Value capture is an increasingly popular concept that seeks to capture for public benefit all or part of the increments in land value resulting from community, rather than private, investments and actions. Yet, based on the Lincoln Institute’s experience in sponsoring many educational and research programs dealing with value capture policies in Latin America, it is also quite controversial.

This article addresses some of the contentious and persistent issues that have engaged participants in the ongoing debate over value capture, ranging from basic concerns, such as the proper understanding of the legal basis for land property rights, to larger political questions raised by new or higher charges on real estate property. Technical issues also are involved, such as distinguishing land value increments (or plusvalías) attributed to specific public investments or planning decisions from other more general sources or factors that influence land markets, as well as pragmatic challenges that arise in selecting the right instrument for the right circumstances at the right time.

To gain a better understanding of value capture, one cannot rely simply on technical arguments or expert authorities. At the same time, one cannot dismiss the issue on purely political grounds by attributing the main obstacles to the implementation of value capture policies to well-positioned interest groups. Rather, a considerable share of the “unexplained variance” in the application of value capture seems to be the result of inadequate information or misunderstanding held by major stakeholders in the debate.

Figure 1 summarizes 10 contentious value capture issues; items 1, 2 and 3 are discussed briefly below.

Unfair Charges for the Poor

Although support for direct subsidies or grants to the poor is waning in Latin America, many still believe that the poor should not pay for urban services, or should be exempted from taxes and other charges on their land, as is required by many of the more progressive value capture policies and laws.

A common argument in favor of exempting the poor from such charges raises an intergenerational dilemma: since wealthy residents for many years have enjoyed urban services that they did not pay for, why should the poor be charged now for services that they need and deserve? Another argument centers on the idea that most land value increments in poor areas have in fact been generated by the poor themselves, through sweat equity or private schemes to access basic services in their areas, not through public intervention. Some recognize that urban upgrading programs simply bring poor settlements to the first stage of the urbanization process, which is a bare minimum for participation in regular land markets. Others believe that even a socially neutral value capture instrument may produce a regressive result, perpetuating the disparity between the rich and the poor in the context of inequitable access to urban facilities and services, as is the case in most Latin American cities (Furtado 2000).

On the other end of the spectrum are those who argue that value capture payments are part of the poor sector’s claim to full citizenship, including the right to demand attention from the government. There are many examples where the poor have been eager to pay for receiving services (such as water systems, public lighting and flood control) since the cost of not accessing them is perceived to be higher than the actual payment. This was the case in Lima, Peru, in the early 1990s when more than 30 poor communities participated in a public service program that included payment for the cost of the services provided.

A more theoretical and perhaps less intuitive argument considers the capitalization effect of any charge on land prices. That effect is the reduction (or increase) of the current market price of land by the capitalized or discounted sum of the costs (or benefits) affecting the future earnings the property is expected to generate. To the extent that value capture charges on regularized or upgraded areas are integrated in the expectations regarding the future burden imposed on unserviced land bought from illegal or pirate subdividers, they would tend to be capitalized in the price that buyers would be willing to pay or the subdivider was able to charge (Smolka 2003). Although the poor would end up paying the same amount over time, the money would go to the local public treasury rather than the subdivider’s pocket.

Incidently, a common but mistaken view holds that such charges (value capture or land value taxes) are inflationary or increase the market price of land. Although the capitalization effect is complicated, most people can understand a situation comparing two otherwise identical apartments, where the one located in a building with a higher condo fee would get a lower rent in the marketplace than the apartment with a smaller fee. The same line of reasoning may be used to explain why there is no double taxation between value capture and the property tax. The relevant land value increment resulting from some public intervention accumulates or adds to an observed base market price that already is net of the capitalized effect of any anticipated future benefits or burdens, including the property tax.

Acquired Rights When Changing Land Uses

Although few would argue that expectations play a crucial role in determining land prices, it is widely considered unfair if price compensation falls below current market prices. This idea is now beginning to change, as reflected in recent legislation. For example, Law 388 of 1997 in Colombia allows for public acquisition of land at fair market prices, but not including the increment of land value resulting from previous public investments or changes in regulatory land uses (see article by Maldonado and Smolka, page 15). The same principle is stated in Brazil’s new City Statute (Law 10.257 of 2001) when land expropriation is used as a sanction against a landowner who is not complying with social uses of the land. Many lawyers agree that expectations do not create rights; therefore, expectations not realized should not be compensated. The social unrest around public land acquisition that led to the postponement of Mexico City’s proposed new airport mega-project vividly illustrates this problem.

It is hard for the typical landowner who in good faith bought a piece of land with the expectation of using its development potential to understand why he should not be compensated for the loss of that land at the current market price or at least the acquisition price, even if the development rights had not been exercised. However, the result often depends on the extent to which the new policy is actually implemented. In practice, prices reflect expectations regarding the (usually weak) enforcement of existing legislation, including legal variances or loopholes in the relevant fiscal and regulatory environment. This has been the case in most court decisions regarding fair compensation on public land acquisition processes and on claims from landowners (or developers) on whom local administrations impose plusvalías charges. A more pragmatic argument is that rights may indeed be restricted by a new legislation or zoning code, as long as it is accompanied by adequate transition rules to protect the rights of those who had previous legitimate claims. Others defend the transition process as an indispensable step toward allowing the market to gradually absorb such changes.

Economists struggle to convey the importance of expectations in determining the structure of current observed land prices. How the future affects current land prices is in fact harder to express to the general public than the notion that current prices reflect rights as realized in comparable properties in the past. In Latin America expectations associated with land uses are not always related to zoning or building codes, but rather to land speculation. It may be of interest to note that whereas speculation in Latin America is associated with long-term retention of land, in North America it is associated more with rapid turnover of properties. The phenomenon of land retention for future development, with the consequent private appropriation of unearned increments in land values, has stymied urban planning and development ever since cities began expanding rapidly over many decades.

Asymmetrical Compensation for Wipeouts

The debate over value capture (i.e., capturing land value increments, windfalls or plusvalías) inevitably raises the question: What about the wipeouts (minusvalías)? The common perception is that governments are more eager to approve legislation to capture land value increments than to provide legal protections for citizens against takings or arbitrary compensation for equally predictable losses (minusvalías). The Latin American record has shown, however, that the balance between the plusvalías captured and the minusvalías paid for is clearly negative. The amount paid in compensation to landowners surpasses by far the small and sporadic gains the public has been able to recover from the direct benefits it generates for private properties.

All rents, and land prices for that matter, are in essence nothing more than accumulated plusvalías, or land value increments, over time, echoing Henry George’s argument for full confiscation of land rents. Thus, the alleged minusvalías are considered incidental and just part of a value to which individual rights are not (or should not be) absolute. The debate on this asymmetry bears directly on the proper definition of wipeouts and on how those losses are understood, which raises the issue of development rights. While some are willing to restrict the compensation for land and building improvements that the owner may lose, others argue that development rights are permanently built in as an inherent attribute of the land.

In practice it is not easy to make these arguments. What may be valid in the aggregate does not necessarily hold true for the part, since individual landowners consider it a loss in land value when, for example, a walled expressway cuts across their back yard or a viaduct blocks their view and produces noise and pollution. The average citizen is not easily convinced by the above arguments. The quest for symmetrical treatment is too socially and culturally sensitive to be ignored.

Transfer of development rights (TDRs)—an instrument originally conceived for compensating minusvalías from historical, architectural, cultural or environmental preservation ordinances for plusvalías somewhere else—has now been extended to mitigate other legitimate claims for minusvalías compensation. Some argue that regular compensation for wipeouts is a guarantee, making it easier to accept payments for windfalls. Under the equity principle, planning decisions including zoning schemes are recognized as potentially unfair with regard to the distribution of values in land markets. However ingenious the TDR instrument may appear, it does not help clarify the issues at stake. On the contrary, it adds to the debate since it simultaneously recognizes the right for minusvalías to be compensated and sanctions the right of individuals to plusvalías, reintroducing the question of private appropriations of community values.

Final Comments

The complex debates over value capture policies and instruments in Latin America indicate that much remains to be researched and learned. If the issues do not necessarily have a single answer, the arguments discussed here demonstrate that a significant portion of the resistance to such ideas may be attributed to misconceptions and insufficient information. Although the positions taken by different groups are not as clear-cut or coherent as expected, perceptions and attitudes do change, as the accompanying article indicates.

Martim O. Smolka is a senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. Fernanda Furtado is a fellow of the Institute and a professor in the Urbanism Department at the Fluminense Federal University in Niteroi, Brazil.

References

Furtado, Fernanda. 2000. Rethinking value capture policies for Latin America. Land Lines 12 (3): 8–10.

Smolka, Martim O. 2003. Informality, urban poverty and land market prices. Land Lines 15 (1): 4–7.

Figure 1: Contentious Propositions and Commentaries on Value Capture

Proposition Commentary

1. It is unfair to charge the urban poor who benefit from regularization or upgrading programs. Evidence shows that expectations regarding publicly funded future upgrading programs lead to higher markups or premiums on current land prices in irregular or illegal settlements. Charging for such benefits would simply switch the recipient of a payment burden that is already being imposed on the poor from the subdivider to the government collecting the charge.

2. Urban land policy must take into account previous development rights, for they are acquired rights. Although expectations are an important part of land market prices, they do not create rights. Zoning designations or development rights, when not realized, are not acquired rights and therefore they can be taken without compensation.

3. Minusvalías are not compensated for; the asymmetry between plusvalías and minusvalías is unfair. Minusvalías are the exception in Latin American cities where land value increments are much higher than the cost of servicing land. In practice, however, public compensation to private owners usually far surpasses collection through value capture policies.

4. Land value capture policy is “communist.” Paying for “free rides” is certainly not a communist idea. One is reminded of mainstream economic theories regarding the merits of a system where individuals and social costs and benefits converge at the margin.

5. Value capture over and above the property tax implies double taxation. In effect, observed land prices to which land value increments apply are already net of the capitalization effect of property tax on land values.

6. Value capture distorts the functioning of the land market. In actuality, it’s the opposite: uncontrolled land value increments distort the behavior of agents. The presence of plusvalías is as distorting a factor for urban development as inflation is for economic development in general.

7. Private appropriation of land value increments is no more objectionable than similar windfalls obtained in capital markets. There is a fundamental conceptual difference. In capital markets equity and bonds are issued against productive investments as collateral for increases in productivity in individual businesses. In the land market, by contrast, land value increments result from the community effort, not individual effort.

8. Value capture is technically impractical because it is impossible to measure the land value increment. With the technical resources available today it is ludicrous to think it “can’t be done.” Ingenious and practical solutions have been developed in Cartagena, Colombia, and Porto Alegre, Brazil, for example.

