Evening star., 1937-01-27


ms in different municipalities.
ever, along with his estimated or ad-
justed tax rates, comparison of to-
tai and real estate tax levies per
capita. While the adjusted tax rate
comparisons naturally showed Wash
ington as relatively low in tax burden
(the probable explanation being the
high standard Of assessment here as
compared with other cities, the per
capita comparisons were less unfavor-
able. For if the committee had been
willing to accept the argument that
State taxes and interest payments
should be eliminated from the COM
parison-which will be discussed In
later article-the per capita show
ing of Washington's tax burden would
have been higher in relation to the
average.
Uses Discarded Method.
The next attempt at a tax burden
comparison was made by the Treas
ury, which adopted the simple ex-
pedient Of using the figures assem-
bled by the Detroit Bureau Of Munich
pal Research, previously considered
as unusable by the Bureau of Eff
cheney and apparently by the Mapes
Committee as well. The Treasury
presented its figures as "a prelimi-
nary crude measure" of tax burdens
and the result naturally indicated a
low tax burden for the District for
the same reason that the adjusted
tax rate comparisons Of the Mapes
Committee did. The Treasury experts
never completed their investigation
| and nobody seemed to pay much at
tention to its preliminary conclusion.
I The Board Of Trade, however, de-
cided to engage the services Of a tax
expert in whom the tax committees
on both sides Of the Cap.,ol repoSed
| high confidence-L. H. Parker, chief
of staff to the Joint Committee on
Internal Revenue Taxation. Mr.
Parker went straight to the source OF
the only official figures relating to
| taxation in all the cities Of the coun-
try, the United States Census Bureau
which has been gathering financial
statistics of cities for years and inter-
preting them according to uniform
methods in the hands OF skilled
statisticians Mr.. Parker attempted
no conclusions, merely presenting the
results of a "factual" study of tax
burdens. Treating the debt factor as
noncomparable, he first compared the
combined city and county tax bur-
dens of the A largest cities C the
country and then combined city
State and county tax burdens of the
| same cities. With State taxes elm
mated, Washington, standing four
teenth in population, third in magni.
tude of per capita tax burden. With
State taxes included, Washington stood
| eighteenth. Other comparisons were
made. including unusual and interest.
/ ing elements which might affect taS
burden, the result showing Washing
ton as standing relatively high in tt
| tax burden.
Still Another Method.
The most recent comparison Of taz
burdens has been made by the so.
called Jacobs Committee and the re-
suits contradict both the Parker anc
the Bureau of Efficiency findings gen.
orally and in other respects are most
unusual
The method of this committee was
a modified version of methods previ.
ously condemned both by the Bureau
OF Efficiency and the Mapes Commit
tee. Instead Of relying on the esti-
mates or guesses of the ratios of as
sessed to true value in the cities COM
| pared, it placed most faith in the esti-
mates of various appraisers in the
different cities who were requested tc
select typical" properties in five
classes of property and give their best
judgment as to value. The appraisers
estimated value of these properties
was then compared with actual taxes
and assessed values, and on that basis
tax rates were adjusted and ratios oil
assessed to true value were set down
Choice Of TYPICAL Property.
Curious results are evident in the
fiscal reports own tables and inter-
pretations. The report joins with othel
experts in the belief that no conf.
dence can be placed in tax rates Of
various municipalities without rela.
tion to competent and uniform ap.
praisal OF property values" Assess.
ments Of property, said the report, "dt
not necessarily reflect the value, ever
though the statute requires that the
assessments should be based on the
value Of property" So it went aheac
on the theory that if sound appraisals
Of typical properties could be OBJ.
tanned, the comparison of the actuaI
taxes paid on those properties would
be simplified.
The experts laid great stress on the
selection of typical properties" TIL,
report indicates something approach
| ing enthusiasm when it states tina
short of actually moving the typica
properties with their owners from
city to city, uniform assumptions ant
appraisals were made so that tn,
property and other taxes paid OF
typical properties were obtained from
each CITY,"
Moving Properties Around.
Let us examine one of the typical
properties. A typical multi-famil,
dwelling, for instance, is described a!
follows:
-Four, five or six-room modern
apartments, brick, average size
rooms, one bath. All to be typical
walk-up buildings, not over 20
years old"
What happens when we move thL