Evening star., 1931-12-17
The Experts Disagree.

The Mapes Committees findings that
the District tax burden is grossly in
adequate and could equitably be in
creased by total Of $13,9l5,o as
estimated by Mr.. Frear. but need now
be increased by only $4,000, 900, form
the premise upon which the committee
bases its conclusion that the lump sum
should be reduced to $6,500,000.
But cool reasoning cannot either ac-
cept the fact, as reported by the COM
mittee, that the District is undertaxed,
or so cavalierly dispose Of the question
Of what constitutes the equitable Fed
eral contribution to the District Of Co.
lumba.
The point here to be emphasized is
that so marked is the difference of
opinion between reputable and con-
scientious tax experts who have under
taken to solve this problem of what
constitutes a fair tax burden that the
committees brusque dimissal of one set
Of findings and its enthusiastic adoption
OF another becomes, in itself, an attack
upon the committees major premise
that in turn riddles the conclusion.
Is the District undertaxed?
On the one hand is he inveStiga-
ton in two successive yea by the Bu-
reau of Efficiency of thu elative tax
burdens Of cities. The BIZ. Eau of Eff
cheney is an independent establishment,
set up for the purpose obtaining the
facts upon which to base policy.
On the other hane Is Mr. Lord, hired
by the committee to make another in
vestigation after the committee had
repudated the report by the Bureau of
Efficiency. Without discussing the COM
mittee's motives in hiring Mr.. Lord, the
fact remains that Mr.. Lord was en-
gagged as the committees servant, and
as its servant he delivered his report
What are the chief differences be-
tween the findings by the Bureau of
Efficiency and those by Mr. Lord?
The Bureau of Efficiency computed
relative tax burdens on a per capita
basis. The committee stamped this
method as no good at all and practi-
eally eliminated it, although it did
make such comparisons. The Bureau
Of Efficiency computed the relative tax
burdens by the inclusion of all taxes
levied. The committee frowned on this
method, and, while giving such a con-
lofH
son confined to realty taxes. The Bu-
reau OF Efficiency, recognizing the OBJ
vious fact that the Federal Government
has vast property holdings in Washing
ton which are, Of course, exempt from
taxation, placed a theoretical assess
ment on such property and computed
therefrom what it would yield in taxes
II 1t were not exempt This was merely
to establish comparable tax data for
Washington that would permit Of fair
comparison with other cities, where
there is no such unprecedented amount
OF tax-free property. To ignore utterly
the presence of the Federal Govern
ment, except for the purposes adopted
by the Mapes committee of engaging in
nebulous theorizing relating to the in
crease in land values due to the pres
ence of the Federal Government in
Washington and the success of private
business in Washington due to the pres
ence of the Federal Government, is not
only "manifestly unfair" as stated by
the Bureau of Efficiency, but reduces
to an absurdity.
The Mapes committee, through Mr.
Lord, compared with other tax bur
dens the tax burden of a non-existent
community Washington without the
Federal GovernmenD, while the Bureau
Of Efficiency did both-it compared with
this non-existent community and the
tax burden of the community as it
actually exists, allowing for the Federal
Governments presence here. AS for the
latter, it found that this comparison
bears out the conclusion, based On ad-
tusted tax rates, that the burden of
taxation in Washington, wien Cue al
lowance is made for the exempt prop
erty holdings of the Federal Govern
ment, compares favorably with the
average tax burden in a group Of four
teen comparable cities"
The Mapes committee found, on the
other hand that, ''preferring to err on
the side Of liberality," substitute and new
taxation should equitably be imposed to
raise the Districts tax burden $4,000
600 year, and that, If the rate on real
estate taxes were raised SO a thousand,
that rate would still be below the "av-
erage" its expert had found for other
cities.
The Bureau Of Efficiency has been
condemned and repudiated by the COM
mittee for the crime Of comparing tax
burdens in way that shows Washing
ton to be carrying a tair burden. Is it
not as reasonable to conclude that Mr..
Lord could be as heartily condemned
and repudiated by others as fair
minded as the committee repeatedly
protests that it is?
And while there Is such great room
for doubt as to which is right, is it fair
TO base a whole new scheme of flnanc-
ing the Capital on an acceptance hook,
line and sinker, of the findings of one
favored expert?
-s-SS-A