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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JY: Where do the elasticity numbers come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JY: What kinds of results did you obtain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Referencia

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Case of Lithuania

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Course

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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