El curso reúne diferentes miradas sobre la informalidad con el propósito de ampliar la perspectiva crítica, tanto frente a la comprensión del problema, como a las formas de buscar soluciones. Se recorrerá una trayectoria desde lo conceptual a lo práctico, con aportes de disciplinas como la sociología, el urbanismo, la economía y el derecho.
Se analizará la relación causal entre informalidad y mercados de suelo y se revisarán prácticas comunes en la región. A través de dos estudios de caso se presentarán mecanismos alternativos de acceso al suelo servido, basados en la movilización de plusvalías para el financiamiento del desarrollo urbano.
Relevancia
El fenómeno de la informalidad urbana afecta a más de cien millones de personas en América Latina y la región no ha reaccionado positivamente a los programas de apoyo que se han aplicado en las últimas décadas. De aquí nace la necesidad de un abordaje interdisciplinario del problema y de cuestionar el rol de los mercados de suelo para explicar la existencia, permanencia y crecimiento de la informalidad, especialmente cuando tiene como consecuencia la segregación y exclusión de los habitantes más vulnerables de la ciudad.
Favela, Mercados Fundiários Informais, Pobreza, Políticas Públicas, Segurança de Posse, Segregação, Favela, Partes Interessadas, Posse, Urbano, Melhoria Urbana e Regularização
Course
Estrategias para Implementar una Valuación Masiva con Fines Fiscales
Outubro 14, 2019 - Novembro 15, 2019
Free, offered in espanhol
Profesor: Marco Aurélio Stumpf González
SHARE
Descripción
El curso aborda temas relacionados con la valuación masiva de bienes inmuebles, desde una perspectiva fiscal, de manera de desarrollar una discusión con espíritu crítico sobre los fenómenos relacionados con el mercado inmobiliario, la tasación, la evaluación masiva, así como los recursos, técnicas e instrumentos de análisis económico y de avalúo fiscal.
Los participantes desarrollarán un análisis práctico basado de los diferentes métodos de valuación, donde podrán identificar las virtudes y deficiencias de los métodos de valuación en los sistemas catastrales de sus jurisdicciones.
Relevancia
Este tema está directamente relacionado con la eficiencia y justicia del sistema de financiación de los órganos estatales, con el fin de generar recursos económicos para el desarrollo de políticas públicas en beneficio de la población general.
Se evaluarán propuestas de cambios administrativos, legales y tecnológicos necesarios para la implantación de métodos de valuación en un sistema catastral multifinalitario, orientado al desarrollo de políticas de suelo que promuevan el desarrollo urbano, es decir, los elementos necesarios para construir un sistema catastral que pueda ofrecer avalúos fiscales en condiciones de justicia y eficiencia de tasación.
The annual conference of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) offers state and local assessing officials the opportunity to hear varied perspectives on property tax policy from eminent economists, academics, and practitioners who have a special interest in property taxation. Each year, the Lincoln Institute sponsors a seminar for conference participants on current issues in property tax policy. This year’s sessions will focus on “What Assessors Need to Know About Tax Abatements and Incentives.”
Details
Date
Setembro 11, 2019
Time
2:15 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Location
Scotiabank Convention Centre 6815 Stanley Avenue Niagara Falls, ON Canada
Estimativa, Desenvolvimento Econômico, Valor da Terra, Tributação Base Solo, Temas Legais, Governo Local, Saúde Fiscal Municipal, Tributação Imobiliária, Finanças Públicas, Tributação, Valoração, Tributação de Valores
Property Tax
Fifty-State Study Details Growing Tax Breaks for Longtime Homeowners
In Miami, Florida, someone who has owned a home for 13 years—the average duration in the city—paid about $2,800 in property taxes last year, roughly half the tax bill for a new owner of an identical home, who paid about $5,200. This discount, the result of state tax breaks for longtime homeowners, was about $450 higher in 2018 than in 2017, according to the annual 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence.
Florida is one of 10 states where local governments are required to assess parcels differently based on when they were last sold, a policy that favors longtime homeowners by limiting growth of the assessed values used to calculate tax bills. When real estate prices rise, these assessment limits shift more of the tax burden to newer homeowners, whose properties are assessed closer to the market value. Overall, in the 10 states requiring these tax breaks, and in two cities with similar policies, those who have owned their homes for the average duration within their city paid 29 percent less in taxes than new homeowners, up from a 19-percent discount percent a year earlier.
Assessment limits are one of many factors that influence property taxes in the United States. The report explores all of the major factors, providing a comprehensive analysis of effective property tax rates—the tax paid as a percentage of market value—in more than 100 cities in every U.S. state and Washington, DC.
Drawing on data for 73 large U.S. cities, the study explains why property taxes vary so widely from place to place.
Reliance on the property tax is chief among the reasons. Cities with high local sales or income taxes do not need to raise as much revenue from the property tax and thus have lower property tax rates on average. For example, Bridgeport, Connecticut, has one of the highest effective tax rates on the median-valued home, while Birmingham, Alabama, has one of the lowest. But the average Birmingham resident pays 36 percent more in total local taxes when accounting for sales, income, and other local taxes.
Property values are the other crucial factor explaining differences in tax rates. Cities with low property values need to impose a much higher tax rate to raise the same revenue as cities with high property values. For example, the effective tax rate on the typical home in Detroit, which has the lowest median home values in the study, is nearly four times higher than in San Francisco, which has the highest. In Detroit, to raise $3,105 per home—the national average tax bill on a median-valued home—would require an effective tax rate 22 times higher than in San Francisco.
The other drivers of variation in property tax rates include the different treatment of various classes of property, such as residential and commercial, and the level of local government spending.
The average effective tax rate on a median-valued home was 1.44 percent in 2018, with wide variation across cities. Four cities have effective tax rates that are at least double the national average—Aurora, Illinois; Bridgeport; Detroit, and Newark, New Jersey. Conversely, six cities have tax rates less than half of the study average—Honolulu; Charleston, South Carolina; Boston; Denver; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Birmingham.
Commercial property tax rates on office buildings and similar properties also vary significantly across cities. The effective tax rate on a $1 million commercial property is about 2 percent, on average, across the largest cities in each state. The highest rates are in Providence, Detroit, Chicago, Bridgeport, and Aurora, where rates are at least two-thirds higher than average. Rates are less than half of the average in Fargo, North Dakota; Virginia Beach, Virginia; Honolulu; Seattle; and Cheyenne.
If a major development project is sprouting up near you, there’s a good chance the local government is using tax increment financing—an increasingly popular method of earmarking future property tax revenue to jump-start construction. Cities have used TIF more than 10,000 times from coast to coast in recent decades, and the number grows each year.
Like much in public finance, TIF can seem obscure, but it has become so widely used, it is attracting attention. Among the concerns: the use of tax dollars for private development, which siphons away money for schools or other services; the danger of TIF projects exacerbating gentrification and displacement; and a general worry about transparency.
“The appeal of it is that it seems to many people like free money—you don’t have to raise taxes, but get to spend money on a particular kind of development,” says economist David Merriman of the University of Illinois, Chicago, a leading expert on TIF who advises public officials on the subject.
I interviewed Merriman for the first episode of the Lincoln Institute’s new podcast Land Matters, a behind-the-scenes look at what makes cities tick. The podcast explores how many of the biggest challenges that cities face, whether financing infrastructure, adapting to climate change, or building more affordable housing, can be traced back to land.
Our conversation covers just this kind of territory—the intersection of land use and public finance, in the form of the property tax. We discuss what the research tells us about the effectiveness of TIF, why community pressure is prompting significant modifications to the tool, and how Merriman’s home city of Chicago has gone all-in on TIF, locking up a third of its property taxes.
SHARE
