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.

The potential for sharp and unpredictable assessment increases is an important source of dissatisfaction with the property tax. Rapid price rises that are accurately and promptly reflected in assessed valuations can leave homeowners responsible for cash payments on paper gains that are unexpected, uncontrollable, and possibly short-lived. Two decades ago, this situation paved the way for adoption of California’s Proposition 13, which rejected fair market value as a basis for assessment.

Increasing valuations do not necessarily produce a corresponding rise in property tax bills, since a higher assessment base could raise equivalent revenue with a smaller tax rate. This solution is not feasible, however, when prices increase disproportionately only in particular neighborhoods or for particular types of property.

What other means are available to address price volatility and its impact on property tax rates? A number of states have recently introduced limitations on annual valuation increases. These measures avoid extreme assessment increases but may still allow assessments to match fair market values at some point in the future. They substitute a non-market value basis for assessment and diminish uniformity by distinguishing between those properties that are assessed on the basis of current values and those that are not.

Assessment Limitations in Washington and Texas

In the November 1997 elections, voters in Washington state approved a referendum generally limiting increases in assessed valuation to 15 percent a year on all classes of taxable property. If a property’s market value rises more than 60 percent, one year’s assessment may reflect no more than one-quarter of that increase. A similar measure strongly supported by business representatives was passed by the Republican legislature but vetoed by Gov. Gary Locke (D), who would have limited it to homeowners.

This case raises an important point concerning uniformity and distribution of the tax burden. Phase-in provisions ease the burden on owners of rapidly appreciating property but correspondingly increase the relative share of the tax borne by owners experiencing slower growth, or no growth, in property value. While tax limitations are generally promoted as protection for homeowners, residential benefits may pale in comparison to commercial gains.

Supporters of the Washington referendum urged passage “to soften a tax blow that could be devastating to a homeowner on a fixed income.” Yet major funding for the campaign came from industrial giants, including Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett Packard, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser. Opponents, including King County assessor Scott Noble, argued that the tax benefits “will go disproportionately to the large corporations that are bankrolling the campaign because of their much higher property values.” On the other hand, restricting such provisions to residential property introduces another level of non-uniformity to the tax.

Texas voters chose this split valuation alternative in November, approving a measure that limits increases in assessed values of residential homestead property, but not business property, to 10 percent a year. The president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association said this provision will “keep a terribly hot neighborhood from getting sort of a sticker shock.”

Critics saw the irony of this action. One wrote, “If the Texas Legislature had offered voters a chance to cap appraisal increases on their homes a few years ago, lawmakers would have been lauded as heroes. Angry homeowners were storming the offices of appraisal districts in the early and mid-1990s, demanding relief from double-digit increases in the appraised value of their homes and the prospect of significant property tax hikes. . . Nothing happened. Now that appraisal increases have fallen to three percent or so, the Legislature is offering voters a chance to cap the increases by changing the state Constitution. . . .” Ironically, before the price rises of the 1990s, Texas tax protests centered on whether assessments reflected falling property values quickly enough in the regional recession of the 1980s. For example, Harris County, which includes Houston, saw challenges to one-quarter of all its tax valuations in 1984 and 1985.

A Legislative Approach in Montana

Annual increases of 10 or 15 percent do not necessarily prevent assessed valuations from reaching full market levels. However, Montana lawmakers responded this year to dramatic value increases with an even more drastic measure. After studies reported that residential and commercial property values had increased by an average of 43 percent statewide since the last reassessment, the legislature required this change to be phased in at a rate of only two percent annually-taking 50 years to enter the tax rolls completely. Court challenges to this provision could raise an interesting question as to how long a phase-in period is compatible with state constitutional provisions requiring uniformity in assessment.

