Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Si bien se le conoce como una región de gran diversidad, América Latina también se caracteriza por una serie de herencias comunes que afectan la tierra de manera directa o indirecta. Entre dichas herencias figuran el proverbial patrimonialismo, basado en una estructura de propiedad del suelo que otorga inversiones y servicios públicos según las influencias políticas que haya detrás; asimismo, administraciones centrales fuertes con una débil responsabilidad fiscal en el ámbito local; y una tradición de códigos elitistas y reglamentos rígidos ¾incluso anacrónicos¾ referentes a los temas vinculados al uso del suelo. La planificación urbana, sesgada hacia el diseño físico, ha tendido a concentrarse en la ciudad “legal” al mismo tiempo que ha descuidado a la “real”. Las inversiones en el ambiente construido, en un proceso de rápida expansión, gozan de relativa autonomía del proceso de industrialización. En un ambiente caracterizado por mercados de capital débiles y por una alta (y a menudo crónica) inflación, la tierra frecuentemente asume el papel de un mecanismo de capitalización o de un sustituto de la falta de seguridad social.
Tendencias regionales
En América Latina, los mercados de suelos urbanos se destacan por la magnitud y persistencia de actividades ilegales, irregulares, informales o clandestinas relacionadas con el acceso y ocupación de la tierra, todas ellas derivadas principalmente de la escasez de tierras urbanizadas costeables. Esta escasez desempeña un papel importante en la cultura social latinoamericana, dado que el acceso al suelo es frecuentemente una condición tácita para obtener sentido de ciudadanía y movilidad social.
Quizás más importantes son una serie de tendencias multifacéticas que están diseminándose a paso firme por todo el continente y abriendo nuevas oportunidades a la política de tierras urbanas. Podemos comenzar citando la redemocratización de muchos países latinoamericanos tras largos períodos de regímenes autoritarios o militares, con numerosas implicaciones en la política del suelo. Hoy en día existe una intensificada conciencia general sobre la responsabilidad de los funcionarios por el manejo del suelo urbano u otros aspectos de la administración pública, así como también se observa el reconocimiento público de nuevos agentes sociales como lo son las organizaciones no gubernamentales (NGO). Nuevas formas de participación comunitaria y acción civil han surgido en respuesta a la necesidad de legitimar alternativas al acceso a la tierra para la población urbana de bajos recursos, alternativas que incluyen innovadores abordajes de propiedades en cooperativa, y atención a asuntos de género en la regularización de tierras de ocupación ilegal.
Una segunda y relacionada tendencia refleja la necesidad de poner en práctica reformas institucionales y constitucionales acompañadas de nuevas definiciones del papel del Estado. Este proceso ha tenido una gran variedad de manifestaciones, a saber:
La tercera tendencia importante de las décadas recientes ha sido una reestructuración macroeconómica que ha llevado a estabilizar los tradicionales ¾y frecuentemente crónicos¾ problemas de inflación y que ha influido en la evolución de los precios de la tierra. América Latina también ha experimentado tendencias más acentuadas hacia la globalización, la apertura de economías nacionales y los cambios tecnológicos. Entre otros efectos, estas tendencias han generado una mayor competencia entre las ciudades para atraer inversiones privadas, mediante mecanismos que van desde el uso de planificación estratégica como un dispositivo de mercadeo de la ciudad, hasta el ofrecimiento de incentivos locales a través de las denominadas “guerras fiscales”. Todo este movimiento ha afectado profundamente la base económica de las ciudades y la naturaleza y escala de la pobreza urbana. Igualmente afectados se encuentran los tipos de intervenciones urbanas (que abarcan desde proyectos de rehabilitación a gran escala de áreas abandonadas o en malas condiciones, hasta los nuevos proyectos inmobiliarios de uso mixto en las áreas de bordes urbanos) que están redefiniendo la forma urbana, la dinámica de las ciudades, y los patrones de segregación espacial y social.
Establecimiento de una presencia
Desde 1993, el Instituto Lincoln ha hecho un esfuerzo coordinado para participar activamente en el debate sobre las políticas del suelo y de tributación en América Latina. Adoptamos un abordaje multinacional para trabajar dondequiera que existan asuntos contemplados en las áreas de estudio de nuestros programas, buscar oportunidades para el fortalecimiento de recursos en el ámbito local, o desarrollar iniciativas con potencial de diseminación o replicación en otros países. Esta estrategia nos permite estar presentes en regiones donde se vislumbren cambios significativos en la política o donde se estén discutiendo asuntos importantes relacionados con el tema del suelo.
