SHARE
The Lincoln Institute has supported the authors’ work on property taxation in South Africa for several years, and in February 2002 the Institute published Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Edited by Bell and Bowman, the book presents major portions of their own work, together with chapters by several of their colleagues in the U.S. and in South Africa. This article provides an overview of seminars on property tax issues conducted by Bell and Bowman in South Africa in March 2002.
The end of apartheid in South Africa nearly a decade ago presented new opportunities and challenges to every aspect of national life, including fiscal issues. The government faced the task of extending the property tax to previously untaxed areas and adapting it to provide services through a set of radically restructured local governments. The final reorganization of local government took effect in December 2000, and the new governments now must develop comprehensive property tax (rates) policies.
Several key pieces of apartheid-era legislation had established the spatial basis for racial separation:
These policies greatly complicated efforts to amalgamate former white and black local authorities (WLAs and BLAs), with important implications for property taxation. Specifically, for local governments, the legacy of apartheid includes:
Post-Apartheid Local Government Structure
The dismantling of apartheid began in the mid-1980s and was essentially complete by the early 1990s. At the end of 1993, the Local Government Transition Act (LGTA) was signed by then-President de Klerk and, symbolically, by Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress (ANC). The LGTA provided for short-, medium- and long-term transformation of local governments to create nonracial self-government. It created two-tier local governments in metropolitan areas, with powers and responsibilities shared between a geographically larger unit and two or more smaller units within the same area. The Municipal Structures Act of 1998, providing for single-tier metropolitan government, was implemented after the local elections of December 2000 as part of a general and final redemarcation of local governments that reduced the number of authorities from approximately 845 to less than 300.
Amalgamation of municipalities brought new areas into the property tax base, including former BLAs, bantustans and their associated rural R293 towns, but the residents of these newly incorporated areas had never before paid property taxes. Thus, it was necessary to develop the information and administrative infrastructure needed to value properties, determine tax liabilities, distribute tax bills to those responsible, and collect the taxes due, all in an equitable manner. Moreover, the new tax system had to overcome the psychology of payment boycotts, sometimes characterized as a “culture of nonpayment,” an important resistance technique used against the apartheid government.
Combining formerly taxed areas with different valuation rates or systems into a single municipality produces inconsistencies within the property tax roll of the amalgamated area, multiplying inequities among property owners with different effective tax rates. Both those new to the tax and those who historically have paid property taxes often question whether their tax shares are equitable and how the resulting revenue is being spent. In some instances, tax boycotts have occurred in former WLAs.
National Property Tax Policy
Although property taxation remains a local tax in South Africa, the 1996 Constitution authorizes central government regulation of property taxation. A national Property Rates Bill, scheduled for adoption in 2002, will replace current provincial property tax laws. Each locality now must adopt an explicit and comprehensive property rates policy.
Our seminars took place in this context of national legislation, municipal consolidation and municipal property rates policies. We collaborated with local institutions of higher education: Port Elizabeth Technikon in Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and the University of North West in Mafikeng Local Municipality. Seminar participants included current and former elected city councilors, newly enfranchised and long-time non-elected officials, and students and faculty of the educational institutions.
Nelson Mandela Municipality is one of South Africa’s six metropolitan municipal governments, the only local government within its geographic area. Its population and business center is the former city of Port Elizabeth. Principal property tax concerns raised at the seminar included: (1) unifying the tax rolls of the various jurisdictions making up the metropolitan area, since their valuation dates range over a number of years; (2) bringing former black local authority (BLA) areas into the property tax base; (3) deciding on the appropriate way to deal with rural (agricultural) land, previously not taxed but now part of the municipal area; and (4) accomplishing these things in a manner that is sensitive to the special circumstances of those with very low incomes.
Mafikeng, the capital of the North West Province, lies within the Mmbatho District Municipality in the former Bophuthatswana homeland near the Botswana border. Some property tax concerns raised at the Mafikeng seminar were the same as in Nelson Mandela Municipality. In addition, Mafikeng is wrestling with incorporating tribal (traditional authority) areas and the black urban agglomerations (R293 towns) of the former bantustan. Tribal areas present two special problems: property ownership is communal, not private; and the traditional authority structure remains in place, even though these areas now are included within municipal borders, creating a dual authority structure that further complicates amalgamation.
