Evening star., 1932-05-22

the Census Advisory Committee, chosen
from the International Association OF
Comptrollers and Accounting Ofhcers
1t is the simplest and most generally
used form of comparison, dealing as 1t
does in actual, not estimated, figures.
Before proceeding, IN the tables in
troduced before the Senate committee,
to It's affirmative showing by this
method that Washington is not under
taxed, as alleged, but bears relatively
high burden of taxation, the Citizens
Joint Committee prepared tables to show
the misleading and unacceptable con-
clusions that follow when attempts to
compare tax burdens are made on the
basis of guessed-at ratios of assessed to
full value. These tables occupy por-
ton OF the volume of tables presented
to the Senate subcommittee. They
show that some cities In some States
follow the practice of assessing at low
ratio using a high nominal tax rate,
while other cities assess at high per-
centage of true value and use low tax
rate. They show that II tax rates are
reduced" by applying the reported ratio
of assessed to true value, there Is such
tremendous and unaccountable vari-
ance between the tax burdens thus
represented that no one can place con-
hdence In the results. 49,.
Comparing All Of the Large Cities.
To escape criticism for having Sc
lected only cities that would compare
favorably with NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
being used in the sense that, Washing
tons tax burden would be shown as
high in comparison-the committee pre-
pared a table comparing the "a cities
Of the United States In excess OF 125, 900
in population. This table Is number
VIII in the volume of tables prepared
by the Citizens Joint Committee. The
figures used in this and in subse-
uuent per capita comparisons were
obtained from the United States Gen.
sus Bureau. This table compared
the cities under the following heads:
Population, realty assessment, per
capita realty assessment, total prop
erty assessment, per capita property as
sessment, real estate tax levy, per cap
ita realty tax levy, total tax levy, per
capita total tax levy, total interest pay
ments, per capita interest payments,
per capita total tax levy less per capita
interest payments, per capita State
taxes, per capita total tax levy less per
capita State tax, and per capita total
tax levy less per, capita interest and
per capita State tax.
The showing by this table, dealing
only in actual figures as opposed to
estimated or guessed-at figures, Is as
tonishing when studied in connection
with the House committees report that
found washington "undertaxed."
washington in population rank is the
fourteenth city OF the country. But
this comparison shows its realty as
t. oil 10 IN the
United States. Such showing Is
truly remarkable when it is borne in
mind that Washington's real estate
assessment does not include any Of the
vast governmental property nor the
extraordinarily large amount OF tax
exempt property that is located here
because this Is the Nations Capital
such property, for instance, as national
churches and the embassies and lega-
tions owned by foreign powers, or the
extraordinary area devoted TO parks
And it is even more remarkable when
it Is remembered that washington has
no large industries, as In the case OF
other cities. The chief property Is resi-
Dental It's industries are only small,
clean industries.
City's High Assessment Standard.
The significant showing here Is of
Washington's high standard OF assess
ment, and a high standard Of assess
ment, of course, means high valua-
ton for taxation purposes. The show
ing does not mean that Washington's
property is really more valuable than
property in large industrial cities. It
means that the property In other cities
is not assessed with the same degree Of
thoroughness that Washington prop
d Tnot fc fha n1lU
to account for the fact that Washing
toms realty valuation exceeds that of
such larger, richer cities as st. Louis.
San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee
and Buffalo. When the total realty as
sessment is studied in relation to the
population, it is found that Washing
tons per capita real estate assessment
is exceeded by only two cities-New
York City and Yonkers. In total prop
erty assessment per capita Washington
is exceeded by no city on the list. 1t is,
in all probability, the highest In the
United States. Certainly 1t Is the high
est of all cities in the United States
exceeding 5000 in population.
WashingtonS real estate tax levy (all
figures In this table are for the year
1929. the latest figures available for all
cities) is exceeded in cities Of less pop
ulation only by Newark, Minneapolis
and Rochester, and when considered in
relation to its population Washington's
per capita real estate tax levy Of $40.23
approximates that of Cleveland and ex-
ceeds that of 80 cities Of the So with
which 1t is compared. In total tax levy
Washington is exceeded by cities of
smaller population only by Newark, NJ
j., and its per capita total tax levy is
greater than 36 of the SO cities with
which it Is compared, exceeding that of
such larger cities as Philadelphia, st.
Louis, Baltimore and San Francisco.
Deduction Of Interest Payments.
These comparisons are between totals,
including that part of the tax levy
that represents payment Of interest on
Indebtedness and the payment Of State
taxes. Interest payments represent q
large part Of q city's tax burden. The
table shows, for instance, that total
annual interest payments in these "a
cities studied range from New York's
annual interest charge Of $105, ,645 .952
to Scranton's $392,64 Only 18 Of these
GA OF Americas largest cities pay less
than a million dollars q year in inter-
est. These interest payments represent
Indebtedness incurred for the imme-
date acquisition of large public i'm
provement, for investment In public
service enterprises that come within
the term of "self-hquidating" projects,
or the Indebtedness may represent
spendthrift tendencies Of corrupt city
administrations.
There are equitable reasons for elimi-
mating from comparisons with wash
fncfos1 the paymentS by other cities for