Evening star., 1947-02-07
No. g..

Tne real 0atCle at Cne CaplCol over the
District tax program is going to be
preventing Congress from junking its
most controversial features and raising
the real estate tax rate instead.
This is exactly what happened 10
years ago and District officials know it
will come up again.
At that time, Congress, after long
debate over an income tax, sales tax
or even combination of the two, dis
carded both. Instead it enacted the
revenue bill of 1887 raising the real es-
tate tax rate from $50 to SITS per
hundred dollars of assessed value which
it still is.
Now District officials are going back
to the Capitol with sales tax and
broadening Of the income tax to include
levying against the incomes earned
here by nonresidents-both projects
distasteful to many legislators. They
expect to hear once more the familiar
cry:
There is no sense in putting in these
other taxes when the property tax rate
is only SITS. In my district pay $3.50.
The people of the District of Columbia
are undertaxed."
They Looked at the Present Picture.
1t is only fair to say that the special
Tax Committee which drafted the new
program for the Commissioners con-
sidered the existing tax structure before
making recommendations. The commit
tee, headed by Corporation Counsel
Vernon E. West, came to the positive
conclusion that property taxes were
bearing all they should Of the revenue
load.
OF total of $50 ,000, 900 in tax income
expected by the city this year, exclusive
of the gasoline tax and water rates,
property is providing $3o,000,000. OF the
$30,000,0 900, $5,000,000 is from personal
property levies. This means that owners
of 10000 pieces of real estate are paying
nearly $25 100000 this year out of the
$50 900 total.
In addition to this city officials frank
ly feel the actual property tax paid by
District owners is now as high or high
er than that Of comparable cities.
Comparisons of tax rates mean moth
ing alone. 1t is the multiplication of the
rate by the assessed value which yields
the tax bill total. Washington property
must be assessed at full value "and no
less" according to the law. Many other
jurisdictions assess at only so per cent
of true value. A $3.50 tax rate against
a SO per cent assessment would not yield
a nickel more revenue than SITS at full
value.
IF the amount Of the tax rate Is to
determine whether tax is high or not"
District officials say, then give us the
$3.50 rate and the so per cent assess
ment."
Now. tax rates alone mean Moth
ing. Neither, in reality, do assessments.
Half Of Washington Highly Assessed.
For example, the City of Baltimore
has an estimated 1946 population of $780,
000-almost identical with the Board of
Trade estimates for Washington. Bal
timore, like Washington, is supposed to
assess at 100 per cent value. During 1916
the assessed value of Baltimore, real
estate for tax purposes was $1,172, 1885,
o29. The same figure for the District was
sl,396,017,4S1. But only 40 per cent of
the District is taxable. Does it seem
than half the nonindustrial District of
Columbia exceeds the full value of teem-
ing, industrial Baltimore? Yet it does.
And both are supposed to be full-value
assessments.
The tax rate In Baltimore Is $500
pei. hundred, as compared with Wash
ington's SITS. This would mean, If both
truly assessed at full value, that Balti-
more taxes on $4,000 lot, and home
would be 5000 against SITS for similar
property here. Does it seem reasonable
that Baltimore is charging more than
$25 month on taxes on property
Of that size?
This is true not only of Baltimore but
also of other cities in the same popula-
ton roup-Boston, Cleveland, st. Louis,
and Pittsburgh. All are supposed to be
assessed at full value. Yet their value
Is less than the taxable fraction of
Washington. And all Of them have
much higher tax rates.
The following figures, spotlighting the
comparison, are obtained by stripping