Evening star., 1930-12-17
Deductions Are Made
for Debt and
State Levies.
DISTRICT RECEIVES
BENEFIT OF NEITHER
R esulting Comparisons
Place City Above
Those of Same Size.

statistical tables accompanying its 1890
report, which compare the tax, revenue
and expenditures of II cities between
100000 and 100000 population with
those of Washington, again Sustains the
contention of those who have held that
the Districts tax burden is relatively
high, and not, as has been charged by
critics in the House, abnormally low.
The Bureau of Efficiency report itself
reaches this conclusion. When per
capita State taxes and per capita in
terest and debt payments are deducted
from per capita figures relating to the
total tax levy and the total general
property tax levy of the cities STUDIED
the conclusion is even more convincing.
The Bureau of Efficiency tables COM
pare the fourteen cities with two Wash
ingtons. The first Washington IS a
Washington in which none of the Fed
eral property holdings are included.
The second Washington is Washing
ton in which the items Of assessed valu-
alton include the property holdings OF
the Federal Government other than
park property and property used for the
S@~~
Includes U. S. Property.
In his appearance before the special
House committee conducting the fiscal
relations inquiry, Thomas F. Murphy,
assistant chief of the Bureau of Eft1-
cheney, insisted that the Federal hold
ings should be included in per capita
comparisons with other cities, as the
Federal Government in this case repre-
sents some of the rich ,taX-paying cor
porations of other cities, whose holdings
naturally tend to raise their per capitas.
The Bureau of Efficiency, however, has
been careful to include both Washing
tons, and this system is carried out in
the table which accompanies this article.
In the fourteen cities which the bu-
ureau compares with Washington not
one has as low a tax rate as Washing
ton and not one has as high an assessed
valuation per capita, either for real
property or for personal property, as
either of the Washingtons.
In total assessed valuation of real
property Washington (a) ($1, 1,11S,093,-
1922 exceeds the corresponding valua-
ton of such larger and richer cities as
st. Louis 1,O46 ,957. .570), Baltimore
C$1, ,1O9 ,O45 1861, Pittsburgh ($1,1o8,-
842, ,440), Buffalo ($l,031, ,770,390) and
%
the combined valuations Of Minneapolis
(s266 ,O66 ,O76). New Orleans ($358, 49,
1850 and Indianapolis ($436, ,766, ,170).
Non-POliticaI Assessing.
The high standard of assessment in
Washington under tax assessor who Is
not politically elected or appointed and
the acknowledged practice elswhere Of
underassessment on political grounds or
through personal favoritism are factors
that go into the painting Of such an
amazing picture as that offered by
assessed property comparisons between
Washington and the great industrial
cities of the Nation; picture in which
the relatively non-industrial and nom
commercial Capital is shown to possess
property of higher value than that of
such cities as st. Louis and Pittsburgh,
and to exceed in value the whole of
New Orleans and Minneapolis, or New
Orleans and Indianapolis combined.
1t is generally admitted that If the
taXables in other cities were listed for
taxation with the same fullness and If
the same rigid standards of assessment
were applied in other cities that are
applied in Washington, the tax rates of
these other cities would be lower and
more comparable to Washington rate
here, the Bureau of Efficiency quotes
the Census Bureau as listing the
reported bases of assessment In
practice in terms of per cent of esti-
mated true value as follows: Washing
ton, 100 per cent; Baltimore, 90 per
cent, and Minneapolis, 40 per cent The
Detroit Bureau of Municipal Research.
the reports of which are printed an
nually and have at various times been
published in the Congressional Record,
Is quoted by the Bureau of Efficiency
as giving Washington's rate as 80 per
cent, in comparison with Baltimore's 80
per cent and Minneapolis "a per cent. The
District assessor, in his appearance be-
fore the committee and heretofore has
been able to produce statistics relating
TO sales, ETC., that bear out the contention
that assessment figures here are based
on true value. While there may be Diff
ferences of opinion over the percentage
of actual value, however, there Is no
difference of opinion as to Washington's
relatively high assessment The bureau
tables are mere corroborative evidence
in this respect.
Assessments Are High.
1t is nothing new to Washington,
therefore, that whenever the compare
tive assessments and tax burdens are
thoroughly and scientifically tested,
whether by the census authorities (as
in 1929 or by congressional committees,
as in 1915 and in later years, or by the
Bureau OF Efficiency, as in 1929 and
1880, the District assessment is near
the top or at the top of the list in prox-
unity to true valuation, and its tax
burden is found to be either adequate
or excessive.
The Bureau of Eficiencys table 2
compares 1928 assessed valuations, total
and per capita tax rates, tax levies.
total and per capita, for real and per-
sonal property and eliminates in the
column showing Total tax levy per
capita, real and personal. general prop
erty tax, 1925" which appears as coll
umn l of the table printed in connec-
tion with this article This column
shows that in per capita total general
property tax levy Washington al
Washington without the inclusion of the
Federal holdings-exceeds three cities