of
today i'm current taxes, and now
much from the proceeds of the sale OF
bonds, SO that taxpayers oil the future
may equitably participate?
The purpose of these articles Is 10
bring TO the attention OF Nasnlhgto-
mans, official and unofficial, a 1ew
facts and figures. partly from CITY
census bulletins OF 1928 ttne iateotl
and partly from 1926 tax rate ngufes
printed in the National Municipal Re-
view, with comment thereon, which
NAV be helpful in reaching sound ana
lust conclusions in financing the Capl-
tai for 1927.
We have as the basis of comparisons
Assessor Richards and Auditor Dono-
vans figures of District finances Tor
1926. What is the suggestion or the
census figures of 1928 for these other
cities concerning the adequacy OF Dis
trict taxation in 1926 in comparison
with that>of these other cities in 1879:
What do the tax-rate figures of 1879,
as printed in the Municipal Review
suggest?
Ought the WashingtOnian in equity
and i'm comparison with the payments
made by taxpayers i'm other cities pay
more or less than was eXacted from
him i'm 1926?
Ought his tax burden i'm equity be
increased or decreased for 1927?
Tax Rate No Measure of Tax Burden.
on the theory that the tax rate is
measure of the tax burden, and In the
light Of the information that the tax
Yates of other cities are almost all
higher than that of the Washingto-
nian, we District taxpayers are In
danger Of falling into a fatal deluslon
on this issue and of viewing with in
difference our tax rate increases from
l.2O to lao and to 40, with the
and the future.
One often sees Or hears illusions to
Washington's low tax rate, generally
I'm some connection like the present,
which suggests the thought that low
tax rate and light tax burden are
synonymous.
But no tax conclusion is more firmly
established than that the tax rate
alone is no measure OF comparative
tax burdens; that it has to be joined
i'm consideration with the actual mot
the repOrted) assessment valuation be.
fore it apprOximateS a reliable stand.
ard of measurement, and that the re.
ports from the various cities OF the
relation of assessed to true value are
I'm most cases SO variant from the
facts AS to render the proposed stand
ard of measurement absolutely mis-
leading.
Two Standards of Measurement.
There are two methods of compar-
ing the relative taxburdenS of cities:
IN By comparison of taX-rates; and t2)
by comparison of total taX-levies OF cit
les of approximately the same size.
and of per capita taX-levieS in COM
parison between large and small cities.
The nominal taX-rate alone is recog-
nized by all thinking persons as OF no
value whatsoever in these compari-
sons. In most cases it represents the
percentage figure which, when applied
to the assessed valuation of taxable
property, will produce the revenue de-
cided in advance to be the amount to
he expended by the municipality in
the fiscal year. If the city's taxable
property is assessed at high per-
centage of it's true value. the tax-rate
will be low. II the assessment is at a
small percentage of the property's s
true value, the taX-rate must be high
to produce the same amount of tax
revenue.
Low Tax Rate, High Assessment.
1t results that the States and their
cities are divided into two classes:
{1) Those which raise their revenue by
the application of a low tax.rate to q
high assessment valuation of property,
1dNse Ohio. North Carolina, the District