Key Property Taxation Themes
Policy Framework
New national legislation requires each local government to produce a property rates policy to address such issues as whether to include all real properties in the tax base; whether to apply uniform or differential rates to the many categories of property included in the tax base; and what form of property relief should be given, and to whom. If the property tax is to be a viable local revenue source, local rates policies must be guided by the following principles:
These fundamental characteristics of a property tax system provide a framework for restructuring property taxes in South Africa, with tradeoffs made through an open and transparent political process at the local level.
Monitoring
The property tax base is fair market value. Because most properties do not sell in a market transaction each year, however, estimating market value is the task of trained assessment professionals. Differences in location, depreciation and other characteristics make valuation partly an art, not strictly a scientific or technical endeavor. Uniformity relative to market value may not always result, even though it is required and the assessors follow the procedures intended to achieve that result. Thus, a system for monitoring valuation outcomes is needed, which may include three dimensions of assessment quality:
Formal assessment/sales ratio studies have not been done in South Africa, but we calculated simple ratios for several cities. The results in Table 1 indicate that assessment uniformity generally needs to be improved, since coefficients of dispersion across the case study cities are typically high and the price-related differentials are generally substantially above one.
Targeting Tax Relief
Although property taxation is a tax on value, it is paid out of current income, and thus may place an unacceptable burden on property owners with low incomes. Property tax relief is any reduction in tax liability. Indirect relief results from changes that take pressure off the property tax: reduced expenditures or increased revenue from alternative sources. Alternatively, direct relief comes from a change in the calculation of property tax liability.
Direct relief was the focus of our studies and the seminar discussions. In South Africa direct residential property tax relief typically is a uniform percentage credit, termed a rebate, which generally is 20 percent or 25 percent of gross property tax liability. The rebate approach has two limitations. First, most of the tax relief goes to those with the most expensive properties. Second, low-income property owners are still required to pay most of their property tax liability, which still could be burdensome relative to income.
While an income-based circuit breaker is our preferred approach for targeting tax relief to those in need, it would be extremely difficult to administer in South Africa because income information is not readily available, in part because of the extensive informal economy. An alternative way to target property tax relief to those most in need is to exempt a fixed amount of the base from taxation.
Table 2 illustrates the effects of moving from a 25 percent rebate to a R20,000 exemption (US$1,740). Under the partial exemption alternative, the lowest valued properties, including those hardest to value at this time, are removed from paying taxes, and net taxes are reduced on all properties up to about R100,000 (US$8,700). The aggregate cost of property tax relief under this approach is substantially reduced because each property receives the same exemption. Durban and Johannesburg now are experimenting with the partial exemption approach to property tax relief.
Dealing with Previously Untaxed Areas
As a result of the local government restructuring in December 2000, South Africa now has local governments throughout country. Three types of areas previously outside the property tax now are to be brought into the tax: former BLAs and R293 townships, agricultural areas and tribal areas. In the former BLAs and R293 townships property is being transferred to private ownership and these areas must be surveyed by the national Surveyor General to establish individual property boundaries and identifications necessary to administer the property tax. Different localities are at different stages in this process.
Property taxes were levied on rural agricultural lands in the past, but these lands have not been in the property tax base since the late 1980s. Bringing them into the tax base now poses two problems. The first is developing the property record information necessary for tax administration. The second is the question of how taxes on such properties should relate to taxes levied in the urban portions of a municipality, as farmers often provide themselves and their workers with services typically associated with local government. One possibility is use-value assessment of agricultural land, an approach endorsed by a national commission that reviewed the taxation of rural lands. Alternatively, differential rates for different categories of property are allowed under current provincial property tax laws and the draft national Property Rates Bill. If there is to be differentiation in effective tax rates, imposing a lower rate on market value assessments provides greater transparency and understanding of the tax and should be part of the local government rates policy.
Bringing tribal areas into the tax base presents another set of issues. First, given communal land tenure systems existing in these traditional authority areas, how does one establish ownership, a necessary condition for the application of property tax based on the principle of private property? Second, because there is no land market per se, how are estimates of market value to be made? Finally, given the two competing governance structures that now exist in tribal areas, how does one make the payment of a property tax acceptable to residents who did not previously pay the tax? These issues are clearly the most intractable ones that must be addressed in the newest round of local government reform in South Africa.
