Evening star., 1926-03-23

+ STAR, WASHINGTO
den would be approximately twice as
much as it was at home?
OF course, the discrepancy is not In
the weight of actual tax burdens, nut
in the failure of the high tax rate
cities to admit the full degree or their
underaSsesSment of taXableS. but the
degree of readjustment of tax rates
attained in our statistical table 10
cause them to approximate accuracy
as standards of measuring compare
tive tax burdens sutfices to enable US
to compare the actual tax burdens OF
the cities of low tax rates ana nlSn
assessments.
Washingt0n's Comparative Tax
Burden.
OF all the cities in the table OF cities
with low tax rates and high assess
ments, except Winston-Sa Salem, \. e.,
Washington has the smallest tax rate.
in the nominal total tax rate and IN
the tax rate after it has been adjusted
on the 100 per cent basis. But when
the reported relation of assessed 70
true value comes to be applied. only
cities have a larger tax rate than
Washington's IT; Cleveland, 1852; Gin
cinnati, 1903; Lakewood. Ohio, 2O.tO;
Lima, Ohio, 1858; Norfolk, Va. 2Ol0;
St. Louis. Mo-. 1853; Atlanta. Ga,
1905, apd twenty-one cities have
smaller tax rates. ranging from Little
Rock, Ark. 1892. to Akron, Ohio,
1850.
Comparing adjusted tax rates.
to- n
four Of the Ohio cities and higher than
eight.
Comparing adjusted tax rates,
Washington's rate is more than those
of six of the seven Virginia cities. and
is more than that of Providence, r. L.;
Atlanta, Ga. Birmingham, Ala: Little
Rock, Ark, and Wheeling and
Charleston, w. Va, and Winston
Salem, n. G..
Is not Washington's readjusted tax
rate u0 high enough when it IS
higher than the average Of all Ohio
cities, higher than all but one Of the
Virginia cities. higher than One-half OF
the Texas cities. higher than the West
Virginia and Georgia cities. higher
than Providence. Birmingham. Little
Rock and WinstOn-Salem. the largest
cities i'm Rhode Island, Alabama.
Arkansas and North Carolina, and
only trifie less than Cincinnati.
Cleveland, Atlanta and ST. Louis?
A Double Tax-Rate Readjustment.
In the Municipal Review table
Washington is credited with hun
dred per cent relation of assessed to
true value. Many other cities are
thus credited. This one hundred per
cent, or full valuation rating. is rela-
tive, not absolute. 1t implies that
Washington'S assessment approx
mates as closely to one hundred per
cent of true value as the lower per
centage relations reported in respect
to some other cities approximate the
true percentage relation. So that
relatively to other cities Washington
is accurately credited with fun assess
ment valuation.
But, in fact. there is no such thing
anywhere as an assessment that Is
100 per cent of true value. SO in eX'
cess of precaution TO avoid the slight
est suspicion of unfairness' to any
other city let us for the moment he
unfair to Washington by applying for
the purposes of this comparison a
double readjustment TO its taX-rate
figures.
In 1924 the Census Bureau made its
decennial report of wealth, debt and
taxation in the United States in 49,
In it's Investigations, upon which this
report is based. the Census Bureau
studied thoroughly the percentage of
true value represented by assessments
in the States, including the District OF
Columbia. In this comparison the Dis
trict is placed at the head Of the list
with a relation of assessed to true
value (of reality of 90.S.
If we apply this official rate TO
Washington II tax rate, a douoly
readjusted tax rate of 15.44 results.
Let us compare this tax rate. specially
reduced. with the readjusted tax rates
of the other low tax.rate cities. as
Stunning as a certainty in these calcu-
iations that while the true percentage
relation of assessed to fun value may
be less than that reported in respect to
any city, it will never be more. With
Washington at the 15.if rate, seven.
teen of the twenty eight low tax-rate
and dhigE-aSseSsment cities have higher
tax rates and eleven lower. Four of
the higher rate cities are less than 16
and are only a few cents higher than
Washington.
To show how closely these low tax
rate cities are grouped, analysis of the
figures shows that the tax rates in five
cities are less than IA, four are be-
tween IA and IS, seven are between
Is and 16 Gncluding, at 1914, Wash
ington's doubly readjusted rate). six
between 16 and II Including, at II,
Washington's Municipal Review rat
ing), two between II and IS and five
above IS.
Tax rates are not high in proper
ton to population. The small cities
furnish the highest as well as the
lowest tax rates. The city of highest
rate in our table IS Lakewood, Ohio
Q4Sth among the 215 cities comparedl,
20.60.
The smallest tax rate, 1882. is that
of Little Rock, Ark. Q04th city,, which
is larger than Lakewood.
Thus even with its specially re.
duced tax rate Washington stands
fairly well among the low tax.rate
cities. and when the State percentage
of tax rate or the percentage applied
to payment of interest has been de.
Quoted las they both should bel The
excess i'm rates Of most of the low tax
rate cities over Washington disap.
pears,