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