Conclusion
The property tax has been an important part of local finance in South Africa for centuries and is likely to play an increasingly important role in the future, as newly amalgamated local governments wrestle with addressing the legacies of apartheid and the requirements of new national property tax legislation. There is no single right answer to many of the perplexing questions surrounding the design and implementation of a local property tax, but it will continue to evolve to meet changing circumstances and needs.
Michael E. Bell is president of MEB Associates, Inc., in McHenry, Maryland. John H. Bowman is professor of economics at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.
References
Bell, Michael E. and John H. Bowman. 2002. Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SHARE
Proposition 13, adopted by a referendum in California in 1978, was the most notable in a series of relatively recent actions to limit the property tax in the United States, and many experts view it as a watershed in state and local public finance. The property tax in virtually every state is now limited to some degree by statutorily or constitutionally imposed base restrictions, rate limits or revenue limits. These limits have influenced the use of the property tax, and there is substantial evidence that the rate of growth of the property tax has declined. The mix of funding for local expenditures also has changed, as cities, towns, counties, school districts and special districts are relying more and more on user charges, special fees, franchise fees and local option sales and use taxes.
The limits on the property tax also have many policy and expenditure implications. There is evidence, significant in some cases and simply indicative in others, that the property tax restrictions have fostered a variety of policy outcomes in the delivery of services to citizens. Some of these tax limits have affected educational outcomes: reduced the number of teachers in classrooms, reduced the qualifications of individuals entering the teaching profession, and reduced student performance in math, reading and science.
The literature detailing the possible effects of property tax limits on local government also reports the following changes: reduced infrastructure investment by local governments, reduction in the rate of salary increases for public employees, and a shift to state-controlled revenue sources that has led to the centralization of power toward state governments (Sokolow 2000). In this context, property tax limits may reduce intergovernmental competition and the discipline on the growth in government that results. Few observers would disagree that Proposition 13 and its imitators in other states have resulted in substantial nonuniformity in the property tax system (O’Sullivan, Sexton and Sheffrin 1995).
These outcomes illustrate the competing tradeoffs that accompany property tax limits. Depending on individual perspectives these consequences could be considered a plus or a minus. Supporters of Prop 13 and its derivatives want lower property taxes and less government (at least for others), but it is unlikely they also want less government for themselves. David Sears and Jack Citrin (1982) have labeled this behavior the “something for nothing” syndrome.
Therese McGuire (1999) notes that among public finance economists the advantages of the property tax for funding local governments approach “dogma.” In an opinion survey of more than 1300 Canadian and U.S. members of the National Tax Association, 93 percent of the respondents with training in economics favored the property tax as a major source of revenue for local governments (Slemrod 1995). This result probably explains why the World Bank and other international advisory groups are spending significant sums of money and offering assistance to improve and implement the property tax in developing and transitional countries. However, it also presents an interesting dilemma: experts support the property tax but voters want to limit it. Why the conflict?
Advantages of the Property Tax
The property tax provides local governments with a revenue source that they can control and avoids the strings that normally accompany fiscal transfers from a regional, state or national government. The result is local autonomy that allows local governments to select the level and quality of services demanded by local citizens. The property tax is relatively stable over the normal business cycle and provides a dependable funding source to local governments that must balance their budgets. Stability is important for certainty in operating budgets and is critical in the financing of long-term debt obligations.
The importance of a stable revenue source has been painfully exposed during the recent economic downturn in the U.S. State governments that are funded by less stable revenue sources are scrambling to balance their current and future budgets by cutting services and increasing taxes and fees. The fact that the property tax is imposed on an immobile base and is difficult to evade also makes it an attractive source of revenue for smaller governments.
Political accountability is another important element of the property tax. A noted function of a responsive tax system is one that provides price signals, or political accountability, on the cost of government to citizens. Compared to almost all other taxes, the direct and visible nature of the property tax suggests that it scores relatively high in this regard. The case for political accountability becomes even stronger when zoning for land use is included in the discussion. Bruce Hamilton (1975) has demonstrated that the property tax, when coupled with local zoning, becomes a benefit tax that leads to efficