Evening star., 1932-02-02
The District Is Not Undertaxed
No. 2.
Citizens Demonstrated and Joint Inquiry of 1856
Upheld adequacy OF Taxation-Eqnitable Dednc-
tions in Tax Rate Comparisons Discussed.

Note: This is the second OF series OF
! special articles discussing past and
! present attempts to shotD that Wash
ington escapes payment OF fatr tdres.
TT was brought out by those who
presented WaShington's defense in
the inquiry of 1915 that the prop
L erty owners of the District actu-
ally raised in 1912 total tax levy
of $5,398, 984. and in doing so carried
a greater tax burden than was i'm
posed upon lat out of the l94 Ameri-
can cities. The claim that Washing
ton realty, measured by the standards
applied in other cities should have
been valued at $744000, 900, was a pro-
poSal to more than double this per
capita tax levy, which would have made
it greater on realty than that of any
other American City-more even than
New York. with its great wealth and its
assessed valuation of $9,177 ,495, 500.
1t was shown in the 1915 inquiry
that to claim a valuation of $744, ,000,-
900 for Washington would be to use a
figure which valued 1t as worth twice
as much as industrial Baltimore, with
226,7 1874 greater population: nearly twice
as HluCn dS Wltll 10
people than Washington.
The people of the District demon
Strated fully in 1915 that not WASH
ington, but other cities were under
assessed in relation to true value. They
did this to silence the specific claim Of
underasSessment here, but they did
not stop at that showing. They recog
niZed that the accurate measure of
comparative tax burdens is. to compare
tax leVieS and receipts, which takes into
account both the assessment and the
rate, and when stated on a per capita
basis shows how the tax burden falls
on the average citizen of each COM
munity.
Taxes Here Heavy.
The Joint Citizens Committee, in
1915, summarized its tax findings, in
part, as follows:
Il. WaShington's realty tax burden is
very heavy. Its tax rate is moderate,
but its assessment IS excessively high.
Its per capita realty assessment eX-
CeedS that of SO out of the largest So
cities of the United States 1t is per-
hapS the only city in the United States
whose realty assessment actually forms
higher percentage of true value than
the nominal and reported percentage
According to the Census Bureau. the re-
ported relation of assessed to true value
Of real estate in Washington is 662a
per cent. The actual relation, the as
SCISSOR has declared, averages 70 per
cent. In other cities, with few eXcep-
tlons, the actual percentage relation of
assessed to true value is from one-third
to three-fourthS of the reported per-
centage relation.
1t is difficult to find another Ameri-
can city, fairly comparable with Wash
ingtOn, whose realty tax burden ex-
ceedS that of the Capital
-. WaShingtOn'S personally tax bur-
den is comparatively light Intangible
personally of the individual is not
taxed and the tax on the franchises,
good will, ETC. Of public utility cor
porations-such as gas, electric lighting
and telephone companieS-bankS and
trust companies, incorporated savings
banks, building associations. etc. meas
ured by a percentage of the gross re-
CeiptS (Which in Washington is un-
usually heavy. is not classified by the
Census authorities as a personally tax.
TN 1915 the District had no tax on
the intangible personally of the indi-
vidual. To-day II has a tax on intan-
gibieS. which as a result of searching
and thorough assessment increased in
the fiscal year 1881 the Districts tax
revenue by S2,742,986.
Tax Burden Is Heavier.
"3. Washington's property tax burden,
combining its heavy realty tax and its
light personally tax. is heavier than
those Of most American cities, and av
erageS up with those of cities approx
mating it in size and general condi-
tionS; 156 out of 1879 American cities
over 10000 in population bear lighter
burden. Only one of the neighboring
group of cities and only two of all the
Southern cities show higher property
tax per capita.
a. WaShington's tax burden, meas
ured by the per capita receipts from all
municipal taxes, including the taxes on
the sale of liquor and tobacco and those
on public utility corporations, banks
and trust companies. is distinctly heav-
ier than those of the American cities
with which Washington is appropriately
compared. This comparison fairly
measures the respective burdens of all
city taxes. WaShington'S burden ex-
CeedS that Of every one of the neigh
boring group of cities and of all in the
South, II out of 13 of the Northern
Central group and As out of So of the
general group.
IS.
"6. To measure the tax burden neceS-
Sary to meet current expenses of the
present and those of city development:
of the immediate future the per capita
of interest payments on Indebtedness
representing expenditures of the past
on Improvements, graft or gross eX-
travagance may appropriately be de-
Quoted in the case of each city. When
this is done WaShingtOn'S tax burden,
to meet the needs of present and future.
is distinctly heavier than those of most
of the other American cities with which
it is comparable. Not l of the South
ern cities or of the neighboring cities,
only of the 13 Northern Central cities
and only 13 out of 81 of the general
group Of cities exclusive of Washing
tom are. according to this measure
ment so heavily tax burdened as Wash
ington.
Creditable Comparison.
az. Washington's city tax burden is so
heavy that, even when compared with
the total city, county and State tax
burdens of taxpayers in other cities,
who enjoy State benefits and privileges
which are denied the Capital, it shows