9. Value capture is overwhelmingly rejected by the citizens, and therefore is politically impractical. The privileged few are the main source of rejection, not the poorer majority of the population who often are charged higher prices in order to access public services through informal arrangements.

10. The amount that can be collected with supplementary value capture instruments is a negligible amount in the public budget. Because of limited collection of the property tax in Latin America, value capture resources can assume an important role in financing urban development. Besides, use of value capture brings to light plusvalías, which has traditionally been a key source of corruption, and thus contributes to a healthier fiscal environment.

The property tax is the most widely unpopular tax in America. States have responded to this public opposition by enacting a range of tax relief policies, especially for homeowners (Cabral and Hoxby 2012). Among the most commonly adopted programs are homestead exemptions and property tax credits; all but three states have at least one of these programs. But despite their broad use and their potentially large impact on the distribution of property tax burdens, there has been remarkably little data available on the tax savings generated by property tax exemptions and credits.

Two new resources, available through the Lincoln Institute’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter, begin to fill this need. These tables provide information for each state on the share of homeowners eligible for these programs and the level of tax savings they receive, as well as an analysis of how eligibility and benefits vary across the income distribution (see box 1, p. 26). This article draws on these resources to provide the first national study of property tax exemptions and credits with estimates of tax savings from these programs. With this information, policy makers have a critical tool to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of their property tax relief programs.

————————

Box 1: State-by-State Details on Property Tax Exemptions and Credits

The Significant Features of the Property Tax sub-center provides three key resources with information on property tax exemptions and credits in all 50 states; it is accessible at www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax.

Tax Savings from Property Tax Exemptions and Credits

This online Excel file includes estimates of tax savings from programs in individual states (see abbreviated example below), plus overview tables that make it easy to compare across states. For each program, the file provides estimates of the number of eligible homeowners and the median benefit, as well as a distributional analysis by income quintile. This is the first time that detailed data are available for most of these programs.

Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits

This online Excel file includes a set of tables for 167 programs displaying the value of exemptions expressed in terms of market value; criteria related to age, disability, income, and veteran status; the type of taxes affected (i.e., school or county taxes); whether the tax loss is borne by state or local governments; local options; and more. The summary table makes it easy to conduct quantitative analysis of these programs or make quick state-by-state comparisons. The information in these tables was used to generate the tax savings estimates.

Residential Property Tax Relief

This section of the Significant Features website includes detailed descriptions of property tax exemptions and credits, which were used to create the online Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits. It also describes other types of property tax relief, such as circuit breakers and tax deferral programs.

Notes: Total tax savings from the Senior and Disabled Property Tax Homestead Exemption ($392M) is less than the combined total of the programs for Seniors ($378M) and the Disabled ($22M), because homeowners who are 65+ and disabled cannot claim the exemption twice. The online Summary Table shows that the Senior and Disabled Exemption is a $25,000 exemption for homeowners who are 65+ or disabled; the two Rollback programs are percentage exemptions of 2.5% and 10% for all owner-occupied residences. Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2015).

————————

How Property Tax Exemptions and Credits Work

Property tax relief programs come in a variety of forms. Homestead exemptions reduce the amount of property value subject to taxation, either by a fixed dollar amount or by a percentage of home value. Property tax credits, in contrast, directly reduce the homeowner’s tax bill by a fixed dollar amount or certain percentage.

As table 1 illustrates, programs designed to provide identical benefits to owners of $200,000 homes have widely different impacts on homeowners with higher- and lower-valued properties. Given a 1% tax rate, a $20,000 flat dollar exemption reduces property taxes for each homeowner by $200 ($20,000 x 1%). This program has a progressive impact on the property tax distribution because lower-income households tend to have less valuable homes, and the exemption represents a larger share of their home values. In this case, the $20,000 exemption reduces property taxes by 20% on the $100,000 home, 10% on the $200,000 home, and 5% on the $400,000 home.

A percentage exemption, in contrast, provides the same percentage reduction in taxes for all three homeowners—in this example, 10%. In dollar terms, however, percentage exemptions favor owners with higher-valued homes: a 10% across-the-board reduction lowers property taxes by only $100 on the $100,000 home but $400 on the $400,000 home.

In the case of flat dollar credits, homeowners with lower-valued homes usually receive the largest tax cuts in percentage terms. In contrast, the percentage tax credit again provides the owner of the $400,000 home the largest tax cut in dollar terms.

An important feature of property tax exemptions and percentage credits is that the dollar reduction (but not the percentage reduction) in taxes increases with tax rates. For instance, if the homes in table 1 were subject to a 2% tax rate, the dollar savings to their owners would double under the $20,000 exemption, 10% exemption, and 10% credit. While the dollar savings from flat dollar credits do not vary with tax rates, the percentage savings to homeowners decrease as tax rates rise.

Critical Features of Exemptions and Credits

The design of homestead exemption and property tax credit programs varies significantly across the 50 states. Figure 1 (p. 28) summarizes the number and share of state programs with the following key characteristics.

Benefit Calculation

Perhaps the most important feature of property tax relief programs is how benefits are calculated. In 2012, 59% of state programs provided flat dollar exemptions, 19% provided percentage exemptions, and the final fifth used property tax credits or other more complicated formulas to determine the amount of tax relief for each homeowner.

While the programs work in similar ways, their effects differ dramatically. As the examples in table 1 show, flat dollar exemptions and credits make the property tax distribution more progressive, while percentage exemptions and credits do not. As a result, to provide a certain level of tax relief for the median homeowner, percentage exemptions are more expensive than other programs because they result in larger property tax cuts for owners of higher-valued homes. Instead of changing the distribution of property taxes among homeowners, percentage exemptions are primarily a way to shift the tax burden away from homeowners as a group to businesses, renters, and owners of second homes.

State vs. Local Funding

The ultimate impact of exemptions and credits on property tax bills depends on how the programs are funded. Figure 1 shows that in 2012 only 28% of these programs included full state reimbursement to cover local revenue losses, while 57% had local governments bear revenue losses on their own. For 15% of programs, state and local governments shared the revenue loss in some way. (Broad-based programs for all homeowners or all seniors are more likely to receive state funding than programs for smaller groups such as veterans or the disabled. In 2012, 43% of tax relief programs for all homeowners or seniors were state-funded, 48% were locally-funded, and the rest split the revenue loss [Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2014].)

The primary argument in favor of state funding of property tax exemptions and credits is that it can help mitigate disparities in property wealth across localities. Poorer communities and those without a significant business tax base typically have higher property tax rates, and these communities receive more funds per homeowner under state-funded programs. Without this assistance, communities with higher tax rates will experience larger revenue losses from tax relief programs unless they increase tax rates even further.

Seniors vs. All Age Groups

A number of states provide property tax relief for seniors. In 2012, more than a third favored seniors in some way: seven had statewide programs solely for this group, while 11 also covered younger homeowners but provided higher benefits for older homeowners. Other states provided either the same level of benefits for homeowners of all ages (15 states) or did not have broad-based programs (18 states).

Common arguments for targeting senior homeowners is that property taxes account for a larger share of their incomes, and local governments spend less on seniors than on younger homeowners with school-aged children. While it is true that property taxes account for a larger share of income for seniors than for working-age homeowners, the two groups devote nearly identical shares of their incomes to total housing costs because seniors are far less likely to have mortgages (Bowman et al. 2009, 11). In addition, property taxes are payments for public services, not user fees (Kenyon 2007, 36). Younger households without children in public schools do not benefit from property tax relief under these programs. The preferential tax treatment of seniors may simply reflect the fact that older households are a politically powerful group that votes in high numbers.

Estimating the Benefits of Exemptions and Credits

To estimate tax savings from homestead exemptions and property tax credits, the first step was to create the online Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits, which describes the key features of each program (see box 1 for description). These data draw almost entirely from the Residential Property Tax Relief Programs section of the Lincoln Institute’s Significant Features of the Property Tax database.

The second step was to combine this information with household-level data from the 2008–2012 American Community Survey (ACS). This nationally representative survey has data on more than 6.5 million U.S. households, including the household characteristics that determine program eligibility (age, income, disability, veteran status, etc.) and level of benefits received (home values and property tax bills). For a full explanation of the methodology used to estimate tax savings from exemptions and credits, see Langley (2015).

It is important to note that the estimates reported here are gross property tax savings. Tax relief programs often lead to higher property tax rates, especially under locally-funded programs where jurisdictions raise tax rates to offset the drop in the tax base from the exemptions. Estimates of net property tax savings would be lower in those communities, because the higher tax rates offset some of the direct tax relief provided from exemptions and credits.

Figure 2 shows that total property tax relief from homestead exemptions and property tax credits varies widely across states, but is generally small relative to total property tax revenues. In 14 of the 45 states with these programs, total savings are less than 0.5% of property tax revenues; in 27 states, the savings are less than 2.5%. At the same time, though, tax savings in nine states equal or exceed 10% of total property tax revenues. Indiana’s program is particularly generous, offering all homeowners a $45,000 exemption, then an additional 35% exemption for the first $600,000 in assessed value and a 25% exemption for value above $600,000.

Tax Savings for Different Types of Programs

Most states have more than one property tax exemption or credit program, with different programs targeting different groups of taxpayers—typically all homeowners, seniors, veterans, or the disabled. Figure 3 presents estimates on the share of homeowners eligible for these programs, along with the level of tax savings they receive.

Homeowners

Programs in 26 states are for nearly all homeowners, but usually limited to owner-occupied primary residences. In the typical state with these programs, the median homeowner receives a 12.5% cut in property taxes. On the high end, however, the median property tax cut was at least 25% in more than a quarter of states with these programs.

Seniors

Property tax relief programs in 18 states target older homeowners (typically at least age 65). These programs are much more generous than those covering all homeowners, with a median tax reduction of nearly 30% in the typical state. More than half of these programs provide a median tax cut of at least 25%, while only a sixth of them provide a median tax savings of less than 10%.

In the median state, 19.6% of homeowners are eligible for the programs, but eligibility rates vary greatly across states depending on whether there is an income ceiling. In the seven states that provide property tax relief to seniors regardless of income, 25–30% of homeowners are typically eligible. But in seven states with low income cutoffs ($10,000 to $30,000), only 5–10% of homeowners qualify. The other four states with property tax relief programs for seniors do not fit neatly into these two categories because they have higher income ceilings, strict wealth limits, or other eligibility criteria.

Veterans

State programs for veterans are more common than for any other group of homeowners, although eligibility is often limited to those who are disabled. Indeed, only 10 states provide property tax exemptions or credits for all veterans, even those without disabilities. In the median state with these programs, the typical beneficiary receives a property tax cut of just 3.2%.

There are 31 states that provide property tax exemptions or credits to veterans with service-connected disabilities. Because of the disability requirement, most veterans are ineligible for the programs. Indeed, only 15% of veterans qualify in the typical state. Overall, just 0.6% of homeowners are eligible for these programs in the median state.

Moreover, most of the 31 programs base eligibility and benefit levels on disability ratings from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Just seven states have programs for all partially disabled veterans, and veterans with lower disability ratings typically receive modest tax savings. On the other hand, 18 states restrict eligibility to veterans who are permanently and totally disabled. These programs benefit a very small share of veterans, but they usually provide a full 100% exemption.

Disabled

Programs in 23 states cover disabled homeowners, but really target two distinct groups: disabled homeowners and blind homeowners. In 2012, 12 states had programs for disabled homeowners, seven states had programs for the blind, and five states covered both groups. Programs for the disabled typically require beneficiaries to be permanently and totally disabled, but exact criteria vary. In the median state, 2.3% of homeowners are eligible for these programs and they receive a median property tax cut of 21%.

Conclusion

Homestead exemptions and property tax credits are an important part of the property tax system. These programs are used in nearly all states and can make the distribution of property taxes significantly more progressive. It is therefore critical that policymakers have good data on the property tax relief that these programs actually provide.

New research makes this information available for the first time. Using the Lincoln Institute’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter, policymakers can easily compare key features of property tax exemption and credit programs across states, and see estimates of eligibility and tax savings. These data make it possible to evaluate the impacts of property tax exemptions and credits in their particular states as well as find ideas for program improvements.

Adam H. Langley is Senior Research Analyst at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Special thanks go to Andrew Reschovsky, who provided extensive comments on this article and other related papers.

References

Bowman, John H., Daphne A. Kenyon, Adam Langley, and Bethany P. Paquin. 2009. Property Tax Circuit Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Cabral, Marika, and Caroline Hoxby. 2012. “The Hated Property Tax: Salience, Tax Rates, and Tax Revolts.” Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper 18514. November.

Kenyon, Daphne A. 2007. The Property Tax-School Funding Dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Langley, Adam H. 2015. “Estimating Tax Savings from Homestead Exemptions and Property Tax Credits.” Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2014. Significant Features of the Property Tax. Residential Property Tax Relief Programs: Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits in 2012. www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/Report_Residential_Property_Tax_Relief_Programs.aspx

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2015. Significant Features of the Property Tax. Tax Savings from Property Tax Exemptions and Credits in 2012. www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/Report_Residential_Property_Tax_Relief_Programs.aspx

Municipalities across the United States face social problems caused by high land prices and a shortage of affordable housing. Dick Netzer, professor emeritus of economics and public administration at the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University, discusses the role that land taxation might play in addressing these issues. Netzer is a long-time faculty associate of the Institute and is the editor of several Institute publications, including Land Value Taxation: Can It and Will It Work Today (1998).

Land Lines: Could a land tax affect the building portion of the housing supply?

Dick Netzer: Yes. This is a point on which it is useful to distinguish the effect of taxes on land, capital and labor. A change in the tax system that affects the return on an investment in any of these factors will affect the amount that is invested, because a higher rate of return will encourage more investment in that factor and increase its supply. Here, of course, land is an unusual factor of production, because for most purposes we can consider the supply of land as fixed. An increase in demand will not produce an increased supply of land, and reduced demand will not decrease the supply.

On the other hand, lower taxes on capital and labor will cause their supply to increase because of the increased net return to these factors. So a tax shift that reduces taxes on capital and labor and increases taxes on land will increase the supply of capital and labor but not reduce the supply of land. Building construction is a very capital-intensive industry, and an increased supply of capital and labor, reflecting their higher after-tax rewards, will allow more building construction to take place.

LL: How would a land tax affect the price of land?

DN: We can assume that the pre-tax prices reflect “what the market would bear,” and that imposition of a tax will not increase demand or raise the amount that buyers would be willing to pay for land. In that case, the total amount buyers will pay, including the new tax that they will face, will be unchanged. But the division of that payment will change. Less will go to the seller, and that will be balanced by the increased tax that will be paid to the government. We need to distinguish here between short-term and long-term effects. In the long term, the price does not change—it just is divided differently between the seller and the government. But the short-run outlay does change, because the tax is a periodic charge over time, while the price paid to the seller is a lump sum, or requires a mortgage and a down payment. Reducing the lump-sum component and increasing the periodic charge can ease liquidity problems, making land more accessible to purchasers who cannot readily raise large amounts of cash but who can meet their tax obligations.

LL: So the overall effect would be to help make housing more affordable?

DN: Yes. Together these effects on building supply and on land prices should result in lower rents and lower housing prices. Note that this is not a direct effect of increasing land taxes, but an indirect effect as a consequence of untaxing labor and capital.

LL: How do you analyze our current shortage of affordable housing?

DN: Since landowners are currently able to command an outsized return on their landholdings, tenants are paying higher rents than one would expect if the returns to land ownership were more modest. We are fortunate to live at a time when demand for housing is increasing—and so is demand for land on which to build new housing or to renovate existing housing. When demand rises for a product in fixed supply, prices generally rise as well. But this rising demand and these rising prices are not the result of actions by landowners themselves. So there is neither an economic need nor an equitable requirement that this increasing demand produce larger returns to landowners.

LL: What would the economic transition to higher land taxes look like?

DN: In a period when housing demand is rising, one solution would be to increase the tax on land values while reducing taxes on labor, machinery and other productive equipment. First, let’s consider the effect of untaxing labor and capital to some extent. A reduction in taxes on labor and machinery will allow people who offer their labor and savings to earn more after taxes. When these earnings increase, we would expect that more labor and savings will be offered, which in turn will cause some reduction in earnings, but not enough to drive the supply to its previous levels. Because the costs of construction and the cost of equipment will be lower, the prices that consumers pay for new housing will decline.

I don’t want to overstate the scale of this effect. If housing demand is very strong, the effects on prices are likely to be modest, but the supply of housing will increase. The net result will be to dampen increases in housing prices and rents.

LL: What about the effect of the transition on land prices themselves?

DN: That is the other part of the tax shift. Right after such a change in the tax system, the prices of land for new buyers will fall sharply, because along with the land they are buying an obligation to pay the new, higher land taxes. So homebuyers and renters, as well as homebuilders, will face lower immediate prices for land, offset by the higher taxes they will pay over time. Even with this offset, they will be in a better position than they were before the tax shift. There will be a significant lowering in the need for cash when homebuilding begins, when a home is purchased, and when rental property is sold to new investors. These are critical times for homebuyers and for investors in residential property, and a reduction in their cash requirements at these points can be a great benefit. Of course, they will have to pay the higher land taxes each year. But these taxes do not require an advance lump-sum payment, and they require no mortgage or construction loans. These positive liquidity effects can be very important in housing markets—perhaps not to the very largest commercial homebuilders or to the most affluent buyers, who may not require a mortgage at all, but very important to ordinary participants in the housing market.

LL: What about existing landowners who suddenly face higher taxes?

DN: This is a genuine issue, and there may well be negative liquidity effects for them. The sale value of their land will fall immediately and substantially. If so, they may be less willing or able to withhold their land from the market in hopes of gains from increases in market values in the future.

We can expect another impact on land taxes, in a different direction. The lower prices on labor and equipment will cause a greater investment in housing and other construction. That means there will be more demand for land, and this increased demand will raise land prices. However, this rise will be of a different character from the price increase that we considered at the beginning of this discussion, which represented an outsized return to landowners. Unlike speculative price increases that stem from expectations of even higher prices in the future, the rise in land values resulting from increased investment in labor and equipment will not outpace the increase in income generally. The knowledge that a large portion of the future gains will have to be paid to the government in the form of a high land value tax will prevent buyers from bidding up the price of land simply in expectation of those gains. This is a good example of the distinction between two types of price increases. The purely speculative increase produces outsized returns to current landowners but does not benefit society as a whole. A price increase that reflects greater availability of labor and capital can serve the function of allocating land among competing uses, which helps the economy function efficiently.

Thomas J. Nechyba is professor of economics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, where he also serves as director of undergraduate studies for the Department of Economics. In addition, he is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and he serves as associate editor for the American Economic Review and the Journal of Public Economic Theory. His research and teaching focus on the field of public economics, in particular primary and secondary education, federalism and the function of local governments, and public policy issues relating to disadvantaged families.

Professor Nechyba has lectured and taught in courses at the Lincoln Institute for several years, and he recently completed a working paper based on Institute-supported research, “Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reform.” This conversation with Joan Youngman, senior fellow and chairman of the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation, explores his interest in land taxation and his research findings.

Joan Youngman: How is a land tax different from a conventional property tax?

Thomas Nechyba: It’s really a question of tax efficiency. Any tax has two effects, which economists call the income and substitution effects. The income effect of a tax is the change in the choices made by the taxpayer because payment of the tax has reduced the taxpayer’s real income. The substitution effect arises because the very existence of the tax changes the relative prices of the taxed goods, and therefore gives an incentive to taxpayers to substitute non-taxed goods for taxed goods. The income effect does not give rise to any efficiency problems; it simply implies that some resources are transferred from taxpayers to the government, and we hope the government will do something useful with the money. But, the change in behavior from the substitution effect causes an economic distortion that does not benefit anyone. That is, when the higher price of a taxed good causes me to substitute to a different non-taxed good purely because of the distorted prices, then I am worse off and the government gets no revenue. This is the source of the loss of economic efficiency from taxation, because people are worse off than they were previously, and by a larger amount than the tax collections themselves. This phenomenon is sometimes called a deadweight loss.

Once I asked my students to react to the following statement on an exam: “People hate taxes because of income effects, but economists hate taxes because of substitution effects.” One student wrote that it was undeniably true because it showed that economists aren’t people! Well, I think at least some economists are also people. However, it is true that people dislike taxes primarily because they don’t like paying money to the government. Economists especially dislike those taxes that cause greater deadweight losses, i.e., taxes that have greater substitution effects.

A land tax is a very unusual tax. It does not carry this deadweight loss because it does not give rise to a substitution effect. No one can make a decision to produce more land or less land, and the fact that land is taxed will not distort economic decisions. If we think of the price of land as the discounted present value of future land rents, a tax that reduces expected future rents will cause the price of land to drop. But the total cost of the land, which is the purchase price plus the tax, remains unchanged. Those who are considering the purchase of land therefore face the same cost before and after the tax: before the tax, they simply pay a single price up front; after the tax, they pay a lower price up front but they know they will also have to pay all the future taxes. There is no substitution effect, only an income effect for those who currently own land, because now they can sell it for less than before. Property taxes that tax both land and buildings, on the other hand, do give rise to substitution effects because they distort the cost of making improvements to the property.

A revenue-neutral shift to land value taxation would reduce other, distortionary taxes. A shift to a more efficient tax can improve economic welfare without a loss in tax collections. This much is well known. What is not well known is the magnitude of this benefit and of the cost to landowners in terms of lower land prices. Conventional wisdom predicts that a shift to an efficient land tax would increase income and output but reduce land prices. This kind of general statement isn’t much help to policy makers. If one is suggesting major changes in a tax system, policy makers need to know whether the benefits and the costs are going to be large or small. My recent Lincoln Institute working paper, “Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reform,” constructs a model of state economies in the U.S. to help us think about the effects of such changes.

JY: How did you become interested in developing an economic model for land taxation?

TN: A few years ago, Dick Netzer, professor of economics and public administration at New York University, suggested that I look at the implications for the U.S. economy of replacing capital taxes with land value taxes. Most economists know of the Henry George Theorem and recognize that land taxation is efficient, but they associate his ideas with nineteenth-century economic thought. We assume that all the changes in the economy since then, and changes in the economic role of land, have left these ideas inapplicable to contemporary tax systems. So I was quite surprised that my model indicated that substituting a land value tax for capital taxes on a national level would not only be efficient, as expected, but would actually raise the value of many types of land. However, property taxes are state and local taxes, and the U.S. constitution places special impediments to a national property tax, so a land tax would not be possible on a national level. Further, since each state economy is different, the results of substituting land value taxes for other taxes will also vary from state to state.

JY: How can a tax on land increase land prices?

TN: In and of itself, a tax on land does not increase land prices; it actually reduces land prices, because it reduces the discounted present value of land rents. My research does not consider a land value tax in isolation, but as part of a revenue-neutral tax reform that replaces other, distortionary taxes with a land value tax. Lower taxes on capital will increase capital usage, and more intensive use of capital will raise land prices. For example, if constructing a building becomes more profitable because the tax on the building is lowered or eliminated, an investor may be willing to pay a higher price for its components, including the land.

JY: How did you go about estimating the magnitude of these effects?

TN: I developed a general equilibrium model of an economy that uses land, man-made capital and labor in production. A general equilibrium model is one that examines how changes in one kind of market affect all other markets. This model is then applied to different states, as well as to one hypothetical “average” state, to see how various tax reforms that substitute land value taxes for taxes on capital or labor would affect prices and production. The division of capital into land and man-made capital is a departure from standard analysis, which generally looks at capital as a single category.

One critical element is the elasticity of substitution among these factors; that is, the ease with which one can be substituted for another. Technically, it is the percentage change in one factor that results from a 1 percent change in the other. This is the key to efficiency gains from reducing the tax on man-made capital and on labor and increasing the tax on land. A lower tax on man-made capital will increase the use of that capital, which in turn will produce greater output and more hiring of labor. The easier it is to substitute man-made capital and labor for land, the greater the benefit from a switch to land value taxation.

JY: Where do the elasticity numbers come from?

TN: I use a range of estimates drawn from the economic literature. For example, most studies of the substitution between capital and land give elasticity estimates between 0.36 and 1.13. My paper uses the relatively conservative estimates of 0.75, 0.5 and 0.25 as high, medium and low values, and looks at the result under each assumption. This number is then adjusted to reflect the amount of land in the state devoted to farming, on the assumption that farmland is less easily substituted for capital in the production process. I also ask similar questions with regard to substitution between land and labor.

The elasticities of the actual supplies of man-made capital and labor are also crucial. If taxes on them are reduced, how much extra capital and labor will be available as a result of the increased after-tax return? Often in studies of this sort we make what is called a “small open economy assumption.” We assume that the economy we are looking at is small in relation to the rest of the world, and that capital and labor flow freely into and out of the jurisdiction. In that case, the elasticity of supply is infinite. The opposite extreme would be an economy with the equivalent of closed borders, where no capital could enter or leave. In that case the elasticity of supply would be zero. In looking at U.S. states, the small open economy assumption is not completely accurate, and zero elasticity is not accurate either. The right number is somewhere in between. Neither capital nor labor is as mobile internationally as within the U.S., and labor in particular is less mobile across state boundaries than within a state or a small region. The small open economy assumption may be appropriate in some circumstances for smaller states, but we have to introduce more complex assumptions in other cases.

JY: How does your model compute taxes on land and labor and man-made capital? This isn’t a standard classification of taxes.

TN: This is complicated, because it involves payroll taxes, federal and state corporate taxes, federal and state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and so on. So the model looks at all these taxes and makes assumptions about who is paying them to estimate an overall tax rate on labor from all sources—federal, state and local. Similarly, the model estimates an overall tax rate on land and on man-made capital. This allows us to move from an illustrative example in which taxes on labor and capital are replaced by land value taxes to considering changes in real-world taxes, which of course are never based solely on labor or capital.

JY: How do you represent the shift in taxes from labor and man-made capital to land?

TN: This is a hypothetical policy experiment in the model. Suppose, for example, you wanted to eliminate all sales taxes in a revenue-neutral way, making up the lost collections through a land value tax. Sales taxes are the average state’s largest revenue source, so this shift would be quite ambitious. The model shows what would happen under various elasticities of substitution and elasticities of supply, as described above. The tables in the paper show what land tax would be necessary to maintain revenue, and the changes in capital investment and land prices that would result.

JY: How do you move from the hypothetical average state to the 50 individual states?

TN: You have to begin by asking what factors might cause states to have different experiences with land value taxation. We consider each state’s taxes, because the benefits of shifting to a more efficient system will vary according to how much current taxes distort economic choices. Some states have no income taxes. Some states tax property heavily, while others tax sales heavily. The other critical component concerns the state’s sources of income—how they are divided among land, labor and man-made capital. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports income from various sources by state, but does not account separately for income from land. For that information we draw on the Census of Agriculture data on the amount and market value of farmland to estimate an income figure.

JY: What kinds of results did you obtain?

TN: Since taxation of land is always economically efficient, and since taxation of other factors is always economically inefficient, a shift to land taxes always increases capital, income and labor use. For the “typical” state it seems that most of the simulated tax reforms are feasible, particularly those that reduce taxes on capital. A 20 percent cut in the sales tax, for instance, requires a nearly 24 percent increase in the tax on land, while a similar cut in property taxes requires virtually no change (0.2 percent) in the tax on land. Even a complete elimination of the state and local property tax calls for only a 23 percent increase in the tax on land, while an elimination of the sales tax would require a whopping 131 percent increase. Landowners would be deeply and adversely impacted by reforms that cut the sales tax (losing up to two-thirds of their wealth under a complete elimination of the sales tax), while they would barely feel the impact of most reforms focused on the property tax. They would experience at most a 7 percent decline in their wealth under the complete elimination of the property tax, and an actual increase in their wealth for less dramatic property tax reforms.

But these results differ substantially by state. For instance, the percentage change in the tax on land required to maintain constant state and local government revenues as taxes on capital are eliminated ranges from -1.91 percent to over 104 percent. Similarly, the impact on land prices varies greatly, with prices barely declining (or even increasing) in some states while falling by as much as 85 percent in others. While the elimination of all state and local taxes on capital is therefore technically feasible in all states, it is clearly politically more feasible in some states than in others. Overall, of course, replacing distortionary taxes with nondistortionary taxes on land always brings growth in the employment of capital and labor and increases output—but the size of these impacts also varies greatly. Given that the main political hurdle to land taxation is the expected adverse impact on landowners, these results seem to indicate that, as in the case of the “typical” state, such reforms should emphasize the simultaneous reduction in taxes such as the corporate income tax or the property tax.

JY: What do you take as the central lessons of this work?

TN: Several broad lessons emerge from the analysis of a typical state. First, elasticity assumptions are crucial to the exercise of predicting the likely impact of tax reforms. Second, under elasticity assumptions that are both plausible and relatively conservative, this model predicts that some types of tax reforms are more likely to succeed than others. In particular, tax reforms that reduce taxation of capital in favor of land taxation will have more positive general welfare implications while minimizing the losses to landowners. So policy makers might consider reforming corporate income and property taxes rather than sales and personal income taxes. Third, since elasticities tend to be lower in the short run, it is likely that some of the positive gains of tax reforms that reduce distortionary taxes in favor of land taxes will emerge only with time.

The most striking lesson from simulating tax reforms for the 50 different states is how greatly results can vary depending on underlying economic conditions and current tax policies in those states. Thus, far from arriving at “the answer” regarding the impact of land tax reforms, this study suggests that such answers are likely to differ greatly depending on the context in which the reforms are undertaken. Reforms that raise the tax on land are likely to be more effective the larger the size of the reform, the higher the initial distortionary taxes in the state, and the lower the current level of state income. And, reforms are more likely to be politically feasible (in the sense of not causing great declines in land values) when they involve reductions in taxes on capital.

The idea that land value taxation is unrealistic or would drive land prices into negative numbers is based on a static view of the economy, where no one responds to tax changes by substituting one factor for another. Once you accept that behavior will change in response to taxes, that static view no longer applies. Under these fairly conservative assumptions, tax reforms that use land taxes to eliminate entire classes of distortionary taxes are economically feasible in virtually all states. This work shows that, far from being quaint or outmoded, the idea of taxing land value is quite relevant to the contemporary policy debate.

Working Paper Information: Thomas Nechyba. 2001. “Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reform.” 70 pages. The complete paper is posted on the Lincoln Institute website at www.lincolninst.edu and may be downloaded for free.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Claudia De Cesare es asesora en materia de impuesto predial para la Secretaría de Finanzas del municipio brasileño de Porto Alegre y se desempeña como docente del área de valoración y tributación predial en el programa de posgrado de la Universidad Federal de Río Grande do Sul en Puerto Alegre. Lleva más de cinco años participando en el diseño de cursos y desempeñándose como instructora en el Programa para América Latina del Instituto Lincoln. Además pertenece al consejo asesor del Instituto Internacional de Impuesto predial (IPTI) y se desempeñó como directora técnica del Instituto Brasileño de Avalúos y Peritaje (IBAPE).

Land Lines: Porto Alegre goza de renombre internacional por su innovadora administración local democrática. ¿Qué hace única a esta ciudad en comparación con otras en Brasil o América Latina?

Claudia De Cesare: En efecto, Porto Alegre ha sido pionera en muchas acciones de la administración pública, entre las que se encuentran: el uso del impuesto predial como instrumento para la recuperación de plusvalías, la venta de los derechos de construcción (solo criado), el uso de los derechos de construcción en lugar de dinero en efectivo para pagar las expropiaciones de bienes raíces y la recaudación de rentas a cambio del uso de espacio público para redes de infraestructura, como son las de telecomunicaciones, de televisión por cable y de gas. Por ejemplo, cinco años antes de la aprobación de la legislación nacional del Estatuto de la Ciudad que reglamentaba el uso de tasas progresivas para el impuesto predial, Porto Alegre había aprobado una legislación local en esa materia. Si bien la Corte Suprema posteriormente falló en contra de esta medida local y a favor de la necesidad de una legislación nacional, la ciudad ha jugado un papel protagónico en la promoción del debate sobre muchos temas controvertidos, como son los derechos privados, los derechos de propiedad y los intereses públicos.

Creo que entre las razones que han hecho posibles estas innovaciones en Porto Alegre están una clara definición de las políticas y los objetivos por lograr, así como las “agallas” de los dirigentes locales para afrontar los problemas, incluso cuando ello pueda provocar conflictos. En los funcionarios públicos ha prevalecido la visión de que la ciudad debe planearse de forma democrática para beneficio de la comunidad en general y la convicción de que los bienes públicos deben tomarse con seriedad. No todas las iniciativas han tenido éxito, pero los ciudadanos ahora entienden mejor las responsabilidades y limitaciones del gobierno local. El hecho de que un partido político, en este caso el Partido de los Trabajadores (PT), resultara elegido para conducir el gobierno de la ciudad durante más de 15 años consecutivos también contribuyó a la continuidad y coherencia de estas medidas públicas. Este tipo de legado político es bastante inusual en Brasil y en América Latina en general.

LL: ¿Cómo ha afectado esta atmósfera proactiva la administración del impuesto predial?

CD: Podemos identificar dos períodos en lo que respecta al comportamiento del impuesto predial en Porto Alegre. Antes de 1989, los ingresos locales provenientes del impuesto predial seguían el mismo patrón que en el resto de América Latina. Era más bien simbólico, caracterizado por un bajo grado de esfuerzo en la administración, negligencia en la recaudación de los impuestos locales y dependencia extrema de las transferencias de ingresos desde la instancia nacional y estatal. Luego de reformas radicales en el impuesto predial que modificaron las políticas de exención, introdujeron tasas progresivas y estipularon una nueva lista de avalúo, la tasa de recaudación del impuesto predial aumentó en más del 300% en los primeros dos años. Una amplia campaña educativa pública hacía hincapié en los argumentos para pagar regularmente el impuesto predial, la importancia de dicho impuesto para la dotación de servicios públicos y las razones por las que las autoridades locales no tolerarían la evasión fiscal.

Un cambio en la actitud por parte del gobierno de la ciudad condujo asimismo a una aplicación más eficaz de la ley en lo que respecta a los pagos del impuesto predial y las medidas jurídicas para abordar el problema de la evasión fiscal o las disputas sobre los avalúos. Se dejó claro que no habría amnistía para las deudas por concepto de impuesto predial. El proceso de presupuesto participativo igualmente contribuyó a la rehabilitación del impuesto predial en Porto Alegre, ya que aumentó la confianza general en la administración pública (véase el artículo de Goldsmith y Vainer, de 2001). Desde principios de los años 1990, las rentas anuales recaudadas por concepto de impuesto predial se han mantenido estables y representan casi el 0,95% del PIB local. En comparación, en la esfera nacional, el impuesto predial apenas representa aproximadamente el 0,5% del PIB. No se han realizado mejoras subsecuentes en el impuesto predial, básicamente porque el poder legislativo ha rechazado varias propuestas tanto para reformas como para revisiones drásticas.

LL: ¿Qué importancia tiene el impuesto predial para América Latina?

CD: Aunque la respuesta sencilla a esa pregunta es “depende de cada país”, este impuesto no es una fuente significativa de ingresos en ningún país latinoamericano, si bien en la mayoría de los países los sistemas de impuesto predial llevan tiempo establecidos. Sólo en Argentina y Uruguay las rentas provenientes del impuesto predial representan más del 1% del PIB. En Brasil el resultado promedio se acerca al 0,5% y en México y Costa Rica se ubica alrededor del 0,3% del PIB. Más aún, en cifras relativas, existe una gran variabilidad en la importancia del impuesto predial en los países y ciudades que no se explica directamente por el PIB local ni el tamaño de la población. Parte de los resultados depende de la voluntad política, la cual varía enormemente de una ciudad a otra.

LL: En su opinión, ¿cuáles son los principales puntos controvertidos en lo que refiere a la recaudación del impuesto predial?

CD: Diría que entre los puntos controvertidos se encuentran los objetivos reales por lograr con este impuesto, el grado de universalidad en su implementación, los cambios que se necesitan para tomar en cuenta las inquietudes sociales, económicas y culturales, y la distribución de la carga tributaria para reglamentar el impuesto según la capacidad de pago. Con respecto a la capacidad de pago, sobre todo en Brasil, hay mucha discusión sobre la aplicación de tasas progresivas que varían según la cuantía de los avalúos. La cuestión subyacente pudiera estar en lo simple que debiera ser el sistema.

Otras cuestiones tienen que ver con la falta de consenso acerca de la transparencia del sistema, la autonomía local frente al sistema nacional de recaudación de impuestos y la inestabilidad política y económica en general que afecta los mapas del valor de las propiedades y otros datos. Más aún, la divulgación pública de información sobre el impuesto predial, como son las características de las propiedades individuales, los valores estimados en los avalúos y los pagos anuales del impuesto, no siempre se considera segura.

LL: ¿Qué se necesitaría para mejorar la recaudación del impuesto predial?

CD: Según mi experiencia, el éxito en la aplicación del impuesto predial depende de una combinación de políticas fiscales adecuadas, un marco jurídico coherente para la recaudación de los impuestos y una estructura administrativa eficaz. Por ejemplo, es probable que la aplicación de (altas) tasas confiscatorias en predios vacantes para promover el desarrollo urbanístico más bien estimule la evasión de impuestos. Por otra parte, son indispensables la voluntad política y la capacidad de negociación con los actores para introducir reformas o revisiones en la administración tributaria. Probablemente el índice de recaudación mejorará cuando los contribuyentes vean más claramente la conexión entre los servicios públicos y las rentas recaudadas por concepto de impuesto predial. En otras palabras, la función del impuesto predial mejoraría si la comunidad está acostumbrada a pagar dicho impuesto y entiende su efecto en la mejora de los servicios públicos. Finalmente, con una tendencia hacia una cultura fiscal participativa –en la cual la comunidad se involucra en las decisiones sobre la recaudación de impuestos y los gastos públicos– se podría aumentar la aceptación del impuesto, lo que facilitaría la recaudación.

LL: ¿Qué está cambiando en la región que ejerza influencia sobre las posibilidades de reforma fiscal?

CD: Creo que actualmente los administradores tributarios entienden y se interesan más en el impuesto predial. Están conscientes de la necesidad apremiante de aumentar las rentas a través de una mejor aplicación del impuesto, a pesar de los desafíos que plantean su alta visibilidad y sus antecedentes históricos de funcionamiento deficiente. Asimismo saben de la necesidad de romper este paradigma, en relación tanto con las expectativas de los contribuyentes como con el papel que juega el impuesto predial dentro del sistema tributario nacional. Varias experiencias aisladas, pero prometedoras, han dejado en claro que la reforma del impuesto predial en América Latina es viable, si bien requiere voluntad política, innovación y disposición para superar las barreras s vislumbradas en su implementación.

LL: ¿Cuáles son las principales diferencias en el entorno del impuesto predial de América Latina en comparación con Norteamérica?

CD: Los sistemas de Estados Unidos y Canadá ciertamente son más maduros y transparentes que la mayoría de los sistemas latinoamericanos, más que todo porque la información está disponible y es de dominio público y porque existe fácil acceso a la tecnología. Algunas de las diferencias más importantes observadas en América Latina son los patrones de ocupación ilegal, la falta de información confiable sobre la tenencia de la tierra, el gran número de transacciones inmobiliarias informales y el predominio de la construcción progresiva de viviendas. Todas estas características del uso del suelo en América Latina plantean desafíos distintos para diseñar procedimientos para hacer los avalúos inmobiliarios y administrar una política tributaria justa y coherente. En cuanto al uso de la tecnología en la administración del impuesto predial, el año pasado supe de un sistema catastral en México que es tan eficaz como los mejores sistemas usados en Estados Unidos. No obstante, es un caso atípico; existe gran variación en el uso de tecnología entre las distintas autoridades locales en América Latina.

LL: Con base en su investigación, ¿cuáles son algunos de los efectos positivos y negativos de cambiar a un sistema tributario basado en el valor del suelo para las propiedades residenciales?

CD: La conclusión de mi estudio fue bastante inesperada, ya que la hipótesis respaldaba el argumento opuesto. A partir de una base de datos de Porto Alegre, descubrí que el resultado principal de usar el valor del suelo como base del impuesto era la tendencia hacia mayor regresión en la distribución de la carga tributaria, por lo que las viviendas de menor precio quedaban claramente identificadas como los posibles perdedores. El hecho de que parte de la carga tributaria fuera transferida de las propiedades de precio alto a las de precio más bajo es un verdadero motivo de preocupación. No obstante, es necesario profundizar la investigación para solucionar las imperfecciones en el modelo de avalúo usado para estimar el valor del suelo y examinar otras bases de datos. En todo caso, se identificó la falta de conocimientos sobre el uso del valor del suelo como base del impuesto y sus ventajas predecibles como principal obstáculo para su aplicación en Brasil.

LL: ¿Cómo usa usted diversos instrumentos y técnicas de valoración para determinar el valor del suelo?

CD: Uno de los argumentos en contra del uso del valor del suelo como base del impuesto es la gran dificultad para estimar el valor de los predios con mejoras. En mi estudio, se descubrió que era viable usar modelos hedonistas (MRA) para estimar el valor del suelo. Para compensar la falta de datos sobre los predios no urbanizados en áreas sumamente desarrolladas (áreas centrales y distritos comerciales), utilicé un número razonable de viviendas que fueron vendidas para nuevos desarrollos urbanísticos. El valor de mercado de estas viviendas se determinó enteramente a través del potencial que tenía el predio para desarrollo futuro, así como de las características del vecindario. En consecuencia, los hallazgos respaldan la hipótesis de que posibles dificultades en el avalúo no impiden usar el valor del suelo como base para el impuesto predial, por lo menos en el caso de Porto Alegre. No obstante, se observó un grado menor de uniformidad en los avalúos de predios no desarrollados, puesto que los precios de los predios tienden a sufrir fuertes variaciones fortuitas y están muy influenciados por las características particulares del comprador y el vendedor involucrados en cada transacción.

