Evening star., 1932-02-07
Average Increase.


Population ......... 1906 1l.3
The MapeS Committee, while reduc-
ing its other comparisons to averages,
failed so to reduce the findings of this
particular table, which was referred to-
as quoted above, as exceedingly inter-
esting." The reduction to averages was
made by The Star, and not the Mapes
Committee.
The results of this table are still more
interesting when it is recalled that i'm
partial Investigations of comparative
tax burdens undertaken in the past
have shown the adequacy of the tax
burden in Washington. The present
assessed value of privately owned real
estate in Washington is fair and rea
sonable," the Joint Congressional Com
mittee reported in 1916. The payment
of taxes on real estate from the assess
mentS as they are now constituted Is a
fair and reasonable response in such
taxation for municipal benefits received
by the citizens of the District" said
that committee THE annual tax in
Washington Is approximately SIG per
capita. In the judgment of your COM
mittee this is reasonable tax levy at
this time especially when we consider,
as we must that a large proportion of
the population here pays but small
Senator Works added: The people OF
the District are not undertaXed. They
are, in my judgment, bearing their full
share of the burden of the expenses of
the District. Just now . I think
they are being taxed too high"
If these were the findings in 1916,
how can one account for the radical
difference in the findings of the MapA
Committee in 1881, when one takes into
consideration the Exceedingly interest
ing" table presented by the Mapes Com
mittee and reproduced above, which
shows what has been going on in the
years between 1920 and 1880?
Contradictory Conclusions
Again, the Bureau of Efficiency, in
its investigation of 1880, declared that,
:" In spite of the fact that Washing
ton had the lowest real and personal
property tax rates of all IA cities with
single exception in the case of per-
sonal property its high assessments
considered in connection with the Fed
eral Governments property holdings of
taxable nature resulted in levies which
on a per capita basis were actually
higher than the average of the other
cities And again, Therefore, al
though Washington has a lower tax
rate than any of these cities, when
their tax rates are adjusted on the basis
of WaSningtonS assessed valuation per
capita, Federal property holdings being
included, as they should be, Washing
tons tax rate is actually higher than
the average adjusted tax rate for the
other cities"
Other Investigations have revealed
Washington bearing an adequate burden
of taxation. The MapeS Committee it
self reveals the tremendous increase in
assessments and in tax levieS here in
the last 10 years. as compared to the
same increases elsewhere. Yet the
Mapes Committee finds that Washing
ton is city of tax dodgers and that
four to fourteen millions of additional
taxation could justifiably be showed on
Washington. What is the explanation?
The Mapes report states that "Arbi-
trary set-ups of property values can be
worked out to the advantage of any in
tereSts by mathematical calculations"
In other words, figures don't lie, but
liars figure.
How does one account for the con-
fiicting figuring?
There are at least three points of
difference between the methods fol-
lowed by the Mapes Committee in OBJ
tanning its results and in the methods
followed by various other agencies, such,
for instance, as the Bureau of Efficiency.
These differences of opinion, and of
resultant computation and comparison,
concern:
Cd The method of arriving at a
city'S "full assessment" as differentiated
from the city's reported assessment.
CD The use of per capitaS in arriv-
ing at comparison.
(3) The inclusion, for purposes OF
comparison, of the vast tax-exempt gov
ernmental properties in Washington in
order to reach an assessment base for
Washington; the inclusion, for COM
parative purposes, of the governmental
contribution in Washington's total tax
levy.
Taking up the first topic, the method
of computing relative assessments.
Without going into tedious detail, 1t is
universally recognized that there is a
great difference between reported" as
sessment for taxation purposes and a
full" assessment that would represent
the actual value of taxable property.
A city by law may require a 100 per