142 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
CAUSES OF INEQUALITY 
In seeking the causes of inequality in assessment, it is necessary to 
consider first the individual assessment, sinee the differences between 
individual assessments are fundamental to differences between 
political units, property classes, and other duns 
It has been made plain that an assessment in the last analysis is an 
act of judgment. If the judgment is that of a person with adequate 
knowledge of the facts, with experience in valuation, and with the 
intention of assessing at a correct value, the resulting assessment will 
be a good approximation to the value called for by law. ‘Thus the 
essential requirements of good assessment are intention to carry out 
the law, expert judgment, and a background of knowledge. 
The prevailing undervaluation which studies of assessment ratios 
have revealed indicates that in general assessors do not intend to 
carry out the law. This condition does not necessarily imply moral 
turpitude in assessors greater than in other men. It means rather 
that the public encourages and even demands underassessment. 
There are a number of reasons for this situation. Part of the diffi- 
culty lies in wide-spread ignorance of taxation principles and confusion 
of the function of assessment with that of determining the tax rate. 
Many honest citizens identify low assessment with low taxes. Others 
not quite so honest think that, because their individual assessments 
are at less than full value, they are getting a much desired tax reduc- 
tion to which they are not strictly entitled. Some of the resistance 
to assessment reform doubtless comes from those who think, often 
quite mistaken.y, that they are the beneficiaries of tax favoritism as 
matters stand. They do not realize that many other property owners 
may be receiving equally favorable or more favorable treatment. 
Low assessments, no matter how inequitable, bring fewer complain- 
ing taxpayers to the assessors’ offices than would full-value assess- 
ments. Where equalization Letween districts, towns, or counties is 
imperfect or not understood (as 's almost universal), there is likely 
to be competition in undervaluation among these political units. 
Counties hope by this method to reduce the burden of State taxes, 
while districts and towns want undervaluation for the purpose of 
reducing the local share of both county and State taxes. Assessors 
are generally elective officials and must carry out the will of their 
constituents in order to continue to hold office. In many places the 
sentiment is such that an assessor who seriously attempted to carry 
out the law would court certain defeat at the polls, as well as lasting 
unpopularity with his neighbors. There is often a lack of confidence 
on the part of the public in the equity of the tax administration and 
a feeling that in view of this uncertainty one is justified in seeking 
whatever tax advantage can be obtained. A general feeling that 
real estate is overburdened with taxes may also be partly responsible 
for the pressure to gain relief by illegal means. While undervaluation 
does not necessarily angen inequality between individuals within the 
local tax districts, it has been found to promote individual inequality. 
Furthermore not all assessors may desire to maintain individual 
equality within their districts. Prevalence of undervaluation makes 
it easy for the assessor to favor his own social class, his influential polit- 
ical supporters, or the local residents as against nonresident owners. 
Such favoritism has been cited as a cause of inequality by students 
