Evening star., 1932-05-24

|
preparations by the Citizens' Joint Com
nittee on Fiscal Relations Betueen the
United States and the District. These
tables sho,Ued Washington's relatively
high tar burden among cities OF the
| United States.
fTHROUGH various comparisons
| Cd with the SO cities OF the
United States of more than
| i l25,000 in population; 90 with
6 cities-Baltimore, Richmond
New orleans, Minneapolis. st. Louis,
/ Indianapolis for special rea-
sons already enumerated, and 80 with
the two cities nearest Washington In
opuIation-Minneapol and New Or
ieans-the Citizens Joint Committee on
Fiscal Relations between the United
States and the District OF Columbia
has demonstrated that washington Is
not undertaXed
! Washington, on the other hand. is
shown to be bearing tax burden tnat
is relatively high in relation to the
tax burdens of the largest cities OF
| the country, tax burden that is hl3ner
still in relation to comparable, repre-
sentative cities, and tax burden tnat
is above the burden OF taxation IN the
! cities nearest in population.
|
sen when equitable consideration Is
given to certain modifying factors In
relation to Washingtons tax burden
considerations that apply to this city
alone because of its unique status
among the cities of the Nation
For convenience these modifying fac
tors may be enumerated as follows
|. The high standard and greater
| thoroughneSS of assessment IN the
District.
2. The vastly greater amount OF tax
exempt property in Washington must
| b. taken into consideration when lts
| tax burden is compared with tnat Oh
other cities.
3. The proportion Of tax burdens Of
other cities representing interest and
sinking fund payments should be elm
mated from all comparisons of city tax
burdens.
4. State taxes should be eliminated
from city tax comparisons, especially
when the taxes of other cities are COM
pared with those of washington.
High Standard of Assessment.
Every comparison Of city tax burdens
THAT shows as one of the comparable
items the realty and total property
assessment of Washington and other
cities emphasizes so thoroughly Wash
ingtcn's high standing in that respect
that there is little need for further
emphasis here. The comparisons
by the House Select Committee on
Fiscal Relations pointed it out; the
Bureau of Efficiency pointed it out;
the United States Census Bureau has
pointed it out not only in its annual
reports on the financial statistics OF
cities but in its 1922 report on National
wealth-the 1882 report is not yet
available-showed that the Districts
ratio of assessed to true value
was the highest in the United
States When comparisons of tax bur-
dens are made in terms of total figures
and in per capitas, Washington's high
standard of assessment speaks for itself
through those figures. When attempts
are made to compare tax burdens by
comparing nominal tax rates. or by
comparing adjusted tax rates." such
adjustments being made on the basis
of estimates Of ratios of assessed to full
valuation. washington sometimes suffers
by failure to give due consideration to
the extraordinarily high oegree of thor
oughneSs with which property here is
assessed for taxation.
An actual 100 per cent assessment
applied to all property Is a physical
impossibility An assessor who allows
himself a leeway Of 10 per cent and
honestly proclaims an assessment ap-
proximating 90 per cent Of full value
is probably coming as near to making
a full 100 per cent valuation as it Is
possible
Difference Between Assessors.
But it is one thing when an assessor,
responsible as in Washington, only to
the Congress of the United States,
which has made the law requiring 100
per cent assessment, reports that he is
probably assessing for the city as
whole at about 80 per cent. 1t Is an
entirely different thing when an asses
sor, elected to a political office and
responsive to the taxpayers who elect
him, makes an estimate of assessing at
80 per cent.
1t is traditional that the reports of
assessment officers themselves and estl-
mates of those familiar with property
values as to the ratio of assessed to full
values in cities other than Washing
ton are, at best. mere estimates. The
human tendency is for the assessor to
make his guessed-at ratio high for esti-
mating purposes, but, for very practical
purposes of expediency, to let nature
take its course In fixing the value OF the
voting taxpayers property for taxation.
Thus, when Washington's reported
ratio of assessed to full value is
placed at 80 per cent by an appointed
official responsible only to Congress for
carrying out a law requiring that
property be assessed at full value-and
when this ratio of 80 per cent is COM
pared with a reported ratio of 80 per
cent in some city where assessments
~, ho1
separate assessment districts under the
direction of as many politically chosen
assessors who follow their own lndl-
vidual theories and their own individual
consciences, washington suffers in COM
parison.
The figure of 90 pei cent for Wash
ington may be correct, in the absolute
sense. But when used to express the
relative thoroughness of local assess
ment, it is nearer 100 per cent. With
the possible exception of New York
City, Washington is the most thor
oughly assessed city in the country
The ratio of assessed to full value
is chiefly important when attempts are
made to compare tax burdens by ad.
justing the tax rate on the basis OF
such ratios, as in the method CHOSEN
by the House Committee.
Tax-Exempt Property In ID. Z.
Washington's high standard of as
sessment, shown by actual total assess
ment figures, and Washington's rela-
lively large real estate levy, shown by
actual figures, indicate the weight Of
the local tax burden when compared
with that of other cities. many of them
large, wealthy, industrial centers.
AS a matter of fact, Washington
kn 81, to ho in q
able resources than the average Ameri-
can city of its size. Non-industrial
non-commercial Washington. with the
small taxpayer constituting the city's
financial backbone, and with real estate
constituting its most important private