Evening star., 1932-02-05

, mgCOn S personally TAX Durden reason
ably high. The taxes on gross receipts
of public utilities and banks. unusually
heavy in Washington were not classi-
| fed by the census authorities as per-
sonalty tax. but it was contended on
behalf of the District that they should
be so considered in comparisons with
! other cities.
Census Figures of 1918
1t was brought out in the Senate
hearings in 1920 that, using the census
figures of 1918 the total per capita gen.
eral property tax, including city, county
and State taxes, for the 227 cities over
30, 900 in population, was s25.7s.
The total per capita of city taxes,
s2225
Washingtons total city tax alone.
leaving out the personal tax on gross
receipts of certain corporations. S20.68.
Washingtons total city tax alone, in
Guiding the personal taxes on the gross
earnings of the corporations, S22.92.
1t was then shown that if the House
proposal OF a 2 per cent rate on realty
and tangible personal property were ap-
piled. Washington'S total city tax alone
would have jumped to S35.l1.
Taking the two census groups of cities
nearest to Washington in population,
above and below It, and combining their
figures, it was shown that in total per
capita, including county and State
/ taxes their average was S24.965. IN
city taxes per capita, their average was
s20.765. Washington's per capita total
property tax was $20.6o, or with the
personal tax on gross earnings of corpo-
rations included, S2292.
Thus, Washington's city tax per
capita, including the tax on gross earn
ings of corporations, of S22.92 was S2.O4
less than the average for those cities
when the county and State taxes else
where were thrown into the comparison.
But Washington's per capita was s2,l5
more than the average when city taxes
alone were compared.
Increase of Taxes Here.
Between 1922 and 1928 Washingtons
property tax increased 1872 per cent,
while some other American cities were
increasing as follows: ST Louis, Al
per cent; Minneapolis, SO per cent;
Newark, So per cent; Baltimore, 1873
per cent; St Paul, 25 per cent, and
Louisville. 1873 per cent.
In the period between 1924 and 1925
WashingtonS tax rate advanced from
sl2 per thousand to SIT per thousand,
and the revenue from taxes on realty
and tangible personal property went up
s6, 49s ,094 in two years, from sl0,5l4,653
IN 1924 to $l7012,747 in 1876.
1t was at this time that the House in
troduced the practice of departing from
substantive law by substituting annual
ly an arbitrary lump sum Federal con-
tribution for the 40 per cent called for
under the definite proportion principle.
The details of how this was accom-
plished by rider on an appropriation
bill were set forth earlier in the gen.
eral history of fiscal relations.
Comparisons of 1925.
Again, in 1925, Washington's tax bur-
den as measured by the tax rate stood
high among comparable cities when
allowance was made in the calculatio
for variations between the assessments
and true values throughout the country.
Interesting comparisons were worked
out using as a basis the statistics In
the 1925 report of the Detroit Bureau
Of Governmental Research and printed
in the December, 1925, number of the
National Municipal Review. The De-
troit Bureau presented for cities of over
10000 population the actual tax rates
by purposes, the total tax rates adjusted
upon basis OF uniform assessed
valuation of 100 per cent, and the re-
adjusted tax rates when allowance was
made for the percentage of variation
between actual assessments and the
legal bases.
In analyzing these statistics early in
1926 The Star presented tables COM
pairing separately a group of cities
having low assessments and high tax
rates and a group, which, like Wash
ington had a high level Of assessment
and low rate.
Washingtons nominal tax rate of SIT
per thousand was next to the lowest in
the list Of % high-assessment cities
with which 1t was compared. When,
however, the rates were readjusted by
taking into account the estimates ratio