Evening star., 1932-02-07

population Of other cities (not, as the
MapeS Committee says, by the assess
ment" of other cities) it arrived at fig
ures possibly nearer the full value OF
other cities than those used by the
Mapes Committee. For instance, by its
method, the bureau found that the full
realty value of Cleveland was $2,083,-
1873, 300, as compared to the full realty
value of 81 1927, ,229,412 established by
the Mapes correspondence-wi -with-persons-
familiar wth-property-Va values method
And by its method the Bureau OF Eli
cheney established an adjusted tax rate
for real property in Cleveland Of $l7.39,
| as compared with the same adjusted tax
rate found by the Mapes Committee of
$2308 Both of these tax rates are COM
pared with the adjusted tax rate for
Washington, found by the Mapes Com
mittee to be $3.50 and accepted by
the Bureau Of Efficiency as SIT.
That example is typical of the differ
ence between the conclusions of the
Mapes Committee and those arrived at
by the Bureau of Efficiency.
And now, as regards the use OF per
capitaS in arriving at comparisons OF
tax burdens.
The Mapes Committee attacks this
method. Without mentioning their
source, the Mapes Committee declares
that statistics have been presented 70
this committee to show that, based on the
per capita basis, the taxes paid by the
people Of Washington compare favorably
in amount with the taxes paid by the
citizens of other municipalities, and in
some instances exceed the amount paid
by such ciUizenS. Various methods have
been followed to arrive at this con-
cluSlon, none of which appears to this
committee as being a reliable basis for
comparison of relative tax burdens. One
city may have one-half the population
of another city and still the small city
may have within its borders much more
taxable wealth than the larger city,
1t is appropriate to point out here
that while that may be the case, the
committee mentions no specific instance
Of its being true. 1t would be inter-
eSting and valuable for all who deal
in comparative tax statistics to know
the names of two otherwise normal
American cities one of which has much
more taxable wealth and half the popu-
lation of the other, unless the city with
greater population and less taxable
wealth were Washington, with its only
great industrial plants (the Govern
ment wOrkshops) and an extraordinary
area of valuable real estate (the Ma
tional holdings exempt from taxation.
Spurns Per Capitas.
Continuing, the Mapes Committee
declares that If any consideration Is
to be given at all to per capita taxa
ton, it should be confined to the per
capita taxes levied on real property.
While the per capita taxes have been
computed by Mr. Lord, Of which men
ton will be found on another page of
this report, for reasons already stated,
the committee does not believe it is a
reliable basis for comparison Of relative
tax burdens"
Is the Mapes Committee out Of step
with everybody else regarding the value
of per capita figures, or is everybody
else out of step with the Mapes Com
mittee?
The per capita basis of presenting and
comparing assessment and tax statistics
of cities has been followed by the
United States Census Bureau for 20
years and is still the accepted method
today.
We find the per capita figures most
sought for and greatest in demand" 4"
Lemuel A. Carruthers, expert chief of
the Division of Financial Statistics OF
Cities, Census Bureau, tells The Star.
The Congressional Joint Committee
on Fiscal Relations of 1915 adopted it.
The per capita figures are regarded
as more expressive than any other
method of comparison. The officials at
the Census Bureau point out that this
is particularly true at time like the
present, when a new census of popula-
ton has just been completed. afford
ing, as it does, an accurate population
diVlSOr.
Furthermore, the Census Bureaus re-
port on financial statistics of cities in
cludes in it's introduction the following
statement:
The form of presentation has been
approved by a Census Advisory Com
mittee chosen from the International
Association of ComptrOllerS and Ac-
counting officers"
Only Averages Are Given.
The Mapes Committee does make per
capita comparisons, but these in addl-
ton to being repudiated by the COM
mittee, are confined to averages. 1t Is,
of course, difficult to form an estimate
of relative burdens between cities by
comparing averages alone. The fair
procedure would be to state per capitas
H.
the Mapes Committee fails to do.
There is another form of comparison,
that differs from both the methods
chosen by the Mapes Committee and
by the Bureau of Efficiency. That is
the comparison, based on census re-
ports, and comparing per capitas of
actual tax levieS, total revenue, total
expenditures, etc. The per capita COM
parison IS necessary only when large
cities are compared with small cities.
Actual levies can be compared when
cities are close together in population.
Differences in population naturally
mean differences in amount OF tax
levies. The per capitas, in such cases,
are valuable in determining the spread
of the tax levy over the population.
Had the Mapes Committee cared to
print the exact per capitas. instead
of mere averages, the result would
have shown that WaShingtons total
tax levy per capita exceeds that of half
the cities included in the comparison,
closely approximating that of three
others
And now, as to the third point of
difference specific as between the Bu-
reau of Efficiency method and the
Mapes Committee method, concerning