El Instituto Lincoln ha demostrado inequívocamente su capacidad para desempeñar tres funciones importantes conducentes a su mandato educativo: promover la fertilización cruzada de ideas; convocar y moderar debates entre diferentes grupos de interés; y ofrecer liderazgo intelectual. En todos nuestros programas enfatizamos la diseminación de informaciones valiosas basadas principalmente en estudios de caso que puedan utilizarse para nutrir intercambios intrarregionales y para resolver problemas. Este énfasis en la fertilización cruzada de ideas mediante un diálogo horizontal es particularmente importante dado el centralismo de la administración pública en América Latina y la predominancia de canales de comunicación verticales.
El reconocimiento y la credibilidad internacional que goza el Instituto Lincoln como una respetada institución no partidista que se dedica al estudio de la política del suelo y la tributación a la propiedad, nos coloca en una posición única para facilitar discusiones complejas y políticamente delicadas entre diversos grupos de interés, particularmente funcionarios de diferentes niveles administrativos y representantes del sector comercial, de organizaciones no gubernamentales y de la comunidad política en general.
Igualmente importante es el papel del Instituto en ofrecer un liderazgo intelectual para llenar el vacío existente entre los conocimientos teóricos más avanzados y las necesidades más prácticas e inmediatas de los funcionarios que tratan directamente con la puesta en práctica y la administración del uso de la tierra y de las políticas de tributación. A menudo, esta función involucra “traducir” ideas y argumentos académicos al lenguaje de los profesionales comunes, lo cual se hace mediante materiales impresos, cursos y seminarios. Al apoyar proyectos de desarrollo curricular y de investigación, también ponemos de manifiesto esas dimensiones críticas y a veces “invisibles” de asuntos complejos tales como los efectos económicos de la informalidad en el acceso a la tierra. Como proveedor de recursos a nuestros socios internacionales, ayudamos a localizar expertos y facilitar casos de estudios y otros materiales de diferentes países y contextos.
Redes y áreas temáticas
Desde 1995 el Programa Latinoamericano del Instituto ha ido desarrollando una red central de representantes de doce países con quienes se han realizado trabajos conjuntos en programas educativos y de desarrollo curricular. Nuestra estrategia ha evolucionado conforme hemos adquirido un entendimiento más profundo de los asuntos que atañen a los programas internacionales del Instituto. Actualmente trabajamos con varias redes de funcionarios, profesionales y expertos que están organizadas por áreas temáticas en vez de por regiones geográficas. Estas cinco redes transnacionales, cuyos temas de interés a menudo se traslapan y se refuerzan mutuamente, están vinculadas a las tres áreas programáticas principales del Instituto:
En el Programa de Tributación de Tierras y Edificios, la captura de plusvalías es el tema primario para el cual el Instituto tiene claras ventajas comparativas definidas en el continente latinoamericano. Nos hemos dedicado al estudio de las condiciones técnicas y de gestión para poner en práctica instrumentos que puedan promover la redistribución de los incrementos en el valor de la tierra, sea directa o indirectamente (a través de impuestos, tarifas, exacciones y otros instrumentos legislativos), a fin de impulsar el desarrollo urbano y beneficiar a la comunidad como un todo.
Además de utilizar los mecanismos de captura de plusvalías para controlar el crecimiento urbano y la expansión territorial, así como también para reducir los negativos efectos de la especulación de la tierra, nos interesa su aplicabilidad a circunstancias derivadas de la proverbial informalidad de los mercados de suelo en América Latina. Éstas incluyen situaciones caracterizadas por una relación confusa en la tenencia de la tierra, donde las ocupaciones de la tierra son mayoritariamente irregulares o ilegales, y donde los incrementos significativos en el valor de la tierra son generados por la comunidad, en vez de por acción estatal. Esta red explora si los incrementos en el valor del suelo (resultantes directa o indirectamente de intervenciones públicas) pueden promoverse para mitigar la pobreza urbana en general y mejorar el acceso al suelo urbanizado, particularmente para las familias de las bajos ingresos.
