Evening star., 1939-06-18


United States. The Census Bureau
figures, the most accurate obtain
able, show Washington with the
highest per capita assessment in
the country.
Last winter the Census Bureau
was asked by Senator Overton to
make comparison of city tax
burdens. The Senator did not ask
the bureau to prove anything. The
selection OF cities to be compared
was left to the bureau. The re-
sulting comparisons will be dis
cussed in this article because they
happen to be the latest comparisons
made. In other years, somewhat
similar comparisons, with equally
impressive results, have been made
by the Citizens Joint Committee or
Fiscal Relations Between the
United States and the District of
Columbia.
Discussing several possible methods
OF comparing tax burdens, Mr.
Rlghtor said:
The most significant gauge of the
tax burden of city is that OF the
per capita revenues from all sources
exclusive of grants-in- aid. dona
tlons, and pension assessments, and
receipts of public service enterprises
OF the city corporation and a proper
tlonate part of all independent
overlapping local units of govern
ment. The figure. when ascertained
for a group of cities, permits deter
mlnatlon of the comparative tax
burden Of all the cities by ranging
them from the highest to the lowest
amount.
The index to the tax burden as
here proposed does not include the
tax levy for State purposes made ir
the city, even though in the cities OF
many of the States such levy is
found. Many persons-probably in
Guiding the majority of taxpayers ir
any city having State levy-woulc
consider such tax a part of theil
tax burden The State government
however, is not included in the con-
cept of an independent, overlappine
local unit of government as .usec
herein. When a city or county col
lects taxes for the State, the receipts
do not constitute revenue of the
local unit, which acts only as agent
for the State, and are reported by
the bureau as nonrevenues. and the
transmittal of the money to the
I c
ment.
In 3 of the IL cities included
In this comparative study, there was
no levy for State purposes in 1896
and in the remaining 9 cities the
State levy ranged from 33 cents tc
$655 per 81 900 of assessed valuation
Were the tax burden to be con-
strued properly to include loca
levy for State purposes, the effect
upon the figures presented in this
report would be slight, and yet the
aggregate tax burden for Washing
ton would be relatively lower than is
found in this report because the
burden in 9 of the cities would be
somewhat higher than here reported
To determine the relative stand
ing OF Washington, it was thought
sufficient to compare Washington
with IL other cities ranging next to
it IN population. These cities range
from St. Louis. with a population
estimated in 1888 at $50, 300, to New
ark. with a population estimated at
AT 900. Seven of the cities were
larger and four smaller than Wash
ington, having a population esti-
mated on July l, 1888, of $4,000
The cities used in the comparative
analysis are listed, in order of popu.
lation according to the 1888 census
estimate"
Results Of Comparison.
The result of the comparison is
shown in the accompanying table
"a table which is condensed by
The Star from several tables in
cluded in the report to the Senate
Committee.
(See the accompanying table,
COL. l of the table shows the
population of the cities according
to the census estimates of July
1933-the latest estimates which
were available for the cities usec
in the comparison.
Later estimates are available fol
Washington, but it would, of course
have been manifestly unfair tc
use later population estimate fol
Washington than for other cities
A unique condition, as to taxpayine
population, is found in Washington
Without attempting to dispute the
accuracy of the census estimates
for Washington, it is nevertheless
true that such estimates have In
the past been found to exceed the
actual decennial enumeration. The
| 1928 estimate for Washington was
$4,000, which was $4,000 in exces.
of the actual count for 1880. While
for Washington the Census Bureau
some years ago abandoned the
method of estimating population
by trends established by previous
counts, adopting in its stead the
method of estimating population BY
school enrolment, city directory
ETC., the old method is still fol-
lowed in other cities. There exists
then, some disparity in methods OF
---------------