Assessment Reform in Ontario

Large valuation increases may be due to assessment lags as well as to price rises. One of the most startling examples of outdated tax valuation is found in Toronto-a surprise to U.S. observers who normally expect a high level of administrative efficiency from their northern neighbor. At the September conference of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) in Toronto, a panel of speakers brought together by the Lincoln Institute explored this situation. The potential for huge valuation increases stems not so much from extraordinary market activity as from extraordinary assessment inactivity. Metropolitan Toronto has not had a full-scale reassessment since1954-and that was based on 1940 market values.

Attorney Jack Walker described the public as generally supportive of current tax reform efforts, which encompass the entire province of Ontario. By contrast, a 1992 reassessment proposal for Metropolitan Toronto alone sparked such protest from residential and small business taxpayers that the proposal was abandoned. As a result, the 1997 measure explicitly addresses the concerns of many taxpayers groups. Professor David Amborski of Ryerson Polytechnic University explained that it would ensure current value assessments and regular updates. In addition, it will eliminate the business occupancy tax, permit different tax rates for different classes of property, provide special treatment for senior citizens and disabled taxpayers, and reduce taxes on agricultural and open space lands.

Thus, Toronto has also chosen to soften the impact of large assessment increases at the expense of uniformity. In this case, where municipal valuations were so out of date, the net effect may be judged an improvement in assessment equity. It will be important to evaluate the experiences of other jurisdictions struggling with the challenge of balancing uniformity and acceptability to see if they can make the same claim.

Joan Youngman is senior fellow and director of the Institute’s Program in the Taxation of Land and Buildings. An attorney specializing in property tax issues, she also writes a column for State Tax Notes, published by Tax Analysts.

Notes

Joseph Turner, “Ref. 47 Debate: Do Tax Savings Justify Change?” Takoma News-Tribune, October 23, 1997, p. A1 (quoting Rep. Brian Thomas (R-Renton))

2 Tom Brown, “Big Guns Back Property-Tax Lid,” Seattle Times, October 24, 1997, p. B3.

3Clay Robison, “Measure Would Cap Hike in Residential Appraisals,” The Houston Chronicle, November 2, 1997, p.2.

4Michele Kay, “Tax Appraisal Cap on Ballot,” Austin American-Statesman, October 20, 1997, p. A1.

Supporters of land taxation view it as an efficient and effective means of financing government, and the concept has wide appeal among public finance scholars. Many economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, actively endorse this method of taxation, which taxes land value separately and instead of buildings and improvements. At least from an academic perspective, then, the case for the efficiency and fairness of a land-based tax system seems irrefutable.

Despite that support, the concept of land taxation has not been widely embraced in the United States. Property tax bases are set by state constitutional or statutory law, so local governments cannot implement a land tax, or its split-rate variant, without authorization from their respective state legislatures. Other than a handful of Pennsylvania cities that have adopted split-rate or two-rate tax systems, no American jurisdictions currently place higher tax burdens on land than on buildings and other improvements. Virginia recently responded to interest in two-rate taxation with legislation allowing two local governments to adopt graded tax programs, but they have not yet done so. While split-rate taxation is discussed periodically as a reform measure, there are no current proposals for its adoption awaiting action before a state legislature (Brunori and Carr 2002).

Statutory or constitutional enactment of a land tax would entail revising property tax laws that have been substantially unchanged for more than a century. In general, state legislators are cautious about implementing dramatic reforms in any public policy area, and comprehensive tax reform has been a particularly elusive goal. Adoption of split-rate or land taxation would be a dramatic change, requiring significant awareness, advocacy and support in the ranks of the legislature and at the local level.

There are few areas of government finance in which scholarly opinion and actual public policy diverge so dramatically. This situation prompted me to undertake two nationwide research surveys. The first survey sought to ascertain the level of knowledge of land taxation on the part of the nation’s state legislators. Without an understanding of the issues presented by the taxation of land, legislators are unlikely to champion, advocate or even vote for such measures. I also surveyed local elected officials, because state legislators will not advocate any reforms without constituent support. Moreover, since the reforms at issue will affect primarily local government finances, any legislative body seeking to reform a tax system will solicit the views and advice of local officials.

The Survey Questions

To gauge general awareness of the concept of land value taxation, the survey began with a broad question, describing it as “taxing the full value of land but exempting buildings, structures and other improvements from tax.” The next question narrowed the scope to determine familiarity with split-rate taxation, the version of land taxation practiced in Pennsylvania and authorized in two Virginia municipalities. Because it entails less dramatic reforms, split-rate taxation is the version of land taxation most likely to be adopted in the U.S. This concept was described as “taxing land at a higher rate than buildings, structures and other improvements.”

Legislative research has long found that state lawmakers are likely to support policies that they believe will foster economic development and oppose policies perceived to deter development (Beamer 1999). Taxing land at a higher rate than improvements has historically been thought to encourage building and investment by eliminating or reducing the tax burdens of improving the land. Thus, the third question asked for the respondents’ opinion on the effect that taxing improvements at a lower rate than land would have on economic development, defined as capital investment and job creation.

The proliferation of suburban sprawl is a growing concern among legislators and local officials across the country. The vast academic literature suggests that policy makers view sprawl unfavorably and that most officials think that policies that promote sprawl are unsound. Some public finance scholars believe that adopting split-rate tax policies will limit the negative effects of sprawl (Brueckner 2001). If this belief is true, split-rate taxation could play an important role in the continuing debate over policies intended to deter suburban sprawl. Question four asked what effect taxing improvements at a lower rate than land would have on sprawl. Sprawl was not defined in the question because the term can refer to a number of developments affecting density, suburban growth, loss of open space and decrease in population. Indeed, scholars have lamented the lack of a single operational definition of sprawl. Still, the perception of sprawl as an undesirable land use pattern and policy outcome warranted inclusion of the question in the survey.

Finally, state and local legislators are influenced by the desires and concerns of their constituents. The more important a particular issue is to constituents, the better informed a legislator will become about that issue. Thus, survey participants were asked if during the past year any citizens or organizations had contacted their offices with respect to the issue of split-rate taxation, and if so, whether the constituent supported or opposed the idea.

State and Local Respondents

The first survey focused on state legislators who served on committees with primary responsibility for tax policy and local government finance during the period January–June 2003. There were 106 such committees in the 50 state legislatures, but I excluded those in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Since those states have either adopted or authorized graded tax systems, I assumed that their legislators would be more familiar with the concept and could bias the results.

For the second survey I chose city and county officials from 15 randomly selected local jurisdictions within the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. To insure a national perspective, I also included city council members from the largest city in each state. Again I focused on officials with primary responsibility for implementing and administering public finance policy and excluded all jurisdictions in Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The survey questions were sent to 1,284 legislators, of whom 780 responded (see Brunori 2003 for more information on methodology). An identical survey was sent to 3,298 city and county officials, of whom 430 responded. The response rate for the state legislators was far above national standards, and the response rate for the local officials was considerably below national standards, but both were statistically significant.

Before revealing the results of the survey research, I must confess that I entered this project with a bias. Having worked in the state and local tax field my entire professional life, as a lawyer, teacher and journalist, I think about tax policy more than any sane person should and have come to know many state legislators and local public officials. In my experience, these government officials are quite capable of finding revenues to pay the bills, but they generally have little in-depth knowledge of the more philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of tax policy. So I assumed that few of them would understand what I was talking about when I began asking questions about land taxation. After all, I did not think most politicians were using their spare time to read Henry George’s classic book, Progress and Poverty. I was quite surprised at the responses.

The Results

In a country where there are virtually no land tax policies in place, the survey results show that a vast majority of elected political leaders do know about land and split-rate taxation (see Table 1). More surprising, to me at least, most political leaders are aware of the benefits of adopting land tax policies. More than 70 percent of the state legislators and 65 percent of the local government officials responded that they were either very or somewhat familiar with the concept of land value taxation, and 67 percent of state legislators and 65 percent of local officials were very or somewhat familiar with split-rate taxation.

The single most important policy goal (after public safety) that concerns American politicians is economic development. When asked about the relationship between the economy and land taxation, more than 62 percent of state legislators and 76 percent of local government officials replied that adopting a split-rate tax system would promote economic development. About one-quarter of both state and local officials thought that taxing improvements at a lower rate than land would have no effect on economic development. These results are arguably consistent with the conventional view that land taxation would have a benign effect on economic decision making. Only 5 percent of the state legislators and no local officials believed that taxing land at a higher rate would deter economic development.

One of the common misperceptions about land taxation is that it will lead to more sprawl, and many, but not a majority, of the respondents shared that misperception. Forty-one percent of surveyed state legislators and 46 percent of local officials said they believed that adopting a split-rate tax system would lead to more suburban sprawl. About 51 percent of the state legislators and 53 percent of local officials surveyed said that split-rate taxation would have no effect on sprawl or would deter sprawl. The fact that so many respondents believe that split-rate taxation would foster more sprawl, presumably by encouraging development of open space in suburban and rural areas, should be troubling to advocates of land taxation.

Finally, a surprisingly small number of elected political leaders have been contacted by constituents regarding land taxation. Eleven percent of state legislators and 9 percent of local government officials said an individual constituent or organization had contacted them regarding the issue of land-based or split-rate taxation, and all were supporters of the idea.

What Does It All Mean?

What originally sparked my interest in this research project was the disconnect between scholarly opinion about land taxation and political action to promote it. I thought this discrepancy might be the result of ignorance of the concepts of land taxation on the part of state and local political leaders. If state legislators and city council members were unaware of land or graded taxation, then they could not be expected to champion such reforms.

The survey results show, however, that this discrepancy cannot be resolved by looking at level of awareness alone. Most state legislators and local officials involved in public finance and taxation issues are familiar with both land taxation and split-rate taxation, and they know that moving to a split-rate tax system would have a positive effect on economic development. Moreover, a slight majority of those surveyed believe that graded taxes would have no negative effects on sprawl.

Since state and local officials know about land taxation and believe it could lead to positive policy outcomes, why are so few local governments using this method of public finance? It is difficult to answer that question without eliciting views on more technical aspects of land or split-rate taxation. Implementation of land taxation raises complex issues as to the feasibility of adopting major property tax reforms, the effects on other revenue sources, and the administration of a land tax system, particularly with respect to valuation. Solving the mystery as to why more jurisdictions are not exploring the policy of taxing land at a higher rate than improvements may lie in analyzing these important operational factors.

References

Beamer, Glenn. 1999. Creative politics: Taxes and public goods in a federal system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Brueckner, Jan K. 2001. Property taxation and urban sprawl. In Property taxation and local government finance, Wallace E. Oates, editor. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Brunori, David. 2003. Awareness of land taxation: Survey of state legislators. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Brunori, David, and Jennifer Carr. 2002. Valuing land and improvements: State law and local government practices. State Tax Notes (September 30):1023–1033.

David Brunori is contributing editor of State Tax Notes for Tax Analysts in Arlington, Virginia, and research professor of public policy at The George Washington University in Washington, DC. This article is based on research he conducted as part of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation, awarded by the Lincoln Institute.

Past trends will not foretell the future, but charting how state and local finances weathered the 2001 recession suggests viable ways to navigate going forward. Lacking the deficit finance ability of the federal government, states and localities must set a spending course based on anticipated taxes and revenues. An unexpected crisis-like the stock bubble burst at the beginning of this century and the subsequent economic slowdown-that throws budgets into fiscal chaos requires such unpopular bailouts as tax increases or cuts in services and welfare. Did that happen?

Participants at a Lincoln Institute-sponsored conference in March 2007 gathered at the Urban Institute in Washington DC, to discuss the recession and share findings on how states and localities determined various actions and policies to address its impacts. This conference, titled “State and Local Finances after the Storm: Is Smooth Sailing Ahead?”, was also hosted by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, and by the Kellogg School of Management and the Institute for Policy Research, both at Northwestern University.