Nuestra segunda red estudia los temas de recaudación, tasación y tributación inmobiliaria. Mediante comparaciones internacionales se ha demostrado que la recaudación del impuesto a la propiedad en América Latina es generalmente inadecuada para satisfacer las necesidades de la urbanización acelerada. En muchas áreas, los sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria están plagados de problemas tales como fuertes inequidades verticales y horizontales, deficientes sistemas de recaudación y prácticas de tasación, fuertes influencias de valores históricos, y débiles marcos legales. No obstante, muchos programas nacionales, a veces apoyados por agencias multilaterales, están promoviendo reformas y mejoras en los sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria. Entre dichas mejoras se incluye el uso innovador de sistemas autodeclaratorios y complejos sistemas de información, giros creativos a los impuestos sobre el valor del suelo, y oportunidades para restablecer el impuesto inmobiliario en países donde actualmente no existe. Esta red contempla más iniciativas interconectadas de educación e investigación, que van desde el estudio de las ventajas y las desventajas de aplicar impuestos sobre el valor de la tierra, hasta el papel del impuesto predial para facilitar el acceso al suelo para los pobres urbanos, y el uso de nuevas herramientas operativas para promover las metas de tributación inmobiliaria en general.
La segregación social y espacial son inquietudes que compartimos con el Programa de Mercados de Suelo del Instituto. El paisaje de las ciudades latinoamericanas está frecuentemente marcado por la contradictoria coexistencia de áreas residenciales para la clase adinerada (que se asemejan a los sectores más elegantes de ciudades de cualquier país desarrollado), y aquellos asentamientos precarios o áreas marginales donde está confinada la mayor parte de la población urbana de bajos recursos. La formación de este divisivo patrón social del uso de la tierra puede atribuirse a factores variados, a saber: “expulsiones blancas” a través de mecanismos de mercado; políticas de exclusión más sutiles escondidas dentro de normativas legales y administrativas (p. ej., normas urbanísticas, reglamentos y requisitos de crédito); o los desalojos forzosos de los que han sido víctimas los pobres de prácticamente todas las ciudades latinoamericanas. Si bien mucho se ha escrito acerca de estos procesos, hasta ahora existen pocos estudios que documenten políticas que prevengan dichos problemas o que puedan revertir sus resultados. Esta red se plantea interrogantes tales como: ¿Cuáles son las políticas que se han usado o que pudieron haberse usado? ¿Qué tan eficaces son dichas políticas? ¿Qué deben saber los planificadores urbanos sobre el tema de segregación espacial? ¿por qué?
La cuarta red, también en el área de Mercados de Suelo, reconoce la necesidad de revisar los entornos normativos existentes en el programa de política del suelo latinoamericano, y de diseñar nuevas normas y reglamentos urbanísticos que puedan ser cumplidos de manera más realista y razonable por las familias de escasos recursos. Para ello se requiere conducir una evaluación adecuada de los efectos de reglamentos alternativos en el patrón de usos de la tierra, específicamente en el acceso a la tierra y a los servicios urbanos para el pobre urbano. En la mayoría de las grandes ciudades latinoamericanas se está observando una tendencia a construir nuevos proyectos inmobiliarios para la población adinerada en las tierras de la periferia, aquellas que tradicionalmente habían estado “reservadas para la clase baja”; esto ha provocado el encarecimiento del precio de dichas tierras, con la consecuente imposibilidad del pobre para pagarlas. Los administradores de las ciudades se enfrentan a la tarea de promover la densificación sostenible de barrios y la reutilización de áreas industriales abandonadas, al mismo tiempo que deben tratar de controlar la urbanización desenfrenada en las periferias urbanas.
Entre los puntos de estudio más importantes del Programa de Suelos como Propiedad Común, se encuentra el de seguridad de tenencia, regularización y mejoramiento urbano. Muchos países de todo el continente se están esforzando activamente por establecer programas de regularización legal y urbana; no obstante, la puesta en práctica de estas iniciativas se enfrenta frecuentemente con obstáculos políticos y prácticos. Las señales que dan estos programas esencialmente “curativos” ejercen influencias marcadas en las actividades ilegales, irregulares, informales o clandestinas de grupos que buscan el acceso y la ocupación de tierras urbanas. A menudo, la resolución de las disputas derivadas de los programas de regularización y del arbitraje de valores tasados adecuadamente para la adquisición pública de tierras para proyectos de interés social, se enfrenta con un mundo de obstáculos y cuellos de botella legales e institucionales en el ámbito nacional y local. Esta red se propone mejorar el entendimiento del impacto económico que tienen estos programas sobre los mercados de la tierra en general, en particular sobre los asentamientos beneficiados.
