El impuesto a la propiedad inmobiliaria tiene un gran potencial como fuente de renta para los gobiernos locales en Asia, pero su implementación no ha sido equitativa. El libro nuevo del Instituto Lincoln, Property Tax in Asia: Policy and Practice brinda el primer análisis integral del rendimiento de este instrumento fiscal fundamental en el continente más grande del mundo.

Este libro, escrito por un equipo de expertos líderes y editado por William McCluskey, Roy Bahl y Riël Franzsen, brinda un análisis comparativo y recomendaciones detalladas para académicos y gestores de políticas. Contiene 13 estudios de caso detallados sobre esta región, que es el hogar de casi la mitad de la población mundial, y brinda el análisis más completo a la fecha de las leyes, las prácticas administrativas, las propuestas de reforma, la tecnología y los debates políticos que dan forma a la tributación inmobiliaria en países de todos los tamaños y niveles de ingresos. 

“Mediante los casos de estudio de estos 13 países y regiones, se descubrió que los métodos para modernizar el impuesto a la propiedad inmobiliaria varían en gran medida, por ejemplo, en cómo se aprovecha la ventaja que brinda la tributación como medida para aumentar la renta y convertirla en un instrumento para racionalizar la política de uso del suelo y fomentar la equidad social”, escriben los editores. 

En el libro, se pone de manifiesto que, por lo general, los países más ricos, como Japón, Corea y Singapur, tienen sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria que funcionan correctamente, aunque se enfrentan a desafíos, como la falta de información sobre la propiedad de las cada vez más numerosas viviendas abandonadas de Japón. En China y Vietnam, donde no se permite la propiedad privada del suelo, los gobiernos locales recurren en gran medida a tarifas por uso del suelo que se cobran por única vez, pero son menos confiables y estables que los impuestos que se recaudan en forma continua. Además, muchas áreas de menores ingresos se enfrentan a bases imponibles reducidas, subvaluación de los bienes inmuebles, incumplimiento y desafíos políticos. El libro, que reconoce que las condiciones varían mucho, recomienda diez direcciones para la reforma, desde aclarar las funciones gubernamentales hasta aprovechar el poder de la tecnología de la información. 

Property Tax in Asia (Impuesto predial en Asia) es el último título de una serie de libros del Instituto Lincoln en la que se analiza la tributación inmobiliaria en distintos continentes. También conforman la serie Property Tax in Africa (Impuesto predial en África) (2017) y Sistemas del impuesto predial en América Latina y el Caribe (publicado en español, 2016). 

Crédito de la fotografía: yongyuan via Getty Images.

This fall marked the 15th anniversary of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC). Established in 2007, the center has become a leading authority on land policy issues in China, including the property tax, municipal finance, land and housing policies, and land conservation. To celebrate this milestone, the PLC held an event on November 4 that included commemorative remarks, a formal recommitment to the partnership between the two institutions, and several academic presentations on urban development and climate change. 

“The Lincoln Institute works globally on topics largely relating to land policy, and the joint center is an exceptional platform for our China program,” said Katie Lincoln, chief investment officer and board chair of the Lincoln Institute, who delivered congratulatory remarks by video. “During the past 15 years, the center has held numerous conferences, undertaken research and demonstration projects, shared in scholarly exchanges, and happily gained recognition both in and out of China.” 

In addition to Lincoln, several current and former leaders from the two institutions joined the celebration virtually or in person, including Jin Zhang, vice president of Peking University; Jianhua Lin, former president of Peking University; Yansong Li, former vice president of Peking University; George W. McCarthy, president of the Lincoln Institute; Gregory Ingram, former president of the Lincoln Institute; and Joyce Man, former director of the PLC. 

“We are now at a difficult time of Sino-U.S. relations,” said former PKU President Lin. “But I believe that the mutual trust between our two institutions and the confidence about the value of what we do will continue to be a foundation for us to cooperate and move forward.” 

During the event, Zhang and McCarthy signed an agreement for continued collaboration between the two organizations. “In the next few years, the PLC will add a new focus on land use and climate change, in support of China’s ambitious goal of achieving net-zero carbon goals by 2060,” noted McCarthy. “The PLC also will help the Lincoln Institute in its global efforts to address the climate crisis. The unique cooperation between the Lincoln Institute and PKU over the last 15 years has been fruitful for China, the United States, and the world in [finding land-based solutions to] economic, social, and environmental challenges. We are excited to embark on another five-year journey together.” 

The center, which conducts research, training, policy analysis, academic exchanges, advisory services, and demonstration projects throughout China, also invited several scholars, fellowship recipients, and others who have been involved with its work over the years to share reflections.  

“I worked with PLC for more than ten years, from winning the Peking University–Lincoln Center scholarship, to guiding students to participate in the center’s fund application, to becoming a partner of the center’s work and research,” said De Tong, associate professor at Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School. “Scholars at the center have become my inspiring mentors and friends, and colleagues at the center have also become comrades-in-arms at work and friends in life.” 

The center has launched an essay contest open to those who have been involved with the PLC over the years, from scholarship recipients to business collaborators to conference participants. Five winning essays, selected in January, will receive a small monetary prize; a copy of the Lincoln Institute book Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives, coedited by José A. Gómez-Ibáñez and Zhi Liu, who leads the PLC as director of the Lincoln Institute’s China program; a copy of Advanced Economic Geography by Canfei He, dean of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at PKU and associate director of the PLC; and publication on the PLC website. 

The second half of the day’s events was structured as an online forum on climate change and urbanization in the context of China’s dual-carbon goal, which seeks to reach peak carbon by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. Leading policy makers and scholars from China, Hong Kong, and the United States shared their latest thoughts and studies on topics including green building, urban equity, and urban-rural integration, drawing an audience of more than 600 researchers, planners, and others.  

“The dual-carbon goal is a major challenge for China, but also presents new opportunities for China’s continuing urbanization,” said PLC Director Liu. “Urbanization and carbon net-zero has been a hot topic in China’s policy debates, which have been getting more substantive and concrete over the last two years. I found myself learning a lot from these presentations, which deepened my understanding about the challenges and opportunities that the goal of carbon net-zero will bring to our urbanization for the next few decades.” 

Forum topics and presenters included: 

• the evolution and future of green building, by Dr. Baoxing Qiu, former Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development; 
• carbon reduction models for commercial real estate, by Professor Siqi Zheng of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning of MIT; 
• equity and governance under China’s dual-carbon goal, by Professor Shenjing He from the Department of Urban Planning and Design of the University of Hong Kong; 
• carbon reduction through urban agglomeration, by Professor Ming Lu from Antai School of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; and  
• urban-rural integration and rural revitalization, by Professor Shouying Liu from the School of Economics of Renmin University. 

Visit the “Our Work” section of our website to learn more about the PLC and to find information about how to connect with the center on WeChat. 

Lead image: Lincoln Institute President and CEO George W. McCarthy and Peking University Vice President Jin Zhang celebrate the renewal of the collaborative agreement that established the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. Credit: Courtesy of PKU.

Local property taxes and state aid each have flaws, but a thoughtful combination of these two revenue sources is the most effective recipe for funding a high-quality K–12 education for  all students, according to a new Policy Focus Report published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 
 
In Rethinking the Property Tax–School Funding Dilemma, authors Daphne A. Kenyon, Bethany Paquin, and Andrew Reschovsky explain how local property taxes foster civic engagement and provide stable funding, while state aid is critical in reducing disparities among school districts caused by differing levels of property wealth and differences in the money needed to provide high-quality education. 
 
The report explains the advantages of the property tax compared to other local taxes and demonstrates how states can adopt policies to address criticism of the property tax. A well- designed system of state aid can offset differences in per-pupil property values and in the costs of providing quality education. State-funded property tax credits can reduce economic hardships for taxpayers facing high property tax burdens, especially those with low incomes. And unjustified differences in property tax bills among owners of similar properties can be addressed through more frequent and accurate assessments. The authors explain why the majority of states still fail to provide all students an adequate education and recommend policies to strengthen both funding sources with the specific goal of improving student outcomes. 

Five state-level case studies illustrate the practical nuances of state education finance and property tax policies and offer important lessons for policy makers. California’s Proposition 13 limited property taxation and accelerated a shift toward state funding at the expense of local control and student academic performance. A more modest property tax limit in Massachusetts proved more flexible and, combined with targeted state aid and robust accountability standards, has not impeded strong academic results. 

South Carolina’s implementation of a local-for-state tax swap in 2007, which fully exempted homeowners from paying local school property taxes and increased reliance on the sales tax to fund education, demonstrated how unreliable sales taxes can be in an economic downturn. Despite a long history of school funding litigation, Texas still relies heavily on property taxes to fund its schools. Failure to continually adjust its state funding formula for rising costs and property values has led to higher property tax burdens on homeowners. Last, in Wisconsin, the state’s property tax revenue limit restricts school districts’ ability to increase spending, and the state equalization aid formula does not account for differences in school districts’ needs and costs. 

“As a former state education official, I would have loved to have had a report like this to help me get up to speed on the critical issues around school finance policy,” said Carrie Conaway, former chief strategy and research officer at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and senior lecturer at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education. “The report provides a very clear explanation of the role played by the property tax in funding public education and describes the complex issues involved in designing effective state aid systems. Anyone involved in or interested in school funding policy will benefit from reading this report.”  

“A perennial target in state education finance legislation, the property tax remains a much-discussed and asked-about topic in my work with state legislatures,” National Conference of State Legislatures Senior Fellow Daniel G. Thatcher agreed. “This report will guide policy conversations about how to improve the sustainability, stability, and fairness of property tax systems, and also in education finance systems writ large.”  

Rethinking the Property Tax–School Funding Dilemma offers specific reforms that state governments—as well as localities—can make to balance revenue needs, funding realities, and other considerations. Notably, states must resist calls to stop using local property taxes to fund schools while also improving the equity and efficiency of their property tax systems.  

The authors also recommend that states maintain sufficient “rainy day funds” to draw upon when state tax revenues decline and that they target more local aid toward schools that require additional support to provide their students with an adequate education. Finally, the federal government also has a role to play in supplementing funding in low-spending states according to need, as well as in helping remedy learning losses from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“Understanding the relationship between local property taxes and state school aid is critical for understanding how public schools are funded,” said Lawrence O. Picus, professor of education finance and policy at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. “This Policy Focus Report provides concise guidance about the use of property taxes and the importance of state funds to equalize disparities in property tax revenues for schools. It is a must-read for anyone interested in, or part of, the school finance policy process, and an excellent introduction for those who want to dig deeper into these relationships.”  

While specific reforms will necessarily vary across different states and localities, the authors stress that targeting state education funding is essential in closing equity gaps and overcoming the persistent effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and their disproportionate impact on students of color, English-language learners, and disabled students.  

Equally important is a well-functioning property tax system that avoids overly burdensome restrictions while offering “circuit breakers” and other forms of targeted relief to homeowners in need. Ultimately, the authors offer readers the tools for “overcoming the shortcomings of both funding sources, enabling state school funding systems to give all students an adequate, quality education equitably and efficiently.” 

The report is available for download on the Lincoln Institute’s website: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/rethinking…

Allison Ehrich Bernstein is principal at Allative Communications.

Image by kali9 via Getty Images.