The case of Mexicali, the capital city of the border state of Baja California, Mexico, stands out as a good example of successful property tax reform in the 1990s. In only a few years the local government was able to raise revenues associated with the property tax, as well as strengthen its municipal finances and modernize its cadastral and collection systems. Furthermore, Mexicali carried out this reform by adopting a land value taxation system, the first of its kind in Mexico, and gained the public’s acceptance for these changes. Without ignoring its problems and flaws, this case provides interesting lessons on future property tax reform endeavors in Mexico and other countries.

Economic, Political and Technical Considerations

Accomplishing property tax reform did not always seem to be an easy task in Mexicali or anywhere in Mexico. Since 1983, the local level of government has been responsible for setting up and collecting property taxes, although state authorities kept certain responsibilities. Throughout the 1980s, property tax revenues, and local revenues in general, experienced a severe drop caused by a combination of high inflation rates, economic recession, lack of political interest, and reduced administrative competence of local governments, which preferred to rely on revenue-sharing sources.

In the early 1990s, a clear improvement in the nation’s macro-economic performance made conditions more favorable for change, although political and technical factors reduced the incentives for many state and local governments to embark on fiscal reform. Nevertheless, the federal administration of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1989-1994) launched an initiative to improve local finances through a cadastre modernization program lead by BANOBRAS (Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios), a public development bank.

Even before this program and other national policies began to exert an influence on local and state administrations, Mexicali took the lead in property tax reform. Starting in 1989, the newly elected mayor, Milton Castellanos Gout, saw the importance of having strong local finances and wanted to raise revenues at the beginning of his term. He hired a private consulting firm to update cadastral values. The main consultant, Sergio Flores Peña, a graduate in city and regional planning from the University of California at Berkeley, convinced the mayor to change from a mixed-value tax base on land and buildings to a land value system, and to design a mathematical model to calculate land values.

Rather than being attracted by theoretical or ideological beliefs about the advantages of a land value tax, Castellanos was convinced that it would be the easiest and fastest way to raise revenues. He took the political risk of proposing a Municipal Cadastral Committee, including real estate owners’ organizations, professional organizations and citizen representatives.

The results were spectacular in two ways: first, the new tax raised revenues quickly (see Table 1); and second, there was not a single legal or political objection from taxpayers. The increase in revenues from real estate property taxes and property sales, by far the most important source of local revenues, allowed the mayor to launch an important public works program. In the next fiscal year, however, he wanted to loosen his fiscal grip, so he did not pursue land valuation updates and abandoned the mathematical model that was originally created for that purpose.

Opposition to updating land values came from both the Municipal Cadastral Committee and the government officials in charge of the cadastre and valuation office who lacked the technical capability to manipulate the model and feared that their power and control might be weakened by the participation of the private consulting firm. As a result, the mathematical model was abandoned and land values where subsequently defined by a process of negotiation and bargaining between local authorities, elected representatives and the committee. However, the land value taxation system remained as the base to establish land values.

At the same time, the Castellanos administration embarked on a cadastre modernization program with financial resources from the federal government. However, since the mayor saw that his main objective of raising revenues had been achieved, the efforts to modernize the cadastral system became a secondary priority that was not as successful.

In subsequent administrations, the policy towards tax revenues and cadastre modernization varied. The next mayor, Francisco Pérez Tejeda (1992-1995), was a member of the same political party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI). He experienced a drop in property tax revenue during his first year in office, and taxes only increased at the end of his administration. He abandoned the cadastre modernization program, but maintained the land value taxation system.

The next administration was led by Eugenio Elourdy (1995-1998), a member of the Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN). He was the first opposition party leader in Mexicali, although a member of PAN had governed at the state level from 1989 to 1994. During Elourdy’s term, land values were updated, property tax revenues grew steadily and cadastre modernization was vigorously resumed. The current administration led by Victor Hermosillo (1999-2001) is continuing with cadastre reform.

Assessing the Mexicali Experience

There is no question that the process of fiscal reform has stimulated property tax revenues as the fastest and most important financial source for the city government. Currently, property tax revenues account for more than 50 percent of local municipal revenues. Mexicali is well above the state and national averages for the relative share of property tax revenues to total revenues (15.3 percent in 1995, compared to 8.4 percent at the state level and 10.3 percent at the national level). Local government officials in charge of the cadastre and valuation systems are well prepared with technical expertise and an awareness of the need to conduct permanent reform within the system. Mexicali’s example has already been replicated in the rest of the state of Baja California and in the neighboring state of Baja California Sur.

The Mexicali case offers some important lessons. First, the property tax plays a central role in strengthening local governments, not only for raising sufficient revenues for urban development but also for providing government officials with the skills to organize the tax system in a way that can be sound, legitimate and transparent.

Second, property tax reform requires vision, leadership and, most of all, political will and commitment from the executive. However, successful reform to raise taxes also depends on a sound technical base and acceptance by the general public.

Third, the land value tax proved to be extremely helpful in achieving successful reform at an early stage. It is clear that the rationale for adopting land value taxation had more to do with a pragmatic approach than with theoretical positions or debates over different schools of thought. However, this should not prevent government officials, consultants, scholars and the general public from thoroughly analyzing the diverse consequences of this approach in terms of economic efficiency, equity and administrative management.

Although a land value tax has proven to be successful in the case of Mexicali, it should not be viewed as a panacea for all situations. It is important to recognize that the tax can be of little help without other measures that have to be considered as part of property tax reform, such as cadastre modernization, clear policies on tax rates and public participation.

Finally, cases of property tax reform around the world cannot be viewed as black-and-white, success-or-failure experiences, but rather, like Mexicali, as stories that combine success, flaws and steps backward. Far from being a perfect example of property tax reform, Mexicali is a good learning experience. It shows that changes can take place in a field where very often one thinks that little can be accomplished.

Manuel Perlo Cohen is a researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. He received support for this case study from the Lincoln Institute and he has participated in numerous Institute-sponsored courses and seminars throughout Latin America.

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.

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.

La informalidad desenfrenada, tan emblemática de las grandes ciudades de países en vías de desarrollo, plantea muchos retos a los sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria. Por ejemplo, los derechos de tenencia en asentamientos informales a menudo están poco claros o incluso son desconocidos; se construyen edificios gradualmente con el tiempo, la construcción por cuenta propia es común, y es posible que la unidad completa no se termine nunca; el valor de la propiedad depende de factores poco claros o intangibles como la seguridad proporcionada por organizaciones comunitarias; el ocupante o incluso el propietario legal puede ser demasiado pobre para pagar impuestos; los costos administrativos de recaudación de impuestos son mayores que en las áreas formales, mientras que los valores evaluados son a menudo mucho menores; y apenas si hay inversiones públicas en infraestructura y servicios.

Estas características críticas de la vivienda informal parecen violar muchas de las premisas en que se basa la administración de un sistema de tributos inmobiliarios: identificación de propiedades imponibles y sus contribuyentes correspondientes; descripción de las características físicas de la propiedad; determinación de los valores de la propiedad según un mercado razonable y de acuerdo con medidas predecibles; la supuesta capacidad de pago del contribuyente; costos de recaudación que son relativamente bajos en comparación con los ingresos recaudados; y una expectativa de que los ingresos tributarios beneficiarían al área de donde se recaudaron los tributos.

Esta comparación describe la esencia del sentido común sobre ocupaciones informales y las razones por las que generalmente se omiten para fines tributarios, pero los conceptos erróneos y los prejuicios son evidentes. Este artículo examina algunos de los sesgos y sus consecuencias para la recaudación de impuestos inmobiliarios en áreas informales. La situación latinoamericana se usa para ilustrar este debate, pero este estudio sigue siendo exploratorio debido a la limitación de datos. Los argumentos que se tratan indican direcciones prometedoras para efectuar análisis adicionales, más que resultados concluyentes en la mayoría de los casos.

Ocupaciones informales

En la ocupación del suelo y en la vivienda, la informalidad es un fenómeno multidimensional que comprende asuntos espinosos relacionados con la tenencia de tierras: el incumplimiento de normas y reglamentos urbanos, como el tamaño mínimo de las parcelas, adjudicación de suelo para espacios públicos, y disposiciones de calles; provisión inadecuada de servicios públicos y equipamiento; y ocupación de áreas indebidas, como áreas medioambientalmente protegidas o de riesgo ecológico, y sitios industriales contaminados.

Los asentamientos informales originados por invasión de tierras es la primera imagen de informalidad que se nos viene a la cabeza, pero hay otras formas sociales y físicas de informalidad que van desde subdivisiones piratas, caracterizadas normalmente por ventas en el mercado de suelo sin un título definido, hasta situaciones donde incluso los propietarios legalmente capacitados con título de propiedad para sus tierras no se ajustan a las normas y reglamentos urbanos existentes.

Según las Naciones Unidas – Hábitat (2003), unos 928 millones de personas (el 32 por ciento de la población urbana mundial o el 43 por ciento de la población de países en desarrollo) viven en la actualidad en asentamientos informales con una infraestructura urbana precaria y servicios públicos inadecuados. Si siguen las tendencias y políticas actuales, el informe estima que la población de los asentamientos informales aumentará en 37 millones por año hasta alcanzar un total de 1.500 millones de habitantes en 2020. Aunque América Latina cuenta con el 9 por ciento de la población mundial, incluye aproximadamente el 14 por ciento de los que viven en asentamientos informales.

¿Por qué es la informalidad un problema?

La informalidad desorganiza el funcionamiento de los mercados inmobiliarios urbanos, ya que los operadores ilegales, irregulares y clandestinos pueden obtener mayores beneficios evitando algunos costos, como los impuestos, el costo de proteger el suelo contra las invasiones o el costo de proporcionar infraestructura y servicios urbanos básicos. Contrariamente a lo que se cree, los precios del suelo por metro cuadrado en asentamientos informales son a menudo mayores que los de áreas formales, una vez que se descuentan las inversiones relacionadas con el suministro de agua, electricidad, drenaje, alcantarillado y otros servicios.

Además, la informalidad es costosa para la sociedad. Los costos de políticas de remedio para mejorar los asentamientos irregulares son mayores que el costo de una nueva urbanización, y los costos sociales indirectos incluyen la presencia de actividad delictiva y catástrofes naturales causadas por la urbanización en áreas ambientalmente sensibles. La evidencia sugiere también que la informalidad es tanto causa como efecto de la pobreza urbana. La distribución geográfica de la pobreza tiende a superponerse con la pauta espacial de configuraciones informales, aunque la magnitud y la persistencia de la informalidad no pueden ser explicadas totalmente por la pobreza. En un estudio llevado a cabo por el Instituto Pereira Passos (2002) basado en el censo brasileño de 2000, se llegó a la conclusión de que aproximadamente el 64 por ciento de la población clasificada como pobre vivía realmente fuera de las áreas pobres y superpobladas.

Mitos de informalidad

Hay muchos mitos predominantes acerca de cómo se establecen u operan los asentamientos informales, incluida la percepción de que los ocupantes de las áreas informales no quieren ni pueden pagar tributos inmobiliarios. De hecho, los ocupantes no sólo desean pagar el tributo como forma de legitimar su tenencia del suelo, sino que a menudo pueden pagarlo. Los nuevos ocupantes, de hecho, ya han pagado el tributo inmobiliario en forma de mayores precios del suelo, pero el pago fue a parar al fraccionador o al terrateniente original en vez de al gobierno.

Además, es probable que el pago del tributo inmobiliario por los ocupantes de las áreas informales legitime su derecho a exigir servicios públicos y otras mejoras urbanas a las autoridades gubernamentales. Muchos ocupantes informales también se dan cuenta de que el suministro privado de servicios básicos a través de medios informales, como comprar agua de un camión, es probablemente más costoso y arriesgado que el pago del tributo inmobiliario.

Otros mitos o suposiciones sobre la informalidad incluyen la creencia de que los ocupantes de asentamientos informales son necesariamente pobres, que los asentamientos informales están ocupados sólo por trabajadores sin empleo e informales, que es necesario un título formal de la propiedad para tener acceso a crédito, que los asentamientos informales son entidades homogéneas claramente diferentes de los asentamientos formales, y que la ocupación de asentamientos informales se hace mediante transacciones fuera del mercado.

Recaudación de tributos inmobiliarios

Para intentar relacionar la recaudación de tributos inmobiliarios por habitante con la presencia de informalidad, hemos usado datos basados en un estudio de municipios llevado a cabo en 1999 por el Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE 2001). La Tabla 1 presenta datos que medían dos criterios: la presencia de asentamientos informales (es decir, barrios pobres y sobrepoblados causados por invasiones) y la existencia de todo tipo de urbanización irregular. Hay asentamientos informales presentes en el 27,6 por ciento de todos los municipios de Brasil, donde la urbanización irregular (incluidos estos barrios) está presente en casi el 44 por ciento de ellos. El valor máximo de los tributos inmobiliarios recaudados es mayor en los municipios más grandes y los que tienen asentamientos informales y otras urbanizaciones irregulares, y los ingresos también tienden a ser mayores por promedio que en esos municipios sin dicha urbanización.

No obstante, la Tabla 2 muestra la dificultad de supervisar los registros de propiedad inmobiliaria y la recaudación de impuestos comparando la presencia de catastros en municipios con registros sobre asentamientos informales. Los catastros locales cubren la información sobre asentamientos informales en el 52,5 por ciento de los municipios, pero sólo el 39 por ciento de esas ciudades disponen de registros completos de informalidad. En comparación, el 50,5 por ciento de los municipios con urbanizaciones irregulares ha incluido esta información en sus catastros, y el 51 por ciento de los casos con registros tienen información completa. Así pues, no se puede rechazar la hipótesis de que los municipios más grandes, más ricos y más urbanizadas sean también los que tienen mejores registros de ocupaciones informales.

Se ha desarrollado un modelo para un análisis de regresión múltiple a fin de probar la relación entre la informalidad y el tributo inmobiliario recaudado por habitante usando la base de datos del IBGE. La relación estaba controlada con otros atributos disponibles en la base de datos, incluidos el ingreso promedio por habitante, el tamaño de la población, y un grupo de variables asociadas con la función de la administración local en la promoción de la urbanización. Según este modelo, que explica aproximadamente el 72 por ciento de la variación en los tributos inmobiliarios recaudados por habitante, se ha demostrado que los factores siguientes influyen en la determinación de la cantidad de tributos inmobiliarios recaudados.

• Regulación urbana y tamaños mínimos de las parcelas. Las conclusiones respaldan el argumento de que los municipios con una estructura reguladora más completa son capaces de recaudar más tributos inmobiliarios por habitante. Igualmente, se produce una disminución del tributo inmobiliario recaudado por habitante en los municipios donde no se ha establecido un tamaño mínimo de parcela. Así pues, las regulaciones más estrictas sobre el uso del suelo surte un efecto positivo en el rendimiento de los tributos inmobiliarios, así como su ausencia produce efectos negativos.
• Catastro y mapas de propiedades urbanas actualizados. Como se esperaba, los municipios en los que se ha actualizado más recientemente el catastro y los mapas de propiedades tienden a obtener un coeficiente de recaudación más alto. El modelo también indica que los municipios que usan más tecnología, medido por el uso de un catastro digital, pueden recaudar más tributos inmobiliarios por habitante que otras.
• Presencia de asentamientos informales. Los municipios con asentamientos informales recaudan más tributos inmobiliarios por habitante que los que no los tienen. Una explicación plausible de este fenómeno puede ser que las ciudades más industrializadas y económicamente más dinámicas tienen una mayor incidencia de informalidad. En este caso, es probable que la pérdida de impuestos inmobiliarios generados por la informalidad sea compensada por los ingresos recaudados en áreas de ingresos elevados y de propiedades comerciales e industriales.
• Inclusión de la propiedad informal en el catastro. También se confirma la importancia de una base tributaria más universal, según se refleja en un mayor rendimiento de los tributos inmobiliarios cuando la informalidad se registra a nivel de gobierno local.
• Coeficiente de recaudación. Los municipios con menos evasión de impuestos, es decir, con un mayor coeficiente de recaudación, tienden a recaudar más tributos inmobiliarios por habitante.
• Ingreso promedio por habitante. Por último, el ingreso promedio por habitante es el factor más importante en la recaudación de impuestos, responsable de aproximadamente el 42 por ciento de la variación de los tributos inmobiliarios recaudados por habitante.

Además del nivel de ingresos, lo averiguado indica claramente la importancia de una administración efectiva de los tributos inmobiliarios. En otras palabras, incluso en presencia de informalidad, los municipios logran mejores resultados en términos comparativos si mantienen catastros y mapas actualizados, incluyen propiedades informales en el catastro y tienen una estructura legislativa urbana más amplia. En resumen, al concentrarse estrictamente en el rendimiento de los tributos inmobiliarios, la causa principal de preocupación no es la presencia de la informalidad misma, sino la forma en que los funcionarios públicos tratan la misma para fines tributarios inmobiliarios.

Los tributos inmobiliarios como herramienta para disminuir la informalidad

Es probable que unos tributos inmobiliarios más vigorosos afecten a la informalidad de forma directa. Por ejemplo, la parte de los tributos inmobiliarios impuestos sobre el valor del suelo constituye un fuerte antídoto para forzar la salida al mercado de los suelos servidos existentes. Los tributos inmobiliarios también pueden ser importantes como herramienta para influir en el proceso de toma de decisiones para las áreas que deben recibir servicios urbanos. De hecho, las comunidades sin un sistema de tributos inmobiliarios son particularmente vulnerables en lo que se refiere a atraer la atención pública.

Los tributos inmobiliarios también pueden ser un mecanismo educativo para ayudar a los ciudadanos a comprender sus derechos y obligaciones, incluida la necesidad de contribuir a los gastos públicos. El compromiso del gobierno de adjudicar los ingresos fiscales de forma justa y equitativa da una mayor legitimidad al tributo. Además, un tributo inmobiliario puede ser un mecanismo para reducir los precios del suelo mediante el efecto de capitalización (Bahl y Linn 1992). Normalmente, el reconocimiento de ocupación por parte del gobierno local no tiene un efecto directo legal para garantizar los títulos inmobiliarios en el registro público, pero los ocupantes informales pueden percibirlo como una especie de vía libre para tener acceso al mundo jurídico.

Rabello de Castro (2000) ha declarado que hay motivos jurídicos firmes para usar los catastros para fines tributarios inmobiliarios a fin de legitimar derechos de tenencia, y que los tribunales no tendrían dificultad en admitir dichos registros como evidencia fiable. Por último, existe una ventaja en que el tributo inmobiliario cubra la propiedad informal, ya que su aplicación requiere conocimientos específicos del área, lo que tiene un valor incalculable para la administración de la ciudad.

Recomendaciones políticas

La informalidad plantea desafíos particulares para la administración de tributos inmobiliarios, incluida la necesidad de diseñar procedimientos viables y políticamente aceptables. A continuación indicamos algunas recomendaciones políticas para su consideración.

• Ampliar la obligación tributaria a los ocupantes en asentamientos informales. La limitación de la obligación tributaria inmobiliaria al terrateniente reduce la capacidad de recaudar impuestos en países con un número sustancial de asentamientos informales. La legislación puede establecer que el poseedor u ocupante sea el contribuyente registrado, de modo que no deba haber ningún impedimento técnico para considerar formas alternativas de tenencia asegurada para satisfacer el reto de ampliar la universalidad del tributo inmobiliario.
• Actualizar los catastros urbanos. Los procedimientos y las técnicas catastrales convencionales no pueden mantenerse al día con las idiosincrasias físicas y jurídicas de los asentamientos informales. Las iniciativas económicas y flexibles para actualizar catastros e identificar subdivisiones de suelo y edificios irregulares podrían incluir el establecimiento de asociaciones con compañías que proporcionan servicios o instituciones responsables de programas sociales.
• Determinar cómo valuar la propiedad informal. La valuación de la propiedad informal es un reto, ya que no se entiende bien el modo de operar de los mercados informales. Esto puede exigir que se tengan en cuenta determinantes atípicos de los valores de la propiedad (por ejemplo, el valor de normas y reglamentos urbanísticos relajados) y fuentes creativas de información (por ejemplo, registros de asociación de vecindarios sobre transacciones inmobiliarias). No obstante, por lo general se observa un mercado inmobiliario vibrante en las áreas informales, y el análisis de los determinantes de los precios del suelo es tan viable y receptivo de técnicas estándar como los análisis emprendidos en mercados formales (Abramo 2003). Otra alternativa es implementar el autoavalúo, como se aplicó en Bogotá, Colombia, usando formas simplificadas para facilitar el proceso para familias de bajos ingresos.
• Omitir las dificultades de valuación en la vivienda progresiva. La autoproducción de vivienda es común, y las mejoras pueden tener lugar de forma gradual, aunque permanente, en ocupaciones informales. En consecuencia, la imposición apropiada de tributos en las propiedades informales requeriría una inspección más frecuente de las viviendas. Estas difíciles circunstancias sugieren la consideración de otras alternativas, incluido el uso del valor del sitio como base impositiva o un programa de autoinformación. Las asociaciones vecinales y las organizaciones comunitarias podrían participar en dichos programas. Las iniciativas para estimular la autoinformación se facilitarían en la medida en que los ingresos recaudados se destinaran a mejorar los servicios y equipamientos públicos en los vecindarios en que se recaudó el tributo inmobiliario.
• Reducir al mínimo la evasión de impuestos. Contrariamente a la opinión de que los mayores índices de evasión de impuestos predominan en las propiedades de bajo valor, la percepción general es que la evasión de impuestos es más probable que se produzca en propiedades de valor elevado. Los administradores locales y otras fuentes confirman que en gran medida, las familias pobres están dispuestas a que sus propiedades se incluyan en el catastro fiscal y a pagar los tributos inmobiliarios.
• Ajustar la carga impositiva para los pobres. Las alternativas actuales para reducir o eliminar la carga impositiva para los pobres en áreas formales debe aplicarse a las áreas informales. Dichas medidas incluyen deducciones o exenciones según el valor de la propiedad, los ingresos familiares o ambos criterios, y el uso de índices progresivos empezando por un valor simbólico y subiendo de acuerdo con clases de valores evaluados.
• Establecer una cultura fiscal. Es posible que los pagos de impuestos simbólicos no tengan un efecto en términos de ingresos, pero probablemente contribuirán a la creación de una cultura fiscal. Un sistema impositivo sostenible para vivienda informal requiere pasos similares a los de los mercados inmobiliarios formales: ajustar la carga impositiva según la capacidad de pago; demostrar a los contribuyentes los beneficios públicos relacionados con la recaudación de impuestos inmobiliarios; promover programas educativos que expliquen los derechos y las obligaciones de los ciudadanos; y aplicar sanciones eficaces y razonables en caso de no pago.

Aun cuando la mayoría de las propiedades informales se excluye de las listas de propiedades, los requisitos anteriores deberían aplicarse a propiedades informales si se logra un mayor nivel de eficiencia en la recaudación de impuestos. El argumento sobre los elevados costos de recaudación para excluir las propiedades de bajo valor (o familias de bajos ingresos, en otras palabras) de las listas de impuestos debe compararse con los beneficios de promover una ciudadanía fiscal más amplia.

Visión a más largo plazo

Puede que la recaudación de tributos inmobiliarios en las áreas informales no sólo sea posible en determinadas circunstancias, sino también atractiva con el fin de seguir una política urbana más efectiva que sea capaz de paliar la informalidad y sus efectos negativos para la sociedad en general y para los ocupantes individuales de estos asentamientos en particular.

A pesar de la dificultad de proporcionar evidencia empírica sobre sus efectos teóricos en el mercado del suelo, es probable que la parte del tributo inmobiliario impuesto sobre el valor del suelo produzca efectos cruciales para mitigar las distorsiones y disfunciones en los mercados del suelo con un elevado grado de informalidad. Estos efectos incluyen estimular la urbanización; disuadir la especulación del suelo; reducir los precios del suelo; aumentar el suministro de suelo urbanizado; alentar ciudades más compactas; promover una provisión más eficiente de infraestructuras y servicios urbanos; y alentar una pauta de urbanización más racional. Entre los beneficios indirectos se pueden incluir la importancia de la información generada para identificar la propiedad, el uso de tributos inmobiliarios pagados como medio parajurídico para legitimar derechos de tenencia, y por último la oportunidad de tener acceso a la ciudadanía e integrarse en la sociedad.

En resumen, al concentrarse en el rendimiento del tributo inmobiliario, la causa principal de preocupación no es la informalidad propia, sino la forma en que los funcionarios públicos tratan la informalidad y cómo administran un sistema tributario inmobiliario. En este contexto, la introducción de los tributos inmobiliarios en un entorno con informalidad desenfrenada requiere tomar precauciones especiales. Los retos para operar los tributos inmobiliarios en áreas informales incluyen la necesidad de entender el mercado informal, frenar la intervención de las reclamaciones de propiedad inmobiliaria de propietarios anteriores o ausentes, mejorar la capacidad administrativa y legitimar acciones públicas que redunden en beneficios para los pobres. Además, los funcionarios públicos necesitan superar los prejuicios y conceptos erróneos referentes a la informalidad e introducir iniciativas tributarias inmobiliarias eficientes que puedan reducir realmente la informalidad.

Martim O. Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa del Lincoln Institute sobre América Latina y el Caribe en el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Claudia M. De Cesare es asesora en tributos inmobiliarios del Secretariado de Finanzas del municipio de Porto Alegre, Brasil. Forma parte del comité consultivo del International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) y es miembro del cuerpo docente del Lincoln Institute.

Referencias

Abramo, Pedro. 2003. A teoria econômica da favela: quatro notas sobre a localização residencial dos pobres e o mercado imobiliário informal, in A cidade da informalidade: o desafio das cidades latino-americanas, Pedro Abramo (Org.). Rio de Janeiro: Librería Sette Letras, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro y Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Bahl, R.W., and Johannes F. Linn. 1992. Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries (Finanzas públicas urbanas en países en desarrollo). Washington DC: Oxford University Press.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2001. Perfil dos municípios brasileiros: Pesquisa de informações básicas municipais, 1999. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.

Instituto Pereira Passos. 2002. Evolução da população de favelas no Rio de Janeiro: Uma reflexão sobre os dados mais recentes. Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro. www.rio.rj.gov.br

Rabello de Castro, S. 2000. Habitação: Direito e governança – Duas sugestões para ação governamental. Fundação João Ribeiro. Cadernos de Textos 2: 321–338.

ONU–HÁBITAT. 2003. The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements (El reto de los asentamientos informales: informe global sobre asentamientos humanos). Nairobi, Kenia: Programa de de las Naciones Unidas para los Asentamientos Humanos.

A major tragedy of empirical work is the low ratio of analysis to data, in part due to the lack of publicly available datasets. Many data collectors are reluctant to share data with other researchers until they have harvested all its new insights. Accordingly, researchers often collect new data because they cannot access existing information.

A new initiative of the Lincoln Institute is to compile data relevant to the analysis of land and tax policy, make it available on our Web site, and encourage new research. Three very different datasets are currently available, and a fourth is under development.

Significant Features of the Property Tax. This database title refers to the well-known publication, Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, produced by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, which between 1959 and 1996 reported on the relationships among local, state, and national levels of government. This online and interactive database, produced and continually updated in partnership with the George Washington Institute of Public Policy, presents property tax data for all 50 states

Great care is taken to ensure that data reported across jurisdictions are comparable and similarly defined. Users may access property tax information and data online in standard tables or create new downloadable tables containing the specific data they seek. Unlike many interactive databases, Significant Features also includes many table entries in text that explain, for example, how each state categorizes property, defines taxable value, and restricts or caps rates and assessments.

Land and Property Values in the U.S. These more traditional tabular files contain numeric data on the values and rents of residential properties in the United States. The national ratio of rents to prices for the stock of all owner-occupied housing is available quarterly from 1960 to the present. National indices of prices and values of housing (land inclusive of structures), land, and structures are available quarterly from 1975 to the present and annually from 1930 to the present. For 46 metropolitan areas, quarterly indices of prices and values of single-family, owner-occupied housing (land inclusive of structures), land, and structures are available from 1985 to the present.

The implicit rents of owner-occupied housing, the value of structures, and the value of residential land are rarely observed directly, and therefore are estimated using techniques that are explained on the Web site. These data were created and are updated by Morris A. Davis, a fellow at the Lincoln Institute and faculty member at the University of Wisconsin School of Business, Department of Real Estate and Land Economics.

University Real Estate Development Cases. Many university real estate development projects involve the expansion of facilities, the upgrading of neighboring properties, and long-term investment in real estate. Such projects are often controversial when they displace current residents and businesses or transform neighborhoods. As part of the Lincoln Institute’s research on town-gown issues, this database presents quantitative and qualitative information on 897 projects that are outside traditional campus boundaries. These cases provide a useful composite picture of recent university real estate activities.

Digital Maps of Urban Spatial Extension. Visiting fellow Shlomo Angel is examining the spatial growth of a sample of global cities and has created a set of digital maps derived from satellite data and historic sources. Focusing on measures of developed versus undeveloped land, the maps form the basis for several Lincoln Institute working papers on the spatial growth of cities over time. The maps will exist as digital files that can be downloaded and analyzed by others who want to pursue related work.

These datasets are the Lincoln Institute’s first steps toward increasing the availability of data to researchers, analysts, policy makers, and concerned citizens with an interest in land policy and taxation. The information is freely accessible on the Tools and Resources section of the Institute Web site at www.lincolninst.edu.

Karl E. Case is professor of economics emeritus at Wellesley College, where he held the Katherine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Chair in Economics and taught for 34 years. He is currently a senior fellow at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University.

Professor Case is also a founding partner in the real estate research firm, Fiserv Case Shiller Weiss, Inc., and serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the Depositors Insurance Fund of Massachusetts. He is a member of the Standard and Poors Index Advisory Committee, the Academic Advisory Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, and the Board of Advisors of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston at Harvard University. He has served as a member of the boards of directors of the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC), Century Bank, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association. He was also an associate editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives and the Journal of Economics Education.

After receiving his B.A. from Miami University in Ohio in 1968, he spent three years on active duty in the Army and received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1976. His research has been in the areas of real estate, housing, and public finance. He is author or coauthor of five books including Principles of Economics, Economics and Tax Policy, and Property Taxation: The Need for Reform, and he has published numerous articles in professional journals. Principles of Economics, a basic text coauthored with Ray C. Fair and Sharon Oster, is in its tenth edition.

Land Lines: How did you become involved with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?

Chip Case: I learned about the Lincoln Institute in the 1970s, when it was sponsoring conferences for the Taxation Resources and Economic Development (TRED) Committee. I had written my dissertation on property taxes and had been invited to attend one of those conferences. In the fall of 1980, I began my first sabbatical year from Wellesley College and needed a way to fund my research. I arranged a meeting with Arlo Woolery, who was executive director of the Institute at the time, and he agreed to support my work.

My relationship with the Lincoln Institute has continued over the four decades since then. I was on the Board of Directors in the mid-1990s and on the executive search committees for H. James Brown, the former president of the Lincoln Institute, and Gregory K. Ingram, the current president and CEO. I taught at many Institute-sponsored programs with the Land Reform Training Institute (now the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training) in Taiwan for 15 years, and have participated in programs in Cuba and China multiple times as well.

Much of my research is in the spirit of what the Institute is about, and I continue to make regular presentations at various conferences and seminars. I was especially pleased to be involved with a conference on “Housing and the Built Environment: Access, Finance, Policy,” held in Cambridge in December 2007. The Institute later published the papers and commentaries as “Essays in honor of Karl E. Case” in a volume titled Housing Markets and the Economy: Risk, Regulation, and Policy, edited by Edward L. Glaeser and John M. Quigley.

Land Lines: What sort of work have you done for the Lincoln Institute recently?

Chip Case: Earlier this year I served as a discussant for the “Urban Economics and Public Finance Conference,” which was organized by Lincoln Institute visiting fellow Daniel McMillen with the Department of Valuation and Taxation. This annual program brings together leading scholars in the fields of urban economics and public finance to present and discuss their research. It’s a great forum and a good opportunity to showcase new empirical work.

I also recently returned from a Lincoln Institute program in Beijing, where I gave a series of lectures to planners and economists at the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. My role was to help decipher what has been happening in the U.S. housing market and to provide insight into the relationship between the housing market crash and the current financial crisis.

Chinese officials are very interested in learning from the market experience of the United States. To say that the housing market in China is in a boom period would be an understatement. In most cities, the market is straining under the limited amount of available land and insufficient infrastructure. The government has recognized that the rapid growth poses a challenge to its market authority and at the same time realizes that the growth can be harnessed as a source of potential revenue for the country’s cities.

Land Lines: What did you learn about the problem of local government finance in China?

Chip Case: Local governments in China own all the land inside their jurisdictions, and they have traditionally raised money by signing long-term leases on that land with joint ventures and other business interests that then use the land for development. The revenue from these leases has enabled local jurisdictions to provide the necessary public goods and infrastructure without ever collecting a tax.

Lately some jurisdictions are running out of new, undeveloped land to lease and thus are losing the source of revenues they need to support local schools, infrastructure, and health services. China has never had a property tax, but a property tax system has been recommended as a solution to falling local revenue. Convincing the local officials to implement a property tax, however, has proven to be a political challenge for many reasons.

Land Lines: How does your research relate to the work of the Lincoln Institute?

Chip Case: I have studied land and property tax issues for a long time. I published my doctoral dissertation under the title Property Taxation: The Need for Reform. My early interest in the property tax led me to think about the housing market, its inefficiencies and failures. I have written about the efficiency of the property tax and about the distributional effects of land prices and increases.

A significant component of my research deals with measuring land value and assessing how land value affects the location of labor markets and the allocation of resources and public goods. When someone buys a house, that person is buying access to a package of rights that is tied to the piece of land under the house. The value of the package of rights is capitalized into the cost of the house and is taxed as a component of the property’s assessed value. The package of rights–what is included and how it varies by location–is a hot issue right now, in no small part because of the current state of the housing market and its resulting impact on the financial stability of the country’s economy.

Land Lines: Tell us more about your interest in the property tax.

Chip Case: I’m an unabashed fan of the property tax. It has the potential to operate as a clear, transparent means of raising revenue. The fair market value of property is not a bad index of the ability to pay. Compare this to the federal income tax, which has become so complex as to be a bizarre means of allocating the cost of government, with very little intuitive connection to taxpaying ability.

Taxes should be neutral, and ideally not affect economic behavior. When taxpayers change their actions to avoid tax, they are worse off and the government has lost revenue at the same time. The hidden costs of these changes include higher prices and lower wages. The land portion of the property tax is one of the few taxes that does not distort economic activity, and that’s an extremely valuable tool for public finance.

The property tax offers support for local jurisdictions, self-government, and direct democracy. Local governments have a hard time imposing independent sales or income taxes if people can find a lower rate in the next city or town. Real estate is immovable property, and that’s a good base for a local tax.

The property tax is always under attack because it is highly visible. Almost no one knows how much sales tax they pay in a year, and for many people income taxes are withheld from their wages. But writing a large check for the property tax focuses taxpayer attention. That means controversy, but it also means accountability, and it allows local voters to decide whether their taxes are in line with the public services they receive. That’s almost impossible to judge at the state or federal level.

The property tax can always be improved, and that’s part of the important mission of the Lincoln Institute. But it needs supporters who can point to its strengths, and I’m always happy to take on that role.

Land Lines: What is the subject of your current research?

Chip Case: I am working on a paper with Robert Shiller about the effect of people’s expectations on the housing market in 1988 and during the period from 2003 to 2012. Shiller and I collected questionnaires from people who had purchased or sold a house at some point during those calendar years. We used more than 5,000 questionnaires to create a dataset that allows us to better understand the nature of the recent housing bubble and to pinpoint the beginning of shifts in expectations. It gives us a way to quantify and analyze various expectations about the housing market and to determine how those expectations play a role in decision making.

We can see, for example, that in 2005 the goal of owning a house began to fade from the American dream. This type of shift is culturally and economically significant. When it occurs in conjunction with the inertia of people’s expectations, we begin to see volatility in the housing market. And if the swing is strong enough, we also see that volatility may affect the national economy.

Since the price of a house includes all rights and resources tied to that piece of land, expectations about the market and access to future rights and resources play a role in determining the market value of the house. The market value in turn affects the amount of tax levied on the property. The relationship between market expectations and the property tax is complex; the research that Shiller and I are doing will provide some insight.

Land Lines: What do you anticipate will happen in the U.S. housing market going forward?

Chip Case: I am cautiously optimistic about the future of the housing market. The numbers seem to indicate that the housing sector is stabilizing and showing signs of slow but positive growth. The housing sector composes only about 6 percent of the country’s GDP, but it has been enormously important in the past. Its recovery would certainly help the economy come back from the devastating effects of the recession.

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

The Lincoln Institute has supported the authors’ work on property taxation in South Africa for several years, and in February 2002 the Institute published Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Edited by Bell and Bowman, the book presents major portions of their own work, together with chapters by several of their colleagues in the U.S. and in South Africa. This article provides an overview of seminars on property tax issues conducted by Bell and Bowman in South Africa in March 2002.

The end of apartheid in South Africa nearly a decade ago presented new opportunities and challenges to every aspect of national life, including fiscal issues. The government faced the task of extending the property tax to previously untaxed areas and adapting it to provide services through a set of radically restructured local governments. The final reorganization of local government took effect in December 2000, and the new governments now must develop comprehensive property tax (rates) policies.

Several key pieces of apartheid-era legislation had established the spatial basis for racial separation:

• Natives Land Act of 1913: Adopted soon after formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, this law outlawed black ownership or leasing of land outside reserves established for blacks.
• Population Registration Act of 1950: Often termed the cornerstone of apartheid, this statute established categories to which people would be assigned: white; black or bantu; colored, for people of mixed race; and later, Indian. This classification scheme made enforced racial separation possible.
• Group Areas Act of 1950: This law instituted strict racial separation in urban areas, providing zones that members of only one racial group could occupy and limiting the presence of blacks in restricted areas to short time periods. A pass system required nonwhites to carry identifying papers or permits.

These policies greatly complicated efforts to amalgamate former white and black local authorities (WLAs and BLAs), with important implications for property taxation. Specifically, for local governments, the legacy of apartheid includes:

• skewed settlement patterns with the geographic and social segregation of residential areas;
• extreme concentrations of wealth and property tax base, since commercial and industrial activity was located almost exclusively in the former WLAs;
• large areas and numbers of people in BLAs, which had inferior infrastructure and a backlog of demand for public services under amalgamation; and
• nonviable municipal institutions—small rural townships, known as R293 towns, close to the borders of former bantustans (black homelands or traditional authority areas) that have large populations, limited financial resources and only a minimal level of services.

Post-Apartheid Local Government Structure

The dismantling of apartheid began in the mid-1980s and was essentially complete by the early 1990s. At the end of 1993, the Local Government Transition Act (LGTA) was signed by then-President de Klerk and, symbolically, by Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress (ANC). The LGTA provided for short-, medium- and long-term transformation of local governments to create nonracial self-government. It created two-tier local governments in metropolitan areas, with powers and responsibilities shared between a geographically larger unit and two or more smaller units within the same area. The Municipal Structures Act of 1998, providing for single-tier metropolitan government, was implemented after the local elections of December 2000 as part of a general and final redemarcation of local governments that reduced the number of authorities from approximately 845 to less than 300.

Amalgamation of municipalities brought new areas into the property tax base, including former BLAs, bantustans and their associated rural R293 towns, but the residents of these newly incorporated areas had never before paid property taxes. Thus, it was necessary to develop the information and administrative infrastructure needed to value properties, determine tax liabilities, distribute tax bills to those responsible, and collect the taxes due, all in an equitable manner. Moreover, the new tax system had to overcome the psychology of payment boycotts, sometimes characterized as a “culture of nonpayment,” an important resistance technique used against the apartheid government.

Combining formerly taxed areas with different valuation rates or systems into a single municipality produces inconsistencies within the property tax roll of the amalgamated area, multiplying inequities among property owners with different effective tax rates. Both those new to the tax and those who historically have paid property taxes often question whether their tax shares are equitable and how the resulting revenue is being spent. In some instances, tax boycotts have occurred in former WLAs.

National Property Tax Policy

Although property taxation remains a local tax in South Africa, the 1996 Constitution authorizes central government regulation of property taxation. A national Property Rates Bill, scheduled for adoption in 2002, will replace current provincial property tax laws. Each locality now must adopt an explicit and comprehensive property rates policy.

Our seminars took place in this context of national legislation, municipal consolidation and municipal property rates policies. We collaborated with local institutions of higher education: Port Elizabeth Technikon in Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and the University of North West in Mafikeng Local Municipality. Seminar participants included current and former elected city councilors, newly enfranchised and long-time non-elected officials, and students and faculty of the educational institutions.

Nelson Mandela Municipality is one of South Africa’s six metropolitan municipal governments, the only local government within its geographic area. Its population and business center is the former city of Port Elizabeth. Principal property tax concerns raised at the seminar included: (1) unifying the tax rolls of the various jurisdictions making up the metropolitan area, since their valuation dates range over a number of years; (2) bringing former black local authority (BLA) areas into the property tax base; (3) deciding on the appropriate way to deal with rural (agricultural) land, previously not taxed but now part of the municipal area; and (4) accomplishing these things in a manner that is sensitive to the special circumstances of those with very low incomes.

Mafikeng, the capital of the North West Province, lies within the Mmbatho District Municipality in the former Bophuthatswana homeland near the Botswana border. Some property tax concerns raised at the Mafikeng seminar were the same as in Nelson Mandela Municipality. In addition, Mafikeng is wrestling with incorporating tribal (traditional authority) areas and the black urban agglomerations (R293 towns) of the former bantustan. Tribal areas present two special problems: property ownership is communal, not private; and the traditional authority structure remains in place, even though these areas now are included within municipal borders, creating a dual authority structure that further complicates amalgamation.

Key Property Taxation Themes

Policy Framework

New national legislation requires each local government to produce a property rates policy to address such issues as whether to include all real properties in the tax base; whether to apply uniform or differential rates to the many categories of property included in the tax base; and what form of property relief should be given, and to whom. If the property tax is to be a viable local revenue source, local rates policies must be guided by the following principles:

• Legitimacy. Taxpayers must accept the tax as a legitimate, appropriate levy. This means administrative outcomes must be in accord with accepted legal requirements.
• Openness. The tax must be transparent, so taxpayers can understand its workings. Further, a simple, low-cost means must be available to resolve taxpayers’ complaints.
• Technical Proficiency. The tax must be administered in a professional manner. This requires appropriate administrative structure, tools, and personnel.
• Fairness. The tax must be administered in a manner that treats taxpayers uniformly and fairly with regard to asset value, but with provisions for relief that take into consideration broader notions of ability to pay, such as current income.

These fundamental characteristics of a property tax system provide a framework for restructuring property taxes in South Africa, with tradeoffs made through an open and transparent political process at the local level.

Monitoring

The property tax base is fair market value. Because most properties do not sell in a market transaction each year, however, estimating market value is the task of trained assessment professionals. Differences in location, depreciation and other characteristics make valuation partly an art, not strictly a scientific or technical endeavor. Uniformity relative to market value may not always result, even though it is required and the assessors follow the procedures intended to achieve that result. Thus, a system for monitoring valuation outcomes is needed, which may include three dimensions of assessment quality:

• The overall closeness of the fit between assessed value on the tax roll and actual sales price for properties that have sold. A measure of central tendency of such ratios for a sample of properties indicates the average assessment level relative to market value; the median ratio generally is preferred.
• The extent to which assessment ratios for individual properties are scattered or clustered around the median ratio. A standard measure of assessment uniformity is the coefficient of dispersion (CD), which is interpreted as a measure of horizontal equity. A CD greater than zero indicates that different properties may bear different effective property tax rates even if they have the same market value and are subject to the same nominal tax rate.
• Vertical equity, evaluated by the price-related differential (PRD). If the PRD = 1, there is no systematic bias in favor of either high- or low-value properties, while a PRD above 1 reveals a regressive bias favoring high-value properties.

Formal assessment/sales ratio studies have not been done in South Africa, but we calculated simple ratios for several cities. The results in Table 1 indicate that assessment uniformity generally needs to be improved, since coefficients of dispersion across the case study cities are typically high and the price-related differentials are generally substantially above one.

Targeting Tax Relief

Although property taxation is a tax on value, it is paid out of current income, and thus may place an unacceptable burden on property owners with low incomes. Property tax relief is any reduction in tax liability. Indirect relief results from changes that take pressure off the property tax: reduced expenditures or increased revenue from alternative sources. Alternatively, direct relief comes from a change in the calculation of property tax liability.

Direct relief was the focus of our studies and the seminar discussions. In South Africa direct residential property tax relief typically is a uniform percentage credit, termed a rebate, which generally is 20 percent or 25 percent of gross property tax liability. The rebate approach has two limitations. First, most of the tax relief goes to those with the most expensive properties. Second, low-income property owners are still required to pay most of their property tax liability, which still could be burdensome relative to income.

While an income-based circuit breaker is our preferred approach for targeting tax relief to those in need, it would be extremely difficult to administer in South Africa because income information is not readily available, in part because of the extensive informal economy. An alternative way to target property tax relief to those most in need is to exempt a fixed amount of the base from taxation.

Table 2 illustrates the effects of moving from a 25 percent rebate to a R20,000 exemption (US$1,740). Under the partial exemption alternative, the lowest valued properties, including those hardest to value at this time, are removed from paying taxes, and net taxes are reduced on all properties up to about R100,000 (US$8,700). The aggregate cost of property tax relief under this approach is substantially reduced because each property receives the same exemption. Durban and Johannesburg now are experimenting with the partial exemption approach to property tax relief.

Dealing with Previously Untaxed Areas

As a result of the local government restructuring in December 2000, South Africa now has local governments throughout country. Three types of areas previously outside the property tax now are to be brought into the tax: former BLAs and R293 townships, agricultural areas and tribal areas. In the former BLAs and R293 townships property is being transferred to private ownership and these areas must be surveyed by the national Surveyor General to establish individual property boundaries and identifications necessary to administer the property tax. Different localities are at different stages in this process.

Property taxes were levied on rural agricultural lands in the past, but these lands have not been in the property tax base since the late 1980s. Bringing them into the tax base now poses two problems. The first is developing the property record information necessary for tax administration. The second is the question of how taxes on such properties should relate to taxes levied in the urban portions of a municipality, as farmers often provide themselves and their workers with services typically associated with local government. One possibility is use-value assessment of agricultural land, an approach endorsed by a national commission that reviewed the taxation of rural lands. Alternatively, differential rates for different categories of property are allowed under current provincial property tax laws and the draft national Property Rates Bill. If there is to be differentiation in effective tax rates, imposing a lower rate on market value assessments provides greater transparency and understanding of the tax and should be part of the local government rates policy.

Bringing tribal areas into the tax base presents another set of issues. First, given communal land tenure systems existing in these traditional authority areas, how does one establish ownership, a necessary condition for the application of property tax based on the principle of private property? Second, because there is no land market per se, how are estimates of market value to be made? Finally, given the two competing governance structures that now exist in tribal areas, how does one make the payment of a property tax acceptable to residents who did not previously pay the tax? These issues are clearly the most intractable ones that must be addressed in the newest round of local government reform in South Africa.

Conclusion

The property tax has been an important part of local finance in South Africa for centuries and is likely to play an increasingly important role in the future, as newly amalgamated local governments wrestle with addressing the legacies of apartheid and the requirements of new national property tax legislation. There is no single right answer to many of the perplexing questions surrounding the design and implementation of a local property tax, but it will continue to evolve to meet changing circumstances and needs.

Michael E. Bell is president of MEB Associates, Inc., in McHenry, Maryland. John H. Bowman is professor of economics at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

References

Bell, Michael E. and John H. Bowman. 2002. Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

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.

La demanda por servicios urbanos sobrepasa la capacidad financiera de la mayoría de las ciudades del mundo. Para hacerle frente a este problema, muchos gobiernos municipales utilizan exitosamente el impuesto a la propiedad junto con otros instrumentos administrativos a fin de recaudar esos fondos tan necesarios. Actualmente El Salvador es el único país centroamericano que no impone una tributación sobre suelo y propiedad. Sin embargo, funcionarios públicos, expertos académicos y líderes empresariales del país han comenzado a discutir sobre la necesidad de establecer un sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, y las estrategias para su ejecución.

El sistema de tributación de El Salvador está caracterizado por la falta de equidad y una cantidad mínima de impuestos recaudados, lo cual afecta el nivel de inversiones públicas. Décadas de guerra civil y caos económico han dejado al país sin una tradición establecida de administración ni control fiscal. Los primeros cambios al sistema de tributación comenzaron a ponerse en práctica en 1993, cuando tanto el antiguo impuesto patrimonial sobre la propiedad personal y de la empresa (incluso sobre bienes inmuebles), como el impuesto sobre las ventas del 5 % fueron abolidos y sustituidos por un impuesto sobre las ventas del 13 por ciento. La recaudación de estos impuestos y de un impuesto sobre la renta corre a cargo del gobierno central.

El único impuesto municipal que existe es un tributo arcaico y complejo basado en actividades comerciales, industriales, financieras y de servicios. Debido a su limitada capacidad para aumentar sus ingresos, los municipios no tienen muchas oportunidades de obtener préstamos de bancos nacionales, y ninguna posibilidad de conseguirlos de instituciones financieras internacionales. Entre otros factores que contribuyen a debilitar la base financiera de los gobiernos municipales se cuentan las deficiencias administrativas, los problemas catastrales y las limitaciones del marco legal. Dado que la zona metropolitana de San Salvador abarca una gran área de este pequeño país, la tributación municipal y otros programas de planificación fiscal puestos en práctica allí tienen repercusiones significativas en todo el país.

En 1998, el Consejo Municipal de San Salvador propuso aumentar los impuestos a la actividad comercial, lo cual provocó protestas inmediatas por parte de representantes empresariales y funcionarios municipales. Los líderes de negocios denunciaron al programa tributario propuesto como un generador de costos adicionales que los forzaría a subir los precios de artículos de consumo y servicios, y posiblemente llevaría a un crecimiento de la inflación; como alternativa, demandaron incentivos para nuevos proyectos de desarrollo a cambio de modificaciones del sistema tributario. El Consejo Municipal defendió su propuesta, precisando que la estructura tributaria actual se caracterizaba por una seria falta de equidad porque castigaba a los negocios pequeños al mismo tiempo que ofrecía ventajas a los grandes.

El Consejo Municipal de San Salvador y la Cámara de Comercio e Industria de El Salvador formaron una comisión mixta para que investigara los complejos asuntos involucrados en la reforma fiscal propuesta y las precondiciones que la misma precisaría, tales como actualizaciones catastrales, marco legal y capacitación técnica. Si bien la discusión no estuvo centrada en los mecanismos concretos para llevar a cabo una tributación de suelo y propiedad, fue muy significativo que estos importantes grupos de interés coincidieran sobre la necesidad de imponer un tributo inmobiliario en el futuro.

Beneficios de una perspectiva internacional

En enero de 1999 se realizó una reunión extraordinaria de funcionarios públicos y grupos de interés privado, en la que el Instituto Lincoln y la Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador (OPAMSS) estudiaron muchos de los asuntos pertinentes al desarrollo y ejecución de un sistema de tributación inmobiliaria. Éste fue el tercero de una serie de programas auspiciados por el Instituto diseñados con el objetivo de compartir la experiencia internacional y ayudar a desarrollar un nuevo marco de trabajo en pro de un sistema tributario con más equidad en El Salvador.

Particularmente en un país pequeño como El Salvador, la implementación de un sistema adecuado de impuestos a la propiedad puede tener efectos positivos y estratégicos no sólo sobre las finanzas municipales, sino también sobre las políticas macroeconómicas y la revaluación del sector financiero. Alven Lam, investigador del Instituto Lincoln, explicó que la reestructuración del marco tributario ha sido el factor fundamental que ha permitido a algunos países asiáticos como Japón, Tailandia e Indonesia, recuperarse de sus crisis económicas. Los recientes problemas fiscales de Brasil y el continuo debate sobre el funcionamiento del sector financiero de El Salvador agregaron un sentido de apremio a la discusión sobre el amplio contexto económico de un impuesto a la propiedad municipal.

En el seminario también se discutió la importancia de integrar una tributación mixta de suelo y propiedad como herramienta fundamental para promover un manejo eficaz de la tierra urbana. Vincent Renard, del Laboratorio Econométrico de la Escuela Politécnica de París, elogió la iniciativa del Consejo Municipal de San Salvador y de otros gobiernos municipales para modificar sus estructuras tributarias, haciendo énfasis en la importancia de no aislar dichas políticas de los mercados de bienes raíces. Asimismo, Renard criticó ciertas estrategias de planificación urbana, tales como la tendencia actual que hay en El Salvador de regularizar en exceso el uso de la tierra mediante medidas legales que están totalmente desvinculadas de la tributación de la tierra y de incentivos fiscales.

Una tercera área de preocupación durante el debate consistió en las implicaciones políticas y económicas de la tributación a la propiedad. Entre otras cosas, es crítico que los funcionarios involucrados en establecer un sistema de tributación sobre la propiedad consideren la cultura política de la sociedad, la consolidación de autonomía municipal, la transparencia de los mercados de bienes raíces, y el uso del impuesto a la propiedad como una herramienta para el desarrollo económico y social. Julio Piza, de la Universidad Externado de Bogotá, describió diferentes aplicaciones del impuesto a la propiedad en Colombia, realzando la existencia de un problema común: la dificultad de medir la base impositiva de la tierra y los bienes debido en gran parte a los obsoletos sistemas catastrales y a la falta de otros sistemas de información.

Aunque la discusión sobre la reforma fiscal en El Salvador ha sido eclipsada por las recientes elecciones nacionales, el nuevo presidente ha expresado interés en una política de tierra y tributo. Al seminario asistieron dirigentes municipales y nacionales de los sectores políticos y comerciales, quienes expresaron un interés profundo en modernizar sus programas de manejo fiscal y tributación municipal. El solo hecho de haberse reunido para discutir abiertamente estos complejos asuntos es una señal esperanzadora. Para que haya progreso, es necesario contar con la voluntad política, la participación continua de la comunidad comercial y el reconocimiento de que el impuesto constituye tanto un instrumento financiero práctico para satisfacer necesidades inmediatas como también una herramienta importante para lograr crecimiento económico y desarrollo urbano.

Al igual que otros países en estado de transición social y económica, El Salvador se enfrenta ahora al desafío de establecer estipulaciones eficaces y justas para llevar a cabo las valuaciones catastrales y la recaudación de impuestos. El proceso puede facilitarse si se comienza con una estructura de tasas simple y se van introduciendo gradualmente instrumentos más sofisticados. Otros factores tales como métodos innovadores de manejo de la tierra y la posibilidad de capturar los aumentos en el valor de la tierra son críticos para el futuro crecimiento fiscal de El Salvador.

Ingresos municipales Área Metropolitana de San Salvador, 1993

Fuentes de ingresos:

• Impuestos municipales
• Aranceles y tarifas de usuario
• Transferencias del gobierno federal
• Otros ingresos municipales
• Préstamos
• Otras fuentes

Patricia Fuentes es Subdirectora de Control de Desarrollo Urbano y Mario Lungo es el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador (OPAMSS).

Claudia De Cesare is a property tax adviser to the Secretariat of Finance for the municipality of Porto Alegre, Brazil, and she teaches courses on valuation and property taxation in the postgraduate program of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre. She has been a course developer and instructor in the Lincoln Institute’s Latin America Program for more than five years. She is also a member of the advisory board of the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) and is the former technical director of the Brazilian Appraisal Institute (IBAPE).

Land Lines: Porto Alegre is known internationally for its innovative and democratic local administration. What is unique about this city compared to others in Brazil or Latin America?

Claudia De Cesare: Indeed, Porto Alegre has initiated many pioneering actions in public administration, including the use of the property tax as an instrument for value capture; the sale of building rights (solo criado); the use of building rights in place of cash to pay for expropriations of real property; and the collection of rents in exchange for the use of public space by infrastructure networks, such as telecommunications, cable TV and gas. For instance, five years before the approval of the national City Statute legislation regulating the use of progressive rates for the property tax, Porto Alegre passed local legislation to address this matter. Although the Supreme Court later ruled against this local action and in favor of the need for national legislation, the city has played a leading role in promoting debate on many polemic issues, including private rights, property rights and the public interest.

I think the reasons for Porto Alegre’s innovations include a clear definition of the policies and goals to be achieved, as well as “guts” by local leaders to tackle issues even when conflict is likely to occur. Public officials have maintained an overriding vision that the city must be planned democratically for the community at large and a conviction that public assets must be taken seriously. Not all initiatives have succeeded, but citizens now have a better understanding of the local government’s responsibilities and its limitations. The fact that one political party, in this case the labor party (PT), was elected to lead the city government for more than 15 consecutive years also contributed to the continuity and coherence of these public actions. This kind of political legacy is quite unusual in Brazil and Latin America in general.

LL: How has this proactive atmosphere affected the administration of the property tax?

CD: We can identify two periods in terms of property tax performance in Porto Alegre. Before 1989, local revenue from the property tax followed the typical pattern in Latin America. It was mainly symbolic, characterized by a low level of effort in administration, negligence in local tax collection, and extreme dependence on revenue transfers from the national and state levels. Following major property tax reforms that revised exemption policies, introduced progressive rates and established a new assessment list, the property tax collection rate grew more than 300 percent over the first two years. A major public education campaign emphasized the arguments for regular property tax payments, the importance of the tax for the provision of public services, and the reasons why the local authorities would not tolerate tax evasion.

A change in attitude by the city administration also led to more effective enforcement of property tax payments and legal actions to address tax evasion or disputes over assessed values. It was made clear there would be no amnesty for property tax debts. The participatory budget process also contributed to the rehabilitation of the property tax in Porto Alegre, as overall confidence in public administration increased (see Goldsmith and Vanier 2001). Since the early 1990s, the annual revenue collected from the property tax has been stable, representing nearly 0.95 percent of local GDP. At the national level, by comparison, the property tax represents only about 0.5 percent of GDP. Subsequent improvements in the property tax have not taken place, basically because the legislature has rejected several proposals for either reforms or major revisions.

LL: How important is the property tax in Latin America?

CD: Although the simple answer to this question is “it depends on the country,” the property tax is not a significant revenue source in any Latin American country, even though most countries have long established property tax systems. Only in Argentina and Uruguay does the revenue collected from the property tax represent more than 1 percent of GDP. In Brazil the average performance is close to 0.5 percent, and in Mexico and Costa Rica it is around 0.3 percent of the GPD. Moreover, in relative terms, there is great variability in the importance of the property tax within countries and cities that is not directly explained by the local GDP or population size. Part of the performance depends on political will, which varies enormously among cities.

LL: In your opinion, what are the main controversies related to property tax collection?

CD: I would say that the controversies include the real goals to be achieved with the property tax; the degree of universality in its implementation; the changes needed to take into account social, economic and cultural concerns; and the distribution of the tax burden for regulating the tax according to ability to pay. Concerning ability to pay, principally in Brazil, there is much discussion about application of progressive rates that vary according to assessed values. The underlying issue might be how simple the system should be.

Other issues have to do with the lack of consensus about the transparency of the system, local autonomy versus a national system for tax collection, and general political and economic instability that affects property value maps and other data. Furthermore, the public disclosure of information on the property tax, such as individual property characteristics, assessed values and annual tax payments, is not always considered secure.

LL: What would it take to improve property tax collection?

CD: In my experience, the successful performance of the property tax depends on a combination of adequate fiscal policies, a consistent legal framework for tax collection and an efficient administrative structure. For instance, the application of confiscatory (high) rates to vacant sites to promote land development is likely to stimulate tax evasion instead. In addition, political will and the capacity for negotiation with stakeholders are essential for the introduction of reforms or revisions in tax administration. Making the connection between public services and revenue collected from the property tax more evident to taxpayers is likely to contribute to a better collection rate. In other words, the role of the property tax would be enhanced if the community is accustomed to paying the property tax and understands its effect on improving public services. Finally, a trend toward a participatory fiscal culture, in which the community takes part in the decisions about public revenue collection and expenditures, could increase the acceptability of the tax, making its collection easier.

LL: What is changing in the region to influence the prospects for tax reform?

CD: I believe tax administrators understand and care more today about the property tax. They are aware of the pressing need to increase revenues through better performance of the tax, in spite of challenges due to its high visibility and historically poor performance record. They also recognize the need to break this paradigm, in relation to both taxpayer expectations and the role of the property tax as a component of the national taxation system. Several isolated yet promising experiences have made it clear that property tax reform in Latin America is viable, but it requires political will, innovation and a commitment to overcome perceived barriers to its implementation.

LL: What are the main differences in the property tax environment of Latin America compared to North America?

CD: The U.S. and Canadian systems are certainly more mature and transparent than most Latin American systems, largely because information is available in the public domain and technology is easily accessible. Some of the important differences observed in Latin America are illegal occupation patterns, the lack of reliable information on land tenure, the large number of informal property transactions and the prevalence of progressive housing construction. All of these characteristics of Latin American land use present distinct challenges to developing procedures to assess property values and administer a fair and consistent tax policy. Concerning the use of technology in the administration of the property tax, last year I learned about a cadastral system in Mexico that is as effective as the best systems used in the U.S. However, this is unusual; there is great variation in the use of technology among different local authorities in Latin America.

LL: Based on your research, what are some of the positive and negative impacts of switching to a land value-based tax system for residential properties?

CD: The conclusion of my study was quite unexpected, since the hypothesis supported the opposite argument. Using a database from Porto Alegre, I found that the main result from using land value as the tax base was the tendency toward more regressivity in the distribution of the tax burden, with low-priced houses clearly identified as the potential losers. The fact that part of the tax burden would be transferred from high-priced to low-priced properties is a real cause of concern. However, further investigation is necessary to address imperfections in the valuation model used to estimate land values and to examine other databases. In any event, the lack of knowledge about the use of land value as the tax base and its perceived advantages was identified as a major obstacle for its application in Brazil.

LL: How do you use various assessment tools and techniques to determine land value?

CD: One of the main arguments against the use of land value as the tax base is the great difficulty in estimating the value of improved sites. In my study, the use of hedonic models (MRA) for estimating land values was found to be viable. To compensate for the lack of data on undeveloped sites in highly developed areas (central areas and business districts), I used a reasonable number of houses that were sold for new development. Their market value was determined entirely by the potential of the site for future development, as well as by the neighborhood characteristics. Therefore, the findings support the hypothesis that eventual difficulties in land assessment do not prevent the use of land value as the property tax base, at least, in the case of Porto Alegre. Nevertheless, a lower degree of assessment uniformity was observed in the valuation of undeveloped sites, since site prices tend to suffer strong random variations and are highly influenced by the particular characteristics of the buyer and seller involved in each transaction.

LL: What do you think are the greatest challenges facing Latin America in the next five years?

CD: As discussed before, a major challenge is to pursue more effective property tax systems. I think the promotion and implementation of national programs for the improvement of the property tax is essential to reinforce the property tax at the local level. On a more personal note, my goal is to develop a web-based system for collecting and disseminating information on property taxes in Latin America, allowing comparative analyses among municipalities according to predefined criteria. The system would have property tax administrators fill out data on the performance of the property tax on a regular basis, allowing for evaluation over time. This would greatly advance the project, now being supported by the Lincoln Institute, which uses conventional questionnaires to survey property tax information in the region.

Reference

Goldsmith, William W. and Carlos B. Vainer. 2001. Participatory budgeting and power politics in Porto Alegre. Land Lines 13 (1): 7–9.

Rampant informality, so emblematic of large cities in developing countries, poses many challenges for property taxation systems. For instance, tenure rights in informal settlements are often obscure or even unknown; buildings are constructed gradually over time, self-construction is common, and the whole unit may never be finished; property value depends on vague or intangible factors such as the security provided by community organizations; the occupant or even the legal owner may be too poor to pay taxes; administrative costs of tax collection are higher than in the formal areas, whereas assessed values are often much lower; and there is hardly any public investment in infrastructure and services.

These critical features of informal housing seem to violate many of the premises on which the administration of a property tax system is grounded: identification of taxable property and corresponding taxpayers; description of the property’s physical characteristics; determination of property values on a reasonable market basis and according to predictable measures; the taxpayer’s presumed ability to pay; collection costs that are relatively low compared to the revenue collected; and an expectation that tax revenues would benefit the area from which the tax was collected.

This comparison depicts the essence of the conventional wisdom on informal occupations and the reasons why they are generally disregarded for taxation purposes, but misconceptions and prejudices are evident. This article examines some of these biases and their consequences for property tax collection in informal areas. The Latin American situation is used to illustrate this debate, but this study is still exploratory due to limited data. The arguments discussed indicate promising directions for further analyses, rather than conclusive findings in most cases.

Informal Occupations

In land occupation and housing, informality is a multidimensional phenomenon involving thorny issues related to land tenure; noncompliance with urban norms and regulations, such as minimum lot size, allowance for public spaces, and street layouts; inadequate provision of public services and equipment; and occupation of improper areas, such as environmentally protected or ecologically risky areas and contaminated brownfield sites.

Slums originated by land invasions are the first image of informality that comes to mind, but other social and physical forms of informality range from pirate subdivisions, usually characterized by market sales of land having no clear title, to situations where even legally qualified owners with titled land do not conform to existing urban norms and regulations.

According to the United Nations–Habitat (2003), about 928 million people (32 percent of the world’s urban population or 43 percent of the population of developing countries) currently live in slums with precarious urban infrastructure and inadequate public services. If current trends and policies continue, the report estimates that slum populations will increase by 37 million per year to reach a total of 1.5 billion people in 2020. Although Latin America accounts for 9 percent of the world’s population, it comprises about 14 percent of those who live in slums.

Why is Informality a Problem?

Informality disorganizes the functioning of urban land markets, since illegal, irregular, and clandestine operators are able to reap higher profits by avoiding some costs, such as taxes, the cost of protecting the land from invasions, or the cost of providing basic urban infrastructure and services. Contrary to expectations, land prices per square meter in informal settlements are often higher than those in formal areas, when discounting investments related to the provision of water, electricity, drainage, sewerage, and other services.

Moreover, informality is expensive for society. The costs of curative policies to upgrade irregular settlements are higher than the cost of new land development, and indirect social costs include the presence of criminal activity and natural disasters caused by development in environmentally sensitive areas. The evidence also suggests that informality is both a cause and an effect of urban poverty. The geographic distribution of poverty tends to overlap with the spatial pattern of informal arrangements, although the magnitude and persistence of informality cannot be entirely explained by poverty. A survey conducted by the Instituto Pereira Passos (2002) based on the Brazilian Census of 2000 found that about 64 percent of the population classified as poor actually lived outside the slum areas.

Myths of Informality

There are many prevailing myths about how informal settlements are either established or operated, including the perception that occupants in informal areas are neither willing nor able to pay property taxes. In fact, not only are occupiers usually willing to pay the tax as a way to legitimate their land tenure, but they are often quite able to pay it. New occupants, in fact, have already paid the property tax in the form of higher land prices, yet the payment went to either the subdivider or original landowner instead of the government.

Moreover, payment of the property tax by occupants of informal areas is likely to legitimate their right to demand public services and other urban improvements from government authorities. Many informal occupants also realize that private provision of basic services through informal means, such as buying water from a truck, is likely to be more costly and risky than payment of the property tax.

Other myths or assumptions about informality include beliefs that occupants of informal settlements are necessarily poor; informal settlements are occupied only by unemployed and informal workers; formal property title is necessary to obtain access to credit; informal settlements are homogeneous entities clearly distinguished from formal settlements; and occupation of informal settlements is made through nonmarket transactions.

Property Tax Collection

In an attempt to relate property tax collection per inhabitant to the presence of informality, we used data based on a survey of municipalities conducted in 1999 by the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE 2001). Table 1 presents data that measured two criteria: the occurrence of slums (i.e., informal settlements caused by invasions) and the existence of all types of irregular land development. Slums occur in 27.6 percent of all municipalities in Brazil, while irregular land development (including slums) occurs in almost 44 percent of them. The maximum value of property tax collected is higher in larger municipalities and those with slums and other irregular developments, and the revenues also tend to be higher on average than in those municipalities without such development.

However, Table 2 illustrates the difficulty of monitoring property ownership and tax collection records by comparing the presence of cadastres in municipalities with records on slums and informal settlements. Local cadastres cover information on slums in 52.5 percent of the municipalities in which they are found, but only 39 percent of those cities have complete records on informality. By comparison, 50.5 percent of municipalities with irregular land developments have this information included in their cadastres, and 51 percent of the cases with records have complete information. Thus, one cannot reject the hypothesis that the larger, richer, and more developed municipalities are also the ones with better records on informal occupations.

Using the IBGE database, a model for multiple regression analysis was developed to test the relationship between informality and the property tax collected per inhabitant. The relationship was controlled with other attributes available in the database, including the average income per inhabitant, the size of the population, and a group of variables associated with the role of the local administration in promoting urban development. Based on this model, which explains approximately 72 percent of the variation in the property tax collected per inhabitant, the following factors have proven to be influential in determining the amount of property tax collected.

• Urban regulations and minimum lot sizes. The findings support the argument that municipalities with a more complete regulatory framework are able to collect more property tax per inhabitant. Consistently, a decrease in the property tax collected per inhabitant is found in municipalities where no minimum lot size is established. Thus, stricter land use regulations have a positive effect on property tax performance, as much as their absence produces adverse effects.
• Updated property cadastre and maps. As expected, municipalities in which the property cadastre and maps have been updated more recently tend to obtain a higher collection ratio. The model also indicates that municipalities that use more technology, as measured by the use of a digital cadastre, are able to collect more property tax per inhabitant than the others.
• Occurrence of slums. Municipalities with slums collect more property tax per inhabitant than those without slums. A plausible explanation for this phenomenon may be that more industrialized and/or more economically dynamic cities have a higher incidence of informality. In this case, the loss of property tax revenue generated by informality is likely to be compensated by the revenue collected in high-income areas and from commercial and industrial properties.
• Inclusion of informal property in the cadastre. The importance of a more universal tax base is also confirmed, as reflected in better property tax performance when informality is recorded at the local government level.
• Collection ratio. Municipalities with less tax evasion, that is, a higher collection ratio, tend to collect more property taxes per inhabitant.
• Average income per inhabitant. Finally, the average income per inhabitant is the most important factor in tax collection, accounting for about 42 percent of the variation in the property tax collected per inhabitant.

In addition to the level of income, the findings clearly indicate the importance of an effective administration of the property tax. In other words, even in the presence of informality municipalities achieve better results in comparative terms if they maintain updated cadastres and maps, include informal properties in the cadastre, and have a broad framework of urban legislation. In summary, when focusing strictly on the property tax performance, the major cause of concern is not the presence of informality itself, but the way public officials deal with it for property tax purposes.

The Property Tax as a Tool to Reverse Informality

A more vigorous property tax is likely to affect informality directly. For instance, the portion of the property tax levied on land value constitutes a strong antidote to force the existing stock of serviced land to the market. The property tax may also be important as a tool to influence the decision-making process for which areas should receive urban services. Indeed, communities without a property tax system are particularly vulnerable when it comes to seeking public attention.

The property tax can also be an educational mechanism for helping citizens realize their rights and duties, including the need to contribute to public expenses. The government’s commitment to allocate tax revenues fairly and equitably provides greater legitimacy to the tax. Furthermore, a property tax may be one mechanism to reduce land prices through the capitalization effect (Bahl and Linn 1992). Usually local government recognition of occupancy has no direct, legal effect on guaranteeing property titles at the public registry, but informal occupiers may perceive it as a kind of a green card to access the legal world.

Rabello de Castro (2000) has argued that there are solid legal grounds to use cadastres for property tax purposes to legitimize tenure rights, and that the courts would have no difficulty in admitting such records as trustworthy evidence. Finally, there is an advantage for the property tax to cover informal property because its application requires specific knowledge of the area, which has immensurable value to the city management.

Policy Recommendations

Informality poses particular challenges to property tax administration, including the need to design feasible and politically acceptable procedures. Following are some policy recommendations for consideration.

• Extend tax liability to occupants in informal settlements. Limiting property tax liability to the landowner reduces the ability to collect taxes in countries with a substantial number of informal settlements. Legislation could establish the possessor or occupier as the taxpayer of record, so there should be no technical impediment to considering alternative forms of secured tenure to meet the challenge of enhancing the universality of the property tax.
• Update urban cadastres. Conventional cadastral procedures and techniques are not able to keep up with the physical and legal idiosyncrasies of informal settlements. Low-cost, flexible initiatives to update cadastres and identify irregular land subdivisions and buildings might include the establishment of partnerships with companies that provide public services or institutions responsible for social programs.
• Determine how to assess informal property. Assessing informal property is a challenge since there is little understanding of how informal markets operate. This may require taking into account atypical determinants of property values (e.g., the value of relaxed urbanistic norms and regulations) and creative sources of information (e.g., neighborhood association records on property transactions). However, a vibrant property market is generally observed in informal areas, and the analysis of the determinants of land prices is as feasible and amenable to standard techniques as the analysis undertaken in formal markets (Abramo 2003). Another alternative is to use self-assessment, as applied in Bogotá, Colombia, using simplified forms to make the process easier for low-income families.
• Bypass assessment difficulties for progressive housing. Self-production of housing is common, and improvements may take place on a gradual, albeit permanent, basis in informal occupations. Consequently, proper taxation of informal properties would require inspecting the houses more frequently. These difficult circumstances suggest considering other alternatives, including the use of either the site value as the tax base or a self-reporting scheme. Neighborhood associations and community organizations could be involved in such programs. Initiatives to encourage self-reporting would be facilitated by the extent to which the revenue collected is earmarked to improve public services and equipment in the neighborhoods in which the property tax was collected.
• Minimize tax evasion. Contrary to the view that higher rates of tax evasion prevail in low-valued properties, the general perception is that tax evasion is more likely to occur on high-valued properties. Local administrators and other sources confirm that poor families are quite willing to have their properties included in the fiscal cadastre, and to pay the property tax.
• Adjust the tax burden on the poor. Current alternatives for either reducing or eliminating the tax burden on the poor in formal areas should be applied to informal areas. Such measures include either deductions or exemptions according to the property value, the family income, or both criteria, and the use of progressive rates starting at a symbolic value and moving up according to classes of assessed values.
• Establish a fiscal culture. Symbolic tax payments may have no impact in terms of revenue, but are likely to contribute to the creation of a fiscal culture. A sustainable tax system for informal housing requires steps similar to those for formal property markets: adjust the tax burden according to the ability-to-pay; demonstrate to taxpayers the public benefits related to the collection of the property tax; promote educational programs explaining the rights and duties of citizens; and apply effective and reasonable penalties for cases of nonpayment.

Even though most informal property is excluded from the property rolls, the above requirements should be applied to informal properties if a higher level of efficiency in property tax collection is to be achieved. The argument about high collection costs to exclude low-valued properties (or low-income families for that matter) from the tax-rolls should be reckoned against the benefits of promoting broader fiscal citizenship.

A Longer View

The collection of property taxes in informal areas may be not only possible under certain circumstances, but also attractive for pursuing a more effective urban policy that is capable of mitigating informality and its negative effects for society in general and for individual occupants of these settlements in particular.

Despite the difficulty of providing empirical evidence on its theoretical impacts on the land market, the part of the property tax levied on the land value is likely to produce effects that are critical to mitigate the distortions and dysfunctions in land markets with a high degree of informality. These effects include stimulating land development; deterring land speculation; reducing land prices; increasing the supply of urbanized land; encouraging more compact cities; promoting more efficient provision of urban infrastructure and services; and encouraging a more rational pattern of development. Indirect benefits may include the relevance of the information generated to identify property, the use of paid property taxes as a paralegal means to legitimize tenure rights, and last but not least the opportunity for accessing citizenship and becoming integrated into society.

In summary, when focusing on the property tax performance, the major cause of concern is not so much informality itself, but the way public officials treat informality and how they administer a property tax system. In this context, the introduction of the property tax into an environment with rampant informality requires special caution. The challenges to operating the property tax in informal areas include the need to understand the informal market, curb intervening land ownership claims from previous or absent owners, improve administrative capability, and legitimize public actions that result in social benefits to the poor. In addition, public officials need to overcome prejudice and misconceptions regarding informality and introduce efficient property tax initiatives that may actually reduce informality.

About the Authors

Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Claudia M. De Cesare is a property tax advisor to the Secretariat of Finance in the municipality of Porto Alegre, Brazil. She is on the advisory board of the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) and is a faculty member of the Lincoln Institute.

References

Abramo, Pedro. 2003. A teoria econômica da favela: quatro notas sobre a localização residencial dos pobres e o mercado imobiliário informal, in A cidade da informalidade: o desafio das cidades latino-americanas, Pedro Abramo (Org.). Rio de Janeiro: Librería Sette Letras, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Bahl, R.W., and Johannes F. Linn. 1992. Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries. Washington DC: Oxford University Press.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2001. Perfil dos municípios brasileiros: Pesquisa de informações básicas municipais, 1999. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.

Instituto Pereira Passos. 2002. Evolução da população de favelas no Rio de Janeiro: Uma reflexão sobre os dados mais recentes. Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro. http://www.rio.rj.gov.br.

Rabello de Castro, S. 2000. Habitação: Direito e governança – Duas sugestões para ação governamental. Fundação João Ribeiro. Cadernos de Textos 2: 321–338.

UN–HABITAT. 2003. The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.