Students of public finance and fiscal decentralization in developing and transitional countries have long argued for more intensive use of the property tax. It would seem the ideal choice for financing local government services. Based on a Lincoln Institute conference held in October 2006, the chapters in this book take this argument one step further in drawing on recent experience with property tax policy and administration. Two main sets of issues are addressed. First, why hasn't the property tax worked well in most developing and transitional countries? Second, what can be done to make the property tax a more relevant source for local governments in those countries? The numerous advantages of the property tax as a local government revenue source are analyzed and discussed in detail as are the many perceived disadvantages.
In A Good Tax, tax expert Joan Youngman skillfully considers how to improve the operation of the property tax and supply the information that is often missing in public debate. She analyzes the legal, administrative, and political challenges to the property tax in the United States and offers recommendations for its improvement. The book is accessibly written for policy analysts and public officials who are dealing with specific property tax issues and for those concerned with property tax issues in general.
The tax on immovable property has been characterized as probably the most unpopular among tax instruments, in part because it is salient and hard to avoid. But economists continue to emphasize the virtues of the property tax owing to its relatively low efficieny costs, benign impact on growth, and high score on fairness. It is, therefore, generally considered to be underutilized in most countries. This paper takes stock of the arguments for using real property taxation, and presents an updated data-set for high-and middle income countries to illustrate its use. It also reflects the renewed and widespread interest in property tax reform globally, and discusses the many policy and administrative issues that must be carefully considered as prerequisites for successful property tax reform.
The use of property tax incentives for business by local governments throughout the United States has escalated over the last 50 years. While there is little evidence that these tax incentives are an effective instrument to promote economic development, they cost state and local governments $5 to $10 billion each year in forgone revenue. Three major obstacles can impede the success of property tax incentives as an economic development tool. First, incentives are unlikely to have a significant impact on a firm's profitability since property taxes are a small part of the total costs for most businesses--averaging much less than 1 percent of total costs for the U.S. manufacturing sector. Second, tax breaks are sometimes given to businesses that would have chosen the same location even without the incentives. When this happens, property tax incentives merely deplete the tax base without promoting economic development. Third, widespread use of incentives within a metropolitan area reduces their effectiveness, because when firms can obtain similar tax breaks in most jurisdictions, incentives are less likely to affect business location decisions. This report reviews five types of property tax incentives and examines their characteristics, costs, and effectiveness: property tax abatement programs; tax increment finance; enterprise zones; firm-specific property tax incentives; and property tax exemptions in connection with issuance of industrial development bonds. Alternatives to tax incentives should be considered by policy makers, such as customized job training, labor market intermediaries, and business support services. State and local governments also can pursue a policy of broad-based taxes with low tax rates or adopt split-rate property taxation with lower taxes on buildings than land.State policy makers are in a good position to increase the effectiveness of property tax incentives since they control how local governments use them. For example, states can restrict the use of incentives to certain geographic areas or certain types of facilities; publish information on the use of property tax incentives; conduct studies on their effectiveness; and reduce destructive local tax competition by not reimbursing local governments for revenue they forgo when they award property tax incentives.Local government officials can make wiser use of property tax incentives for business and avoid such incentives when their costs exceed their benefits. Localities should set clear criteria for the types of projects eligible for incentives; limit tax breaks to mobile facilities that export goods or services out of the region; involve tax administrators and other stakeholders in decisions to grant incentives; cooperate on economic development with other jurisdictions in the area; and be clear from the outset that not all businesses that ask for an incentive will receive one.Despite a generally poor record in promoting economic development, property tax incentives continue to be used. The goal is laudable: attracting new businesses to a jurisdiction can increase income or employment, expand the tax base, and revitalize distressed urban areas. In a best case scenario, attracting a large facility can increase worker productivity and draw related firms to the area, creating a positive feedback loop. This report offers recommendations to improve the odds of achieving these economic development goals.
This report, an update of an earlier report from the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, presents a review of urban America and its governmental capabilities. Chapters focus on: (1) urban America today (major aspects of the urban problem, changes in urban problems, changes in the perception of urban problem solving, and programs for meeting urban needs); (2) overcoming the urban fiscal problem (the plight of central cities, Federal action, State action, and the development of an effective and equitable state and local revenue system); (3) improving services in urban America; (4) restructuring local governments (the Federal role, and others); (5) solving the problem of metropolitan areas (urban development, urbanization, building requirements, urban development planning and land use regulation, and urban development policy framework); and (6) intergovernmental problems and strategies for the future. The report concludes that urban society is worth saving. The connection between the high standard of living in America and the urban setting of most American activity today is not coincidental. What is called for is a series of actions which will produce, at the end, a revitalized American urban scene. The Federal system already has begun to change. yet the need for urban statemanship at all levels remains great. (Author).
States experiencing taxpayer revolts among homeowners are tempted to reduce reliance on the property tax to fund schools. But a more targeted approach can provide property tax relief and improve state funding for public education. This policy focus report includes a comprehensive review of recent research on both property tax and school funding, and summarizes case studies of seven states-- California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio and Texas. The majority of these states are heavily reliant on property tax revenues to fund schools. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, the report recommends addressing property taxes and school funding separately.
Economist David Merriman of the University of Illinois at Chicago reviews more than 30 individual studies in the most comprehensive assessment of tax increment financing (TIF) with practical recommendations for policy makers and practitioners. The report finds that while TIF has the potential to draw investment into neglected places, it has not accomplished the goal of promoting economic development in most cases. First implemented in the 1950s, TIF funds economic development within a defined district by earmarking increases in future property tax revenues that result from increases in real estate values in the district. The tax revenue can be used for public infrastructure or to compensate private developers for their investments, but TIF is prone to several pitfalls: it often captures some revenues that would have been generated through normal appreciation in property values, it can be exploited by cities to obtain revenues that would otherwise go to overlying government entities such as school districts, and it can make cities' financial decisions less transparent by separating them from the normal budget process. The report recommends several ways that state and local policy makers can reform TIF practices going forward.
