Evening star., 1937-01-27

TINE adequacy of Washington'S
tax burden has been explored
and probed in the last six or
seven years by five experts or
expert agencies, all of them appar-
emily qualified by experience or repu-
tation to do the work. Possibly the
best commentary on the abstruse ma
ture of their research lies in the fail
ure of the experts to agree among
themselves on the most accurate and
equitable method of comparison and
the varying and even contradictory
results Of their findings.
Comparing tax burdens is by no
means an exact science and may
never be- Nor will much progress be
gained, as far as accuracy is con-
cerned, until there are uniform meth
ods of taxation and, more important,
uniform methods and standards Of
assessing property. There is no uni
formity now. The experts are agreed
on that. Nor is there much demand
elsewhere for the tax comparisons
that are made in Washington. The
test of fair taxation in other cities
is whether the taxpayers are moder-
ately satisfied that they are getting
their moneys worth. If convinced
their tax burden is too high, the tax
boosters have to run for cover or
change their ways.
In Washington the unique test Of
the tax burdens adequacy is COM
parison with what other cities pay.
And the difficulty is in the choice Of
yardstick of relative measurement.
Bureaus Search for Yardstick.
The Bureau of Efficiency had no
axes to grind for anybody when it
was given the task of measuring
Washington's tax burden in 1929-30.
| AS the Governments independent
fact finding agency, it was the first
third party called in from the outside
to settle a matter hitherto in dispute
between some members of Congress
and the local community. If it had
sought merely to butter its own
bread, the bureau might have dis
creetly chosen a method of compari-
son that would indicate Washington S
undertaxation.
But it carefully searched for a
yardstick that would be fair to every
| body 1t discarded what it called the
usual method OF adjusting tax rates
| for the reason that mo two authori-
ties" can agree on how thoroughly
property is assessed in other cities.
theoretically, the adjustment OF
tax rates is simple enough. A city
which taxes property at the rate OF
S25 a thousand, but which in reality
assesses property at only so per cent
of real value, has an adjusted" tax
rate of $3.50. But the difficulty
found by the bureau was that no two
authorities agree on the ratio OF
assessed to real value and ''the widely
varying results obtained indicate
rather conclusively that the method
is unsatisfactory" The former Bu-
reau of Municipal Research Of De-
troit had been using this method to
show trends in taxation. but the Bu-
reau of Efficiency quoted the Detroit
agency as warning that until cities
give more attention to the problem OF
determining the ratio Of assessed tc
| true value, exact information relative
to tax burdens will remain a mystery, >
and that ratios which have been
used in adjusting tax rates on this
basis are of no specific interest, but
are useful only in indicating general
| trends"
Shows d. C. Adequately Taxed.
The Bureau of Efficiency therefore
devised a method of its own, which
consisted in an attempt to equalize
| assessment values in comparable
cities by raising them to the level of
assessment in Washington. This was
done by applying Washington's per
capita assessment-the highest in the
country for total property-to the
population of other cities, on the
theory that actual value of property
is approximately equal in cities
of comparable population. The actual
tax levies of these cities were then
divided by these adjusted valuations
and the quotients represented ad-
justed tax rates. The bureau found
that it is 'manifestly unfair to COM
pare tax rates and tax revenues In
Washington with those in other cities
without taking into consideration the
large property holdings of the Fed
eral Government which are exempt
from taxation"
AS for Washington's tax burden,
the bureau declared:
This comparison bears out the
conclusion based on adjusted tax
rates that the burden Of taxation
in Washington, when due allow
ance Is made for exempt property
holdings Of the Federal Govern
ment, compares favorably with the
average tax burden in q group of
IA comparable cities"
Mapes Investigation Follows.
The Bureau of Efficiency's investi-
CATION was one of the developments
leading to the special investigation
by the House committee which took
the name of its chairman, Repre-
sentative Carl Mapes of Michigan.
The Mapes Committee chose an out
standing tax expert, in the person OF
George Lord Of Detroit, to make the
tax comparisons. Mr.. Lord adopted
the method just condemned by the
Bureau of Efficiency; that is, he OBJ
tanned the best available estimates Of
the ratio of assessed to real value in
other cities and adjusted tax burdens
on that basis.
Mr.. Lord frankly admitted the
weakness of the method, although