Evening star., 1937-01-14
Tax Comparisons.

ington Is greatly undertaxed, in COM
parison with seventeen cities, are prob
ably the most damaging in their possible
effect upon the local community. II &C
cepted as accurate or even reasonable,
Washington could be blistered with new
and heavier taxes merely on the assump-
ton that its people have been escaping
a fair tax burden.
The comparisons are unjust, In the
first place. because they include State
taxes and debt payments which enter
into local taxes elsewhere, but are not
applied here. Washingtonians do not
receive all the benefits land none
of the vital powerS of Statehood for
which State taxes are levied elsewhere;
nor is Washington permitted to incur
the Indebtedness, wisely or unwisely as
sumed in other cities. There are ad-
yantages and disadvantages in both
pay-as-you-go policies and bonded debt
policies. But the city which follows one
method is not strictly comparable with
the city that follows the other, if the
purpose Of the comparison is to indi-
cate a fair or reasonable burden of
taxation.
But aside from the methods used in
the comparison, which are of themselves
subject to close examination, let us ex-
anime some of the conclusions. If the
conclusions are faulty, something is
wrong with the method. Baltimore being
the nearest large city to Washington, and
approximating 1t in Maryland environ
ment, and one of those compared with
Washington by the report, it is chosen
for discussion here
The report, by many theoretical cal
culations and assumptions, concludes
that real estate in Baltimore is assessed
at about SO per cent of true value on the
average, while similar property in WASH
ington Is assessed about 80 per cent on
the average.
II that conclusion is even approx
mately correct. under ordinary circum-
stances 1t should follow that the total
real estate assessment of Baltimore,
which is a larger city with many indus
tries, should exceed the real estate
assessment in Washington. For Balti-
more is not only larger in total area than
Washington, with a population Of about
16.2 per acre as compared with 12.4 for
Washington, but does not have nearly
as large q percentage Of property ex-
empt from taxation. The taxable area
tn Baltimore is 1891 acres, compared
with the taxable area of %, ,489 acres in
Washington. Its taxable area. in other
words, is 50 per cent greater than WASH
ington, and this taxable area includes
many large industries not permitted here,
What are the actual real estate assess
ment totals? The Census Bureau Q93D
gives them as follows:
Washington, $1,1es,252,22o. xsaAa
Baltimore, 81, los, ,448,1 1873.
These totals, bear in mind, are not
estimates or theoretical suppoSitions.
They are the actual figures. 1t is difficult
indeed to believe that they reflect an
actual 90 per cent ratio of assessment
in Baltimore as compared with 80 per
cent ratio in Washington.
Let us make another test. The re-
port concludes that the effective" tax
rate In Baltimore, which is the theo-
retical rate paid on each $1,000 of as
sessed value, is about twice as high as in
washington, although no average effec-
tive rate for all types of property is given.
Well, If that is true, the actual, not esti-
mated or theoretical real estate tax levy
In Baltimore ought to be substantially
higher than in Washington. But here
are the Census figures:
Baltimore, $22,427,313.
Washington, $17,523,7S3.
The actual tax levy in Baltimore is
only about ~ per cent higher than
Washington's, although Baltimore's pop
ulation is about So per cent higher than
washington's. When the element of pop
ulation is taken into account by reduc-
ing the tax levy to per capitas, the fol-
lowing results obtain:
Washington, $32.75.
Baltimore, $27.45.
Keep in mind the reports picture Of
Baltimoreans bearing tax burden about
twice rs heavy as Washingtonians and
then examine what larger Baltimore re-
ceives in total taxes and special assess
ments compared with Washington. Here
are the Census figures:
Baltimore, $35,516,320.
Washington, $2s,579,0S4
And when the difference In population
Is equalized in the form Of total taxes
and special assessments per capita, we
have this result:
Washington, $53.42.
Baltimore, $43.47.
Such comparisons, made with actual,
not theoretical or gYessed-at estimates
a thu basis of ass,iul Mons. indicate that