LL: ¿Cuáles son, en su opinión, los mayores desafíos que enfrenta América Latina en los próximos cinco años?

CD: Como dije antes, uno de los mayores desafíos es lograr sistemas de impuestos prediales más eficaces. Creo que la promoción e implementación de programas nacionales de mejoramiento del impuesto predial es indispensable para fortalecer dicho impuesto en la esfera local. En un tono más personal, mi objetivo es crear un sistema basado en Internet para recabar y difundir información sobre el impuesto predial en América Latina, lo que permitiría hacer análisis comparativos entre las municipalidades según criterios predefinidos. Con este sistema los administradores del impuesto predial llenarían los datos sobre el funcionamiento de dicho impuesto de manera regular, lo que haría posible tener evaluaciones constantes. Sería un gran avance para el proyecto, ahora con respaldo del Instituto Lincoln, el cual utiliza actualmente cuestionarios convencionales para monitorear la información sobre el impuesto predial en la región.

Referencia

Goldsmith, William W. y Carlos B. Vainer. 2001. Presupuesto participativo y políticas de poderes en Porto Alegre. Publicado en el volumen 13 (1) de la revista Land Lines: 7–9.

Over the past decade of transition from communist to market economies, property taxation has taken on economic, political and legal importance as the countries in Central and Eastern Europe have developed new fiscal policies and new approaches to property rights. Taxes on land and buildings have served not only as revenue instruments but also as adjuncts to decentralization and privatization. In spite of the complex and varied national differences in this region, a number of common issues have emerged in regard to property-based taxes.

A period of transition places a premium on revenue sources that impose a minimum burden on the functioning of nascent market economies. Many of these postcommunist nations seek to strengthen local government, and all must adjust their tax systems to account for emerging markets for land and buildings at a time when state administrative capacity is challenged by the introduction of new income and consumption taxes. There is often strong support for retaining a public interest in land as a fixed, nonrenewable element of the common heritage which, once sold, cannot be reproduced. This sentiment coexists with an equally strong impetus for development of private business and private ownership of property. Each of these concerns raises special questions with regard to the role of land and building taxes in the transition.

Such taxes on land and buildings have already been designated as local revenue sources in many nations of Central and Eastern Europe. As a tax base that cannot relocate in response to taxation, real property permits an independent local revenue source. Times of fiscal stringency at national government levels dramatize the importance of such revenue for local governmental autonomy. Moreover, the goal of eventual international integration through the European Union and other trade arenas encourages development of taxes not subject to international competition.

Two primary difficulties confront efforts to implement land and building taxes in these countries. First, in the absence of developed property markets, the tax base requires a choice among formulary values, price approximations, and non-value means of allocating the tax burden. Second, times of financial hardship present special problems in imposing taxes on assets that do not produce income with which to pay the tax. This dilemma has left many property taxes at nominal levels.

These problems are closely related because the lack of reliable market prices, together with the legacy of officially determined price levels, can encourage legislation that assigns specific, sometimes arbitrary values to various classes of property for tax purposes. Given these difficulties, it is particularly significant that many of these nations have either adopted or are seriously considering some form of value-based taxation of immovable property as a source of local government finance.

The Case of Lithuania

Since declaring its independence from the USSR in 1991, the Republic of Lithuania has made rapid strides in economic reforms, privatization and government reorganization. Its plans for market value-based taxation of land and buildings reflect the country’s transition to a market economy and private ownership of property. Municipalities will receive the revenues from the new tax and will have the power to choose the tax rate, subject to an upper limit set by the national government. The Lithuanian Parliament has recently prepared draft legislation for this tax which assigns responsibility for developing a valuation system to the State Land Cadastre and Register (SLCR).

The SLCR was created in 1997 to consolidate a number of functions: registration of property rights, maintenance of a cadastre of property information, and valuation of real property for public purposes, including taxation. Since then the agency has organized a central data bank for legally registered property rights, land and building information, and Geographic Information System (GIS) maps. The data bank currently holds information on more than four million land parcels and structures, and it is linked to mortgage and other related registers and to branch offices throughout the country.

The proposed market value-based real property tax will replace two existing taxes on real property commonly found in post-Soviet systems: a land tax on privately owned land and a property tax on buildings and other property (not including land) owned by corporate entities, enterprises and organizations. Taxable values are currently set by the SLCR through application of varying “coefficients” that adjust base prices to reflect land use and location. The resulting values do not reflect current market prices. The tax rate of 1.5 percent of the taxable value for land and 1 percent of the taxable value of property yielded represent approximately 7 percent of local budgets and 2.5 percent of the national budget in 2000.

Lithuania’s growing demand for market-based property valuation data requires an increase in professional appraisal skills and experience with assessment administration. To address these needs, an Association of Property Valuers and a system of professional certification were established in the mid-1990s, in collaboration with other international valuation associations. Lithuania has also joined Estonia and Latvia in publishing periodic reviews of real estate markets in the Baltic states. Information regarding market activity is posted on the SLCR’s website www.kada.lt.

Lincoln Course

The Lincoln Institute has taught courses on property taxation in transition countries for nearly a decade, and in February the Institute collaborated with SLCR to develop a curriculum for seven senior public officials from Lithuania. The week-long program was based on the course that the Institute presented, in cooperation with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius in December 1997, for government officials from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Recognizing the importance of this year’s program to Lithuanian public policy, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provided support for the delegation’s travel to Cambridge.

The program offered a policy-oriented analysis of issues relating to market-based tax systems. It included guidance in developing a strategic plan and a legal and administrative framework for a computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) system suitable to Lithuania. Technical subjects were presented in the context of larger economic and political issues in land and property taxation. The course combined lectures, discussions with experienced practitioners, case studies, and field visits to state and local agencies in Massachusetts. Lectures addressing introductory, policy-focused subjects were supplemented by more specialized presentations covering market value appraisal techniques, mass appraisal, CAMA and tax law.

The Lincoln Institute will offer similar courses to public officials from other transition countries, and is continuing to develop other educational programs with Lithuania and its Baltic neighbors.

Jane H. Malme is an attorney and a fellow of the Lincoln Institute in the Program on Taxation of Land and Buildings. She has developed and taught courses on property taxation and has been a legal advisor to public finance officials in Central and Eastern Europe. She is co-editor with Joan Youngman of The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition: Case Studies, a book being published in 2001 by the World Bank.

Public officials from Lithuania and Lincoln Institute faculty members met at Lincoln House in February to learn from each other about market value-based taxation policy and plans for introducing property taxation in Lithuania.

Delegates from Lithuania: Arturas Baksinskas, Vice-Minister of Finance; Dalia Bardauskiene, Advisor to the Prime Minister on Rural and Urban Development and Planning; Algirdas Butkevicius, Member of Parliament on Budget and Finance Committee; Rimantas Ramanauskas, First Deputy Director, SLCR; Albina Aleksiene, Advisor to the General Director on Property Valuation, SLCR; Arvydas Bagdonavicius, Deputy Director, SLCR; Algimantas Mikenas, Deputy Head of Property Valuation and Market Research Department, SLCR.

Lincoln Institute Faculty: Joan Youngman, Senior Fellow and Director, Lincoln Institute Tax Program; Jane Malme, Fellow, Lincoln Institute Tax Program; Dennis Robinson, Vice President, Lincoln Institute; Richard Almy and Robert Gloudemans, partners, Almy, Gloudemans, Jacobs and Denne , LaGrange, Illinois; John Charman, Consultant Valuation Surveyor, London; David Davies, Director of Information Technology, Massachusetts Department of Revenue; Jeffrey Epstein, Consultant, Quincy, Massachusetts; Sally Powers, Former Director of Assessment, City of Cambridge.

One of the major objectives of the Lincoln Institute is to enhance discussion and debate on issues of land and tax policy. We accomplish this objective in part by sponsoring courses that bring stakeholders together at Lincoln House or other classroom locations. We believe these programs that permit face-to-face interaction can play a major role in advancing the debate and encouraging participants to share their ideas directly. But, our outreach through classroom courses can reach only a limited number of participants each year.

To supplement these programs, the Institute has developed other mechanisms for expanding our outreach and disseminating knowledge of critical land and tax policy issues. I would like to highlight some of these efforts, starting with recognizing the enthusiastic response of the readers of this publication, Land Lines. The articles published in each quarterly issue reflect the Institute’s involvement in education and research activities around the world and offer insights into our work on a wide range of matters. From the introduction of new tools and partnerships to improve planning in the U.S., to the development of value capture mechanisms in Latin America or the design of land tax programs in China and other transitional economies, Land Lines is the Institute’s primary publication for telling our story.

Other products of our publications program contribute to informing the debate as well. We publish books and policy focus reports based on research supported by the Institute, often in the form of edited volumes of papers presented at seminars or conferences. Working papers completed by Institute faculty and researchers are posted on our Web site so the results can be circulated in the public domain as quickly as possible. Currently more than 700 working papers, research reports and newsletter articles are posted, and many of them are available in Spanish or Chinese as well as in English. Each month thousands of visitors from around the world download material from our site.

The Web site also features two forms of online education. Many of our past course materials are available as complete documents that can be downloaded, and the Institute offers dynamic Internet-based courses on Lincoln Education Online (LEO), including Planning Fundamentals and Introduction to New England Forests. They provide lessons, self-assessment quizzes and additional resources for planning commissioners, citizens and other users who need information on tools and techniques.

Another effort to broaden the discussion of land and tax policy issues is the documentary film and outreach project known as Making Sense of Place. The first film, Phoenix: The Urban Desert, has been broadcast on television and shown in many community meetings throughout Arizona, and we are developing a second film about land use, growth and property tax issues confronting Cleveland, Ohio.

All of these non-classroom activities illustrate our commitment to reach out to many different audiences, to provide information and expertise that can make discussions about land and tax policy more valuable, and to help effect better decision making.

The property tax in Indiana has long generated considerable public policy debate, centering on the methods prescribed by the state to determine property values. Most states use some form of market value as the assessment standard, but Indiana relies on “true tax value.” Indiana law defines this as “the value determined under the rules of the State Board of Tax Commissioners,” and it declares that “true tax value does not mean fair market value.”

A landmark decision by the state Supreme Court in December 1998 ignited new debate over Indiana’s property tax system. The Court ruled that the tables used in the 1995 assessment manual lacked “meaningful reference to property wealth,” did not contain “objectively verifiable data,” and violated the state constitution. Although the legal opinion contained language suggesting approval of the use of market-derived data, the Court fell short of mandating a system based strictly on market value.