Diseminación de la información
Al mismo tiempo que continúa patrocinando programas de investigación y educativos en países latinoamericanos, el Instituto Lincoln está también trabajando para transmitir la información a una audiencia cada vez mayor. En el sitio Web del Instituto hay una sección dedicada a América Latina donde se publica la versión completa de muchos proyectos y artículos de investigación presentados en nuestros seminarios y conferencias, en su idioma original. En este sitio también están publicados una gran variedad de artículos del folleto Land Lines traducidos al español.
El Instituto está trabajando para sistematizar todos los materiales curriculares (artículos de investigación, presentaciones de seminarios, bibliografías, materiales audiovisuales de soporte y otros materiales educativos) y productos (libros, artículos, videos) para facilitar la organización e integración de nuestras actividades académicas presentes y futuras. Un buen número de publicaciones sobre América Latina están ahora disponibles o en etapa de planificación. Por ejemplo, recientemente se publicó una bibliografía sobre documentos que tratan sobre los mercados de suelos urbanos de México. Dicha bibliografía estará pronto disponible en nuestro sitio Web, y la misma debe servir como un modelo para otros miembros de nuestras redes latinoamericanas. Además, para fines de publicación, actualmente se está realizando la revisión de un grupo de artículos presentados como parte de programas educativos presentados en nuestra sede.
Esta edición de Land Lines contiene una lista de proyectos de investigación y desarrollo curricular y becas para la realización de tesis para el año académico actual, en donde se destacan proyectos afiliados con el Programa de Latinoamérica.
Martim Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa para América Latina y El Caribe del Instituto Lincoln. Laura Mullahy es Investigadora Asociada del Programa.
América Latina: Un territorio de gran diversidad
Un vistazo al continente latinoamericano revela una amplia variedad de situaciones referentes al estado de la tierra y de los mercados de suelo, tal como se indica debajo. El Instituto Lincoln ha trabajado con expertos y funcionarios públicos en cada uno de esos países para entender y discutir sus inquietudes relacionadas con la política del suelo.
La liberalización de los mercados de suelo y virtual eliminación de los bordes urbanos en Chile en 1979 (reintegrados sólo parcialmente en 1985) es un contraste marcado con los esfuerzos en Colombia para poner en práctica una fuerte herramienta de planificación de captura de plusvalías, conocida como “participación en plusvalías”. Esta legislación requiere a los gobiernos locales la designación de un 30 a 50 por ciento del incremento en el valor de la tierra resultante de cambios en la designación de la tierra de uso rural a urbano para dotar de infraestructura y viviendas sociales a las vecindades privadas de servicios públicos.
En los países latinoamericanos existen marcadas diferencias en el manejo de los asentamientos informales y las ocupaciones de tierras. En Argentina, por ejemplo, prácticamente no existen restricciones en el uso del suelo, y por tanto no hay un reconocimiento oficial de los asentamientos ilegales. Por su parte en Perú, desde 1961 los gobiernos de han reconocido las tierras ocupadas carentes de servicios situadas en la franja urbana (arenales), mientras que en Ecuador hay una ausencia total de normas y reglamentos para el manejo de las ocupaciones informales.
También son importantes las marcadas variaciones que hay en las políticas de suelo. Por ejemplo, es poco probable que el gobierno de Cuba renuncie al aproximadamente 70 por ciento de la tierra que está bajo su control, mientras que México aprobó en 1992 una ley nacional que permite la privatización de las tierras mantenidas bajo su sistema de ejido.
SHARE
The idea of reducing or abolishing capital gains taxes to encourage private investment and general economic growth often comes up in state and national political campaigns. Advocates of cutting these taxes argue that if investors could keep their gains, they would invest them in new enterprises, thereby creating new jobs and strengthening local economies.
The public discussion usually focuses on stock market investments, but most capital gains are generated in the real estate sector where most of the economy’s assets are based. In 1994, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that real estate accounted for 67 percent of the nation’s total economic assets, including land worth about $4.4 trillion, homes worth $5.9 trillion, and other buildings (stores, factories, office buildings) worth an additional $3.1 trillion.
There are no comprehensive national statistics on capital gains from real estate or other assets. But the most recent survey by the Internal Revenue Service, conducted in 1985, estimated that land and buildings accounted for at least 58 and perhaps as much as 70 percent of the total of $208 billion in capital gains that year.
Federal statistics also report that the annual cost of doing business in real estate often exceeds the taxable income generated from land and buildings. It follows that many real estate investors receive a net benefit only when they eventually sell their properties for more than they originally cost. In effect, they are willing to turn over most current income to their mortgage bankers, in the hope of reaping a capital gain at the end of the process.
How Much Total Income Does Real Estate Generate?
There are no adequate national statistics on how much real estate is worth or the total income it generates. It is possible, however, to estimate real estate cash flow by starting from the income reported by the owners of real estate and adding to that some of the major expenses they paid before paying taxes. In 1993, the owners of real estate reported receiving about $209 billion in cash flow (earnings plus depreciation), though the amount depreciated was not taxable. In addition, the real estate industry paid about $515 billion in a combination of mortgage interest and property taxes. Thus real estate generated at least $724 billion in total earnings in 1993 (see chart 1).
The portion of this total paid out as interest to lenders since the end of World War II has grown much faster than any other part of the total. Between 1945 and 1993, the share of real estate earnings paid out as interest grew from about 10 percent to about 50 percent. This reflects the fact that about 70 percent of private sector lending is committed to real estate mortgages. This two-way street—with money flowing from real estate into financial institutions, then back out into real estate loans—is one reason why federal statistics lump real estate and finance together as the “finance, insurance, and real estate” sector, or FIRE for short.
Who Receives Income Generated by Real Estate?
Federal income and tax statistics attribute income from real estate to three categories of owners: persons, corporate real estate and noncorporate real estate. These categories are not self-explanatory. They are based on the motives and behavior of real estate owners, and do not refer simply to individual people, partnerships and companies.
“Persons” receive some income from real estate, though it is not their primary way of earning a living. They may rent out an apartment in a two-family house or a second home during the off-season, for example; or, they may own an apartment building or small commercial property.
“Corporate real estate” is a relatively small category, consisting only of land and buildings that are owned and used for non-real estate business purposes. For example, manufacturing companies typically own their own corporate headquarters and industrial plants. To capture tax advantages, however, these companies may spin off their facilities as “noncorporate” real estate, then lease them back.
The “noncorporate real estate” category is the least obvious. Owners in this category participate either full- or part-time in real estate as a business, mostly through partnerships. The category includes a wide range of people and organizations, from professional developers or property management companies to doctors who own nursing homes.
In 1993, the annual earnings for these three categories were $86 billion for persons, $3 billion for corporate owners, and $120 billion for noncorporate owners (see charts 2-4).
How Is Real Estate Income Taxed?
Since 1970, when the federal government began separating real estate statistics from those for the finance and insurance sectors, real estate has shown little taxable income. Corporate and noncorporate real estate businesses enjoy several tax advantages that help to account for this seeming anomaly of the economy’s major asset generating such low reported earnings:
(a) Like other business owners, they can deduct the cost of maintaining their property (painting, landscaping, replacing a leaky roof, etc.) as an expense before paying taxes on their business income. The purpose of this spending is to preserve the value of their real estate.
(b) They can also claim depreciation (“capital consumption allowances”) for their buildings (technically land does not depreciate). In most businesses, this allowance is a way to compensate for wear-and-tear on machinery, which must be replaced when it becomes obsolete. In practice, real estate owners have often been allowed to depreciate their buildings even though their market value is not declining at all.
(c) When owners sell their properties, any positive difference between the depreciated price received and the price originally paid is taxed as a capital gain. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other income. Thus, over-depreciation turns out to be a way of minimizing tax liability.
The combination of (b) and (c) raises what might seem like an obvious question: how can real estate depreciate, losing value and eventually needing replacement, yet end up selling for more than its purchase price, generating capital gains? Of course a given piece of real estate does not always do both. Some real estate is indeed sold at a loss–for example, if property values in a whole neighborhood or city decline. But land, unlike machinery or even buildings, cannot wear out. Since World War II, urban land in particular and real estate holdings in general have gained in value far more often than they have declined.
How Should Real Estate Income Be Taxed?
In a rising market, federal tax policy allows real estate investors to earn several times more than they could simply by making smart buying and selling decisions. Writing off maintenance expenses and the supposedly declining value of the property before calculating taxable income means that the same property can produce a steady income for realtors and potential investors, but appear to lose money as far as the federal tax collector is concerned.
A tax-smart investor in a rising real estate market will own a piece of property only until it has been fully depreciated. It then has a “book value” of zero—like a piece of machinery so worn out or outdated that it cannot be sold at any price. The owner of such a machine has to junk it and buy a new one. The real estate investor, in contrast, can sell the “zero value” property to new owners, who can depreciate it all over again starting from the new, higher price they paid.
The upshot of these tax policies is that an industry with large total earnings reports little or no taxable income. Charts 3 and 4 show that real estate businesses have reported a negative taxable income frequently since the mid-1980s, despite the fact that real estate values in many places were rising. Since the real estate industry pays hardly any income taxes on its rental income, the major federal tax it does pay is the capital gains tax—for that is where the accumulated rental earnings are taken, when the building is sold for its depreciated value.
Does such favorable tax treatment for real estate benefit the economy as a whole? That question cannot be answered from tax statistics alone. The answer depends in part on whether all real estate projects that are taxed the same way are equally good at generating public benefits, such as jobs in construction and property maintenance, or other needed goods such as housing, shopping, and manufacturing facilities. If the answer to that question is “no,” then the public interest might be better served if funds now invested in real estate for tax advantages alone were invested in new technologies or public infrastructure.
____________________________
Michael Hudson is a research associate at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute at Bard College in New York. He is writing a book about how federal income and capital gains taxes on land and buildings affect national taxation and investment patterns, and he spoke on this topic at the Lincoln Institute in October 1995.
SHARE
Recent court decisions have made economic development and tax policy front-page news. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London raised a public outcry when it allowed local governments dramatic latitude in acquiring private property for economic development purposes. This case had a fiscal aspect as well, for it illustrated how financial pressures can lead local governments to seek alternatives to direct investment for economic revitalization and redevelopment.
Economic development was also the focus of a major lower court decision on state tax policy. In Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Ohio’s investment tax credit, intended to attract businesses from other states, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Hellerstein 2005). These and other, similar cases raise many questions about the connections between economic development and tax policy.
Is there a relationship between economic development and infrastructure spending?
Infrastructure, that vast network of capital-intensive services including roads, water provision, sewer services, and electrical supply, is critical to current and future economic activity. However, serious economic examination of the link between infrastructure spending and economic productivity only began in the late 1980s. Aschauer (1989, 194–197) argued that declining infrastructure spending resulted in less economic growth. More recently, Bougheas et al. (2000, 520) reported findings that “highlight the importance of infrastructure accumulation” for productivity gains.
Other researchers have pointed out that the most significant recent changes in infrastructure spending have occurred at the state and local levels, rather than the federal level. Gramlich (1994, 1178) argued that federal infrastructure spending has been fairly consistent over time, but state and local spending has decreased. Holtz-Eakin (1993) cautioned that while public expenditures on infrastructure may be important, they may not directly affect economic productivity. He argued that differing state and local needs may account for many infrastructure spending disparities, and that maintenance of existing infrastructure assets may be more important than new spending for capital acquisition. Boarnet (1997) considered efficient pricing for infrastructure use as important as its actual provision.
Nevertheless, the American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) is sufficiently concerned about the condition of infrastructure in the U.S. to assign it a grade of “D.” ASCE (2005) argues that the country needs to spend about $1.6 trillion over the next five years to improve the situation.
What is the relationship between infrastructure spending and local tax systems?
The mechanisms for funding infrastructure and its role in state and local spending are complex. Research in this area deals with such topics as fiscal illusion (i.e., when the complexity of the revenue system obscures the true cost of public goods and services) and specific capital financing strategies used to fund infrastructure. However, there has been little research on the impact of local tax structures on infrastructure spending.
Economists have long argued that the value of publicly provided goods and services, such as infrastructure and its maintenance, are reflected in the value of the property served by those goods. Accordingly, a tax that captures the value of these public goods and services may be an important revenue source for funding them. However, in the last 30 years, local governments have moved away from such a tax, the property tax, to other sources of revenue. In many communities, this shift has produced an increased reliance on state aid, local sales tax revenues, and user fees.
In analyzing infrastructure spending in Utah, it is clear that the local revenue structure affects per capita operating and maintenance spending and new capital acquisition expenditures. Preliminary analysis indicates that communities are more likely to increase per capita infrastructure spending when it is financed by property taxes, all other funding sources held constant. It also appears that as per capita sales tax revenue increases, per capita spending for infrastructure services declines.
How constrained are local revenue systems?
One reason that local government revenue structures affect spending on infrastructure is that the states impose various constraints on local revenue sources. Although the past ten years have seen no dramatic changes in the roles of the property tax, intergovernmental aid, or the sales tax in overall local government revenues, the ratio of total revenues to personal income has fallen about 7.5 percent. This real decline highlights the increasing pressure on local governments to identify new revenue sources.
Yet, local governments face serious constraints when they seek to change their revenue systems. States impose intergovernmental restrictions, such as limits on sales tax rates that localities can impose. Less tangible but equally important is political opposition to tax increases. The third factor is the set of tax and expenditure limitations that many states have enacted, ranging from Proposition 13 in California in 1978 to the more recent taxpayer bill of rights enacted in Colorado, which drastically limited increases in government spending.
These constraints have forced local governments to become more innovative in their revenue-raising methods. An entire cottage industry of financial advisors, bond attorneys, and other public and private sector innovators has emerged to help local governments find ways of loosening or circumventing these limitations. Some strategies may have increased economic efficiency, although they give rise to equity concerns (for example, the movement toward the increased use of fees and charges); others are nearly invisible to the taxpayer. In nearly all cases, local governments have been seeking to use land as a revenue-generating device—a trend that shows no sign of abating.
What are alternative ways to finance capital infrastructure?
Two types of debt traditionally have financed infrastructure projects: general obligation (GO) bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing locality; and revenue bonds, backed by income from the capital project. Both types of debt have significant restrictions on their use, such as voter approval requirements and caps on maximum indebtedness. These debt limitations, the difficulty in raising property taxes, and the fear of political opposition have increased the use of alternative capital finance methods based on land use.
One longstanding method, tax increment financing (TIF), utilizes the increases in property value to help finance redevelopment projects. Originally designed as a financial instrument to eliminate blight and provide affordable housing, this instrument has become increasingly popular in many states for a variety of projects. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia now allow this technique.
Capturing the property tax increment attributable to government-sponsored redevelopment in order to service this debt makes economic sense if the new development would not have occurred without the formation of the tax district. Moreover, this debt does not have to be approved by voters, but rather by a group designated by the city government. Not even these two factors explain the extraordinary recent growth in the number and size of TIF districts, however, raising suspicion that this tool may be used more often to attract and subsidize economic growth than to eliminate blight. For example, in 2003–2004, California had 33 TIF redevelopment projects, each of which covered more than 6,000 acres, a surprisingly large area to be declared “blighted” in any one jurisdiction (see Figure 1).
Another popular tool in several states is the community facilities district (CFD), which usually funds new development. Landowners within a region form a CFD to issue debt to finance the infrastructure needed to develop raw land. District members’ votes are typically a function of the amount of property each landowner holds. The local government must approve CFDs, although they are not a formal part of the government and their debt issuance is not subject to approval by the general public.
A lien for CFD assessments is placed on each lot in the district, and the CFD tax liability appears on the property tax bill of each district member as a separate line item. Variations of this technique may utilize sales taxes, impact fees, and user charges. Many rapidly growing local governments encourage the formation of these districts to help finance their community’s growth. Nevertheless, CFDs can be very complex, and may fail if anticipated growth does not occur (see Figure 2).
TIFs, CFDs, and other such techniques present an ethical dilemma to local government. Sometimes they are not fully understood by the political decision makers who authorize their use, let alone by members of the general public who will bear the burden of paying this debt in the future. Yet they remain a popular tool to finance crucial infrastructure that is basic to improving the economic well-being of the community.
Could a land tax help finance infrastructure for economic development?
The land component of property value is another potential source of revenue to encourage economic development. Since the supply of land is fixed in the short run, an increase in a land tax will not affect the tax base. However, it will encourage more intensive use of the land and may slow urban sprawl. Unfortunately, the lack of empirical data makes it difficult to determine if this theory is accurate. One example in the U.S. is the City of Pittsburgh, which in 1979–1980 restructured the tax on land to be five times that on improvements. Building activity showed a dramatic increase, although other factors may have contributed to the change as well (Oates and Schwab 1997). Pittsburgh later returned to a single-rate property tax system.
Increased use of a land tax poses significant problems. In particular, accurately assessing land can be challenging, although statistical and econometric techniques may help address this in the future. A second concern is that more intensive use of land value taxation will lead to denser development, exacerbating many of the problems associated with congestion. These effects must be weighed against the positive benefits of reducing long-distance commuting. A third problem concerns equity. Owners whose property has a high land/improvement ratio will face an increased tax liability. This shift might be mitigated by adjustments in the tax rate, special exemptions or targeted tax credits.
A land tax has the important advantages of transparency and accountability. In particular, if land value increases because of government activities, there is strong justification for recovering at least some of those costs through a tax on the land component. We would even propose a name for this additional tax—a positive externality tax (PET). We recognize that, like any proposed increase in the property tax, such a shift would be politically controversial.
Conclusions
Our current research analyzes relationships among economic development, infrastructure, and the tax system. The fiscal problems of local jurisdictions are made more complex by the use of intricate methods of infrastructure financing, such as TIFs and CFDs, to fund economic development. The use of financing mechanisms based on a land tax may be one part of a potential response to this challenge.
Jeffrey Chapman is professor and director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University in Tempe. He specializes in state and local finance and administration of financial resources, and has recently published in the area of local land use responses to fiscal stress.
Rex L. Facer II is assistant professor of public management at the Romney Institute of Public Management of the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He specializes in city management, public finance, public management strategy, and public policy analysis.
SHARE
Nonprofit organizations operated for charitable purposes in the United States are exempt from most taxes, including investment income, sales, and property taxes. They benefit from the tax deductions that donors receive for charitable contributions, and some nonprofits also benefit from financing raised through tax-exempt bonds. Data allows informed estimates of the size of these tax benefits for most types of charities. However, comprehensive data on religious organizations and governments, both of which are also largely exempt from taxes, are difficult to obtain.
A review of these tax benefits provides a useful perspective on efforts by state and local governments to collect PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes), which generally focus on nonprofits other than religious organizations (see page 23).
Tax benefits for nonprofits, such as educational institutions, health and human service organizations, foundations, and the arts, were worth about $140 billion in FY2009. About half ($72 billion) was from forgone taxes on investment income, about a third ($46 billion) was the tax benefit for charitable contributions, and about a tenth ($15 billion) was from property tax exemptions. Sales tax exemptions ($3 billion) and benefits from tax-exempt bonds ($5 billion) round out the total.
In 2009, nonprofit property tax exemptions (excluding those for religious organizations) were slightly less than 4 percent of the $400 billion total. Of course, the property tax exemption share varies widely across communities.
The distribution of five types of tax benefits are shown in figure 1 for six categories of nonreligious charitable nonprofits. They are listed in the order of their overall tax benefit, with educational institutions receiving the most benefits and arts organizations the least. The exemption for the tax on investment income has the same ranking as the overall tax benefit, but rankings of the other tax benefits vary widely.
The property tax exemption accrues to those sectors that use property and buildings most extensively, with health having the highest benefit followed by education. Foundations, which figure significantly in income and charitable contribution tax benefits, receive only modest property tax benefits. Sales tax exemptions, the smallest tax benefit in the aggregate, accrue mainly to the health sector.
This summary of the distribution of property taxes by charitable sector makes it clear why local governments have focused their efforts to collect property tax PILOTs on hospitals and universities—that’s where the property tax money is—but most tax benefits for nonprofits come from other sources.
Sources: Totals from An Overview of the Nonprofit and Charitable Sector. 2009. Congressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40919.pdf). Sector allocations based on data from National Center for Charitable Statistics (http://nccs.urban.org) and J. Cordes, M. Gantz, and T. Pollak. 2002. What is the property-tax exemption worth? In Property-tax exemption for charities, ed. E. Brody. Urban Institute Press.
