Evening star., 1933-04-02

the land, with the exception Of New
York City and Yonkers. N. Y. The
continued decline in other cities realty
assessments, while Washington's total
assessment has increased steadily since
1929, has obviously changed the stand
ing and placed washington higher in
rank Of realty assessment.
Effect Of High Assessment.
This is not. due to any remarkable
wealth Of its residents. the greatest
proportion of whom are in Government
employ at small-and now reduced
salaries. 1t is due to the fact that in
Washington an actual attempt Is made
to comply with the law requiring as
sessment at full value, while in other
cities the law permits lower ratio of
assessment or the tax assessors, polit-
icelly selected and responsive to the
sentiment of taxpayers, interpret the
law literally.
All of this has important bearing on
the size of Washingtons tax burden.
1t is the assessment and the tax rate
that determine the tax burden. A tax
rate has no meaning, standing by itself.
Washington's total tax burden, on
the basis Of 1929 and 1880 census fig
ures, and not taking into consideration
the reductions in assessments or tax rates
affected in other cities since then, is rel
atively high. The comparisons stand up,
if made in per capita terms, or if made
In total receipts and expenditures.
This was demonstrated in the volume
OF tables and statistics presented last
Spring to the Senate Appropriations
Committee in connection with matters
then pending in Congress. 1t has been
demonstrated again and again.
Taking the six cities mentioned
above, their choice for comparison hav-
ing been previously explained, it was
found, for instance, that while st. Louis
and Baltimore are both larger in popu-
lation than Washington (St. Louis,
819,500; Baltimore, 8O6.600; Washing
ton, 485, ,7o0) Washington's per capita
real estate levy exceeds them both, be-
ing exceeded only by that of Mime
apolis. In total taxes, Washington is
exceeded only by Baltimore and st.
Louis, although in total taxes per cap
ita Washington exceeds them all.
A portion Of the tax levy in other
cities is necessary for interest on debt.
The amount of. debt varies widely in
every city, some cities choosing to bor-
row heavily and others having borrowed
moderately. Interest and sinking fund
payments should properly be eliminated
from comparison between city tax bur-
dens when the effort is to determine the
adequacy by comparison of a tax
burden for current maintenance and
normal city improvement. And when
Washington taxes are compared with
taxes paid in other cities, State taxes
should be eliminated from the COMPARE
son, as Washington enjoys none of the
benefits received by citizens who pay
State taxes.
And when such items ss debt pay
ment and State taxes are properly
eliminated from comparisons, Wash
ington's total tax levy per capita is
higher than that of any other of the
six cities.
All cities do not tax alike. Some
prefer one method Of taxation, others
choose another. 1t is thus fair to make
the comparison between total tax re-
ceipts. In total tax receipts, includ-
ing assessments, Washington is exceed
ed only by st. Louis and Baltimore,
the two larger cities, and when the
comparison is reduced to terms of per
capita, Washington's figure is far In
excess of that of the six others.
Such comparisons as these are ad-
ditional justification for local tax re-
lief at this time