Almost two years have passed since this ruling, but minimal progress has been made in implementing a more equitable and uniform assessment system. Policy makers have focused almost exclusively on the projected tax shifts, especially those to homeowners, under market-derived valuation methods, and have all but ignored the underlying inequities that plague Indiana’s assessment system.

This article reviews the essential features of Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems, describes recent reform efforts, and identifies critical reform issues, apart from the tax shifts, that need to be addressed.

Property Tax and Assessment Systems

Property Tax Revenues. In 1999, the property tax raised more than $4.6 billion, nearly all of it generated locally and used for local services, especially K-12 public education. The property tax is the largest revenue source in Indiana, generating more revenue in 1999 than federal funds ($3.8 billion), individual income taxes ($3.7 billion), and sales and use taxes ($3.4 billion). Together, these four revenue sources account for nearly 80 percent of total state and local revenue (see Figure 1).

Nearly 65 percent of the total property tax levy in 1999 was paid by the business community, including commercial, industrial, utility, and agricultural property (see Figure 2). Personal property accounts for about one-half of the total business property tax burden. Although Indiana’s constitution prohibits unequal property taxation, this relatively high business share demonstrates a de facto classification system that allocates a majority of the property tax burden to non-voting entities.

Local Administration. The primary assessing jurisdiction in Indiana is the township. Each of the state’s 1,008 townships elects either a full- or part-time assessor, depending on population; nearly 85 percent of these assessors are part-time. County assessors are elected in each of the state’s 92 counties. As a general rule, the county assessor has a greater role when townships have more part-time assessors, because the county assessor reviews both personal property and real estate assessments.

State Administration. The State Board of Tax Commissioners (Tax Board), the first property tax commission of its kind in the nation, is primarily responsible for promulgating assessment rules and regulations for both real and personal property. Additionally, the Tax Board hears property tax appeals, approves local government budgets, provides assessor training, and maintains a comprehensive local government database.

Assessment Standards. Real and personal property are assessed at one-third of true tax value (TTV). The TTV of improved real property is based on a cost approach, but neither the replacement costs nor the depreciation schedules are market derived. In fact, when compared to the market, Indiana’s TTVs vary widely, not only between property classes (i.e., residential, business, utility and agricultural) but within classes as well.

The TTV of personal property is based on original acquisition cost, but, like the TTV of real property, relies on depreciation schedules that bear little relationship to the market. Most business assets receive accelerated depreciation of 40 to 60 percent in the first few years. However, older assets are subject to a relatively high residual value of 30 percent of original cost. Business inventory also is based on its original cost and is subject to the same floor, but it receives a 35 percent assessment deduction.

Indiana law provides that the TTV of land is to be based on market value, but recent studies have found that land assessments are significantly less than market value. Residential land values are roughly 40 percent of market value. The TTV of farmland is based on a use value of $495 per acre, adjusted for soil productivity, resulting in an assessment that is also well below market value.

Assessment Cycle. Indiana employs two different assessment cycles. Personal property is self-assessed annually, while real property reassessment is both infrequent and irregular. The last general reassessment of real property took effect in March 1995. The previous reassessment occurred in 1989, and reassessments generally took effect every ten years before then. The next general reassessment of real property has been delayed from March 1999 until at least March 2002.

Assessment Reform

Major state reform efforts, whether in welfare programs, school funding or tax policy, tend be driven by either fiscal distress or judicial mandates, but the political process dictates the speed of reform. This same pattern holds true for tax reform to achieve a more equitable and uniform assessment system in Indiana, as policy makers have been slow to respond to judicial mandates.

Judicial Efforts. The Indiana Supreme Court’s 1998 decision in State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. John is widely considered to be the most significant judicial decision on taxation in the state’s history. The Supreme Court affirmed the state Tax Court’s decision that the 1995 real property assessment manual violated the state constitution’s requirement that the Indiana General Assembly provide for “. . . a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation.”

The Supreme Court found these mandates of uniformity and equality were not met because the manual’s cost schedules were arbitrary, did not reflect actual construction costs, and were not based on “objectively verifiable” data. Unlike the Tax Court, however, the Supreme Court did not mandate a strict market value system. Rather, it ruled that any departures from market value must result in assessments that are “substantially uniform and equal based on property wealth.”

Because executive and legislative policy makers have been slow to respond to this mandate, the Tax Court has become increasingly assertive in the pursuit of an equitable assessment system. Recently, the Tax Court established certain dates for both the adoption (June 2001) and implementation (March 2002) of constitutional assessment regulations, required the Tax Board to submit monthly progress reports, and announced that an independent reassessment commissioner would be appointed if the Tax Board’s efforts were “deficient in any meaningful way.”

Executive Efforts. To carry out its duty to ensure uniformity and equality of property assessment and taxation, the Indiana General Assembly has delegated the development and oversight of the state’s assessment system to the State Tax Board, an executive agency under the governor. This agency has the unenviable task of creating a new assessment system that will likely cause considerable shifts in tax burdens. Delays have further politicized this process, and assessment reform and tax burden shifts have become the focus of the November 2000 general election.

The Tax Board has taken steps to comply with the Supreme Court decision. The Board’s 1999 proposed real property assessment manual incorporated market-derived cost tables for all property classes. Residential depreciation schedules also were based on the market, and the base value of agricultural land was increased from $495 to $1,050 an acre.

Unfortunately, other actions by the Tax Board and the inaction of the executive branch may have offset these improvements. For example, the proposed manual provided a residential assessment reduction, or shelter allowance. The Tax Board argued that basic shelter is not property wealth, since other assets cannot substitute for shelter. A shelter allowance was calculated for each county, ranging in value between $16,000 and $22,686, to be deducted from residential property assessments. This unique valuation method would reduce the predicted residential tax shift from 33 to 7 percent and could be considered a form of classification. Viewing this shift as unacceptable, the governor did not approve the 1999 proposed real estate manual, illustrating the highly politicized nature of assessment reform.

Legislative Efforts. Anticipating a major court decision, the 1997 Indiana General Assembly enacted legislation that many considered the first step toward significant assessment reform. It increased assessor training requirements, improved the local and state appeals process, and required the state to establish level of assessment and uniformity standards and to conduct equalization studies. Again, these improvements may have been offset by other legislative initiatives. The 1997 legislation allows township assessors to establish land values, an authority that previously rested with county land commissions. Current data indicates that these township land values are far from market values, and it is unlikely that the large number of part-time township assessors can establish more accurate land values in the future.

The recently enacted equalization legislation is also problematic. Most states equalize assessments in the first year that reassessment takes effect, to provide immediate mitigation for unequal assessment. Current Indiana law delays equalization for at least two years following the effective date of reassessment.

Conclusion

It comes as no surprise that projected property tax shifts have become the focal point of both assessment reform efforts and the 2000 general election. The highly politicized debate over “acceptable” tax burden shifts has distracted policy makers from addressing reform of assessment regulations. While market-derived assessment manuals represent a significant step, this alone will not result in a more uniform and equitable assessment system. Policy makers must also consider the following issues:

1. Taxpayer equity cannot be measured by interclass tax shifts at the county level alone. Assessment reform will produce dramatic intraclass and intracounty tax shifts, but these shifts have been discussed only as they relate to residential property. Yet, current data indicates that equally significant shifts will occur within other property classes, especially business property.

2. The current administrative structure of the state’s assessment system may not be compatible with an equitable and uniform assessment system. Restructuring the Tax Board could help insulate it from the political consequences of its oversight function. At the local level, policy makers should consider streamlining the roles of local assessors and identifying alternative assessment jurisdiction models based on population, parcel counts, and/or assessed value.

3. Adoption and enforcement of strict equalization standards may be the most significant step in the reform process.

4. The Indiana assessment community should take further steps to increase the level of assessor training and expand assessor qualification requirements. Policy makers also should consider appointment of local assessors by the county executive.

5. Indiana land assessments have been and continue to be well below market value. This underlying problem must be rectified through assessor training, more diligent state oversight, and implementation of the equalization process.

These issues must be addressed in order to remedy the inequities currently plaguing Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems.

____________

Frank Kelly and Jeff Wuensch are cofounders of the Nexus Group, an Indiana-based research firm specializing in property taxation. Kelly is also assistant professor of economics at Butler University and Indiana University; he previously served as the senior tax analyst for the Indiana State Tax Board. Wuensch previously worked as director of tax review at the Indiana State Tax Board and at the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute. Kelly, Wuensch and Thomas Hamilton, assistant professor of real estate in the Department of Finance at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, are joint recipients of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation from the Lincoln Institute. This article is based on their study of Indiana’s property tax system as part of their Fellowship project.

Total state and local revenue: Table/Chart 1 Sources are the Indiana State Tax Board and Indiana State Budget Agency Who pays the property tax: Table/Chart 2 Source is the Indiana State Tax Board.

Over the past decade, the Lincoln Institute has developed and presented many courses on the interaction of land and tax policies and on the development of value-based land and real property taxation for policy makers and senior government officials from countries transitioning to market economies in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics. These courses address the economic and legal basis for value-based taxes as well as practical problems in their implementation.

As private property markets evolve, property changes hands and new wealth is invested in real estate. The introduction of ad valorem taxation is a natural step in the development of market-based economies. With economic growth and development, the revenue capacity of a value-based tax increases, and the tax can contribute to other important transition objectives such as privatization, government decentralization, infrastructure improvement and efficient land use. Nevertheless, the introduction of value-based taxation confronts both political and practical difficulties in developing an appropriate legal and administrative framework, as well as effective valuation, appeals and information systems.

The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been in the forefront of implementing value-based taxes on land (Malme and Youngman 2001). Estonia was the first of these new independent states to recognize the benefits of land taxation and to introduce a value-based land tax in 1993, followed by Latvia in 1998. Lithuania has been a leader in integrating and unifying real property cadastral, registration and valuation systems to strengthen nascent real estate markets and support real property taxation. Progress toward value-based taxation in Lithuania began with the integration of real property administrative units and the development of an automated central database of real property information in a self-funded state enterprise known as the State Land Cadastre and Register (SLCR). In 2001 the Ministry of Finance funded the SLCR to plan and develop a mass valuation system in preparation for the anticipated passage of laws that will introduce value-based taxation of real property throughout Lithuania. The first phase of this program was the development of land value maps that were completed and made public in 2003.

The Lincoln Institute and SLCR (renamed the Lithuanian State Enterprise Centre of Registers [SECR] in 2002) have worked collaboratively since 1997 to offer educational programs and document Lithuania’s progress (Malme 2001; Sabaliauskas and Aleksienė 2002). In 2003 the Institute and SECR developed a new executive course, Introducing a Market Value-Based Mass Appraisal System for Taxation of Real Property, for lawmakers and senior government representatives preparing to implement value-based taxes in other countries experiencing rapid political and economic change.

