Evening star., 1935-01-01
ADEQUATE Contribution by
City Taxpayers to Capitals
Maintenance and Upbuilding
In Comparing City Tax Burdens Use Per
Capita Measuring Yardstick-
nate Interest Payments.
THEODORE w. MOVES.

be remembered, however, that this is
an absolute ratio. Washington suffers
In comparison with the assessment
ratios of other cities when this abso-
lutte figure Is, in such comparisons,
used in a relative sense; that is. when
Washington's ratio Of 90 per cent is
placed alongside q reported 100 per
cent ratio given by some overenthusi-
astic assessor in another city. OF
course, 1t Is impossible to achieve an
actual 100 per cent assessment, with
out resort to legerdemain or other
mystic art that would allow the
assessor to know what the actual
value" of the taxable property hap
pens to be. Ninety per cent, more
over, was In the days Of the boom,
when the value of real estate was
high. Since the depression, the
value of property has shrunk, with
out correspondingly large decreases
in the assessment figures. and Mr..
Richards now holds that because Of
this shrinkage in realty values,
assessments more nearly represent 100
than 80 per cent. It Is doubtful
and every comparison that can be
made will bear this out-that any
city in the country assesses with such
thoroughness and with such close ap-
Proclamation to true value as Wash
ington.
The Elimination Of Debt and Interest
Payments When City Taxes
Are Compared.
8. In comparison of city tax bur-
dens between all cities the payments
representing interest on indebtedness
or to sinking fund should be elm
mated, in order to reduce the COM
parison to the expenditures for cur
rent maintenance and normal i'm
provements.
The fact that the citizens Of one
city decide to burden themselves with
debt in order to undertake public
service enterprises expected to yield
them a return in the future, or 10
launch a program Of public improve
ments, or because their city officials
and politicians have persuaded them
that it is right to borrow money, while
another city decides to live on its in
come from year to year, should not
be a factor in comparing their tax
burdens, if the object Of such COM
parison is to attempt to decide what
constitutes an equitable tax burden.
The comparisons should be limited to
the money that the citizens must
raise and spend for annual mainte-
nance and normal Improvements, and
the matter of Indebtedness should be
left out of such comparisons.
Particularly in the case Of compari-
sons between Washington and other
cities 1t is illogical and unfair to in
clude debt payments in comparisons
of tax burdens. For during the World
War and Immediately thereafter, very
many American cities INDUCED in a
financial jag. borrowing easily and
heavily from our wealthy investors
in tax-exempt municipal securities in
avoidance of income taxes and sur
taxes. Part Of this borrowed money
went into useful permanent improve
ment by which the cities benefited; !;
another part was wasted in extrava-
gance or graft. congressman. whose
home cities thus heavily and, in many
instances, unwisely borrowed, refused
as Washington's legislature to let
1t borrow at all.
It results that the taxpayers of these
cities, having enjoyed the benefit of
these loans, are now compelled to tax
themselves to pay interest and sink
ing fund on the loans, and these items
increase the amount of their property
tax levy and of their tax rates, which
in a way set the pace for Washington.
But why should Washington taxpayers
who have enjoyed the benefit Of no
such loans, up to the emergency loans
of the current fiscal year, be required
to pay on basis which co-ordinateS
them in per capita and total pay
ments and in tax rate with cities
which are compelled to raise millions
in taxes to pay interest?
Washington, which has enjoyed the
benefit Of no such loans should not be
required in order to put itself on a
superficial taxpaying equality with
other cities to tax itself in the amounts
represented by these interest pay
ments, and they should be deducted
from the property tax levies Of these
other cities and from the correspond
ing tax rates in . comparison with
Washington.
TomorroD's article UiH discuss
other equitable considerations in
Ueighing the local tar burden,
such as elimination of State tares
in city tar comparisons, since the
District enjoys no State benefits.