The course uses Lithuania’s experiences in market valuation as a case study, and SECR executives and specialists join core international faculty in the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation to address the principles, strategies and practical problems raised by mass valuation of real property. The Lithuanian case study demonstrates how those responsible for developing that mass valuation system dealt with the problems they faced.

The first offering of the week-long course was presented in Vilnius, Lithuania, in October 2003 to a delegation from the Russian Federation, led by Alexey Overchuk, deputy chief of the Federal Land Cadastre Service of Russia (see related article). Participants included senior administrators of land valuation boards from various regions of Russia, officials from the federal ministries of Economic Development, Finance and Property Relations, and representatives from private companies involved in valuation system development. Two delegates from the National Cadastral Agency of the Republic of Belarus also participated. This course will be offered again in Vilnius in fall 2004 for a delegation from another country that is undertaking mass valuation for land or real property taxation.

Jane H. Malme is a fellow at the Lincoln Institute. She developed the new course on mass valuation with Lincoln Institute faculty Richard Almy, John Charman and Robert Gloudemans, together with SECR representatives Albina Aleksienė, Arvydas Bagdonavičius, Bronislovas Mikūta, Rimantas Ramanauskas, Antanas Tumelionis and Lidija Zavtrakova.

References

Malme, Jane H. 2001. Market value-based taxation of real property. Land Lines 13(1):8–9.

Malme, Jane H. and Joan M. Youngman. 2001. The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition: Case Studies from Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at http://www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/decentralization/library9/malme_propertytax.pdf

Sabaliauskas, Kestutis, and Albina Aleksienė. 2002. Progress toward value-based taxation of real property in Lithuania. Land Lines 14(4):11–13.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 3 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

El caso de Mexicali, capital del estado fronterizo de Baja California (México), es ejemplo destacado de una reforma exitosa hecha al sistema fiscal inmobiliario en la década de 1990. En apenas unos cuantos años, el gobierno municipal pudo aumentar las entradas provenientes del gravamen inmobiliario, así como también fortalecer sus finanzas y modernizar sus sistemas catastrales y de recaudación. Más aún, Mexicali llevó a cabo esta reforma adoptando un sistema de tributación sobre el valor de la tierra nunca antes aplicado en México, y los cambios contaron con la aceptación de la ciudadanía. A pesar de los problemas y errores surgidos a lo largo del proceso, esta experiencia ofrece lecciones provechosas a entidades interesadas en emprender reformas futuras del sistema fiscal inmobiliario, en México u otros países.

Consideraciones económicas, políticas y técnicas

Emprender una reforma del sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria no parecía ser tarea fácil ni en Mexicali ni en ninguna parte de México. Desde 1983, el gobierno local ha tenido la responsabilidad de fijar y recaudar los gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria, aunque ciertas responsabilidades aún recaen sobre las autoridades estatales. A lo largo de la década de 1980, tanto la recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario como los ingresos municipales en general sufrieron una caída estrepitosa causada por la combinación de una fuerte espiral inflacionaria, la recesión económica, la falta de interés político , y la insuficiente experiencia y capacidad administrativa de los gobiernos municipales, quienes preferían depender de fuentes de participación en los ingresos fiscales.

Como resultado de las mejoras en el rendimiento macroeconómico de la nación, a inicios de los noventa se dieron las condiciones para un cambio en la situación, aunque ciertos factores políticos y técnicos redujeron los incentivos para que muchos gobiernos estatales y municipales iniciaran una reforma fiscal. No obstante, el gobierno federal de Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1989-1994) se lanzó a mejorar las finanzas municipales mediante un programa de modernización catastral impulsado por el Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios (BANOBRAS), un banco de desarrollo público.

Incluso antes de que este programa y otras políticas nacionales comenzaran a influir sobre los gobiernos municipales y estatales, Mexicali tomó la delantera en la reforma al sistema fiscal. En 1989 el presidente municipal electo, Milton Castellanos Gout, entendió la importancia de fortalecer las finanzas municipales y comenzó a trabajar para elevar los ingresos tributarios al comienzo de su mandato. Para actualizar los valores catastrales, contrató los servicios de una empresa privada dirigida por Sergio Flores Peña, graduado en planificación regional y urbana en la Universidad de California en Berkeley. Flores propuso al nuevo presidente abandonar el sistema impositivo de base mixta (construcciones y suelo) y adoptar uno basado exclusivamente en el valor del suelo, y diseñar un modelo matemático para calcular los precios del suelo.

Más que atracción por las creencias teóricas o ideológicas asociadas con un impuesto sobre el valor de la tierra, Castellanos sentía que dicho gravamen era una manera fácil y rápida de aumentar la recaudación de ingresos, y asumió el riesgo político de proponer un Comité Municipal de Catastro integrado por organizaciones de bienes raíces, organizaciones profesionales y representantes de la ciudadanía.

Los resultados fueron espectaculares desde dos puntos de vista: primero que todo, el nuevo impuesto elevó los ingresos rápidamente (ver fig.1); y segundo, no hubo oposición ni política ni legal en contra de las medidas fiscales por parte de los contribuyentes. El aumento de ingresos por concepto de mayores gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria y ventas de bienes raíces ¾la mayor fuente de ingresos municipales¾ permitió al presidente poner en marcha un importante programa de servicios públicos. No obstante, al año siguiente Castellanos decidió disminuir el control fiscal y no actualizar los valores del suelo, lo cual llevó al abandono del modelo matemático que había sido creado originalmente para ese propósito.

Tanto el Comité Municipal de Catastro como los funcionarios gubernamentales que estaban a cargo de la oficina de valuaciones y de catastro se opusieron a fijar los nuevos valores catastrales. Estas personas carecían de la capacidad técnica para manipular el modelo y temían disminuir su poder y control si dejaban el asunto en manos de la empresa consultora privada. Como resultado, se abandonó el modelo matemático y en lo sucesivo se definieron los valores del suelo mediante un proceso de negociación y convenios entre las autoridades locales, los representantes electos y el comité.No obstante, no se modificó el sistema de cálculo del valor catastral de base suelo.

Al mismo tiempo, el gobierno de Castellanos lanzó un programa de modernización catastral con recursos financieros del gobierno federal. Sin embargo, dado que el presidente consideraba que ya se había logrado el objetivo principal de aumentar los ingresos, relegó a un segundo plano la modernización del sistema catastral y no se pudo lograr el mismo éxito.

En las administraciones subsiguientes varió la política de recaudaciones tributarias y modernización catastral. El próximo presidente, Francisco Pérez Tejeda (1992-1995), era miembro del mismo partido político (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI). Durante su primer año de gobierno hubo un descenso en los ingresos por gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria, y los impuestos aumentaron sólo al final de su mandato. Pérez abandonó el programa de modernización catastral, pero mantuvo el sistema de tributación sobre el valor de la tierra.

La siguiente administración estuvo presidida por Eugenio Elourdy (1995-1998), miembro del Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN) quien fue el primer líder de un partido de oposición en Mexicali, aun cuando un miembro del PAN había gobernado en el ámbito estatal de 1989 a 1994. En la administración de Elourdy se actualizaron los valores catastrales, hubo un crecimiento continuo de la recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario y se volvió a implementar la modernización catastral. La actual administración de Víctor Hermosillo (1999-2001) está continuando con la reforma catastral.

Evaluación de la experiencia de Mexicali

Sin duda alguna, el proceso de reforma fiscal ha convertido la recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario en la más rápida e importante fuente financiera de los gobiernos municipales. Esta recaudación representa actualmente más del 50 % de los ingresos municipales locales. El rendimiento relativo del gravamen inmobiliario respecto a los ingresos totales de Mexicali está muy por encima de los promedios estatales y nacionales (15,3 % en 1995, comparado con 8,4 % para el estado y 10,3 % para todo el país). Los funcionarios del gobierno municipal que están a cargo de los sistemas catastrales y de valuación están bien preparados, poseen el conocimiento técnico y están conscientes de la necesidad de conducir reformas permanentes dentro del sistema. El ejemplo de Mexicali ha sido ya imitado en el resto del estado de Baja California y en el estado vecino de Baja California Sur.

El caso de Mexicali ofrece lecciones importantes. La primera de todas es que los gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria son fundamentales para fortalecer los gobiernos municipales, no sólo para recaudar ingresos suficientes para el desarrollo urbano, sino también para proporcionar a los funcionarios gubernamentales las destrezas necesarias que les permitan organizar el sistema fiscal de una forma exitosa, legítima y transparente ante los ojos de la ciudadanía.

En segundo lugar, una reforma al sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria es algo que requiere visión, liderazgo, y sobretodo, voluntad política y compromiso por parte de los dirigentes. Asimismo, el éxito de una reforma que vaya acompañada por un aumento de impuestos, requiere también contar con una base técnica sólida y con aceptación por parte del público.

En tercer lugar, se demostró la enorme utilidad del impuesto sobre el valor de la tierra para lograr una reforma exitosa en una etapa temprana. Claramente, la razón fundamental para adoptar dicho sistema tuvo que ver más con un abordaje pragmático que con bases o posiciones teóricas sobre diferentes filosofías. Sin embargo, ello no debe impedir que los funcionarios gubernamentales, asesores, expertos y el público en general emprendan un análisis cuidadoso de las diversas consecuencias de tal abordaje en términos de eficiencia económica, justicia y equidad fiscal.

Aunque el sistema de impuesto sobre el valor de la tierra tuvo éxito en el caso de Mexicali, no debe ser visto como una panacea aplicable en todas las situaciones. Es importante reconocer que el impuesto sería muy poco útil sin otras medidas que deben ser consideradas como parte de la reforma al sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, tales como modernización catastral, transparencia en la fijación de tasas impositivas y participación del público. Por último, es importante ver las reformas al sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria en otras ciudades del mundo como procesos integrales, y no como “éxitos” o “fracasos”. Tal como el caso de Mexicali, son experiencias que combinan aciertos y desaciertos. Lejos de ser ejemplo de una reforma perfecta, Mexicali es una buena experiencia de aprendizaje porque demuestra que los cambios sí son posibles incluso cuando no lo parecen.

Manuel Perló Cohen es investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Para este estudio recibió apoyo del Instituto Lincoln. Perló Cohen ha participado en numerosos cursos y seminarios patrocinados por el instituto en varias ciudades de América Latina.

Figura 1. Recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario en Mexicali, 1984-1998

Fuente: Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Tesorería del XVI Ayuntamiento de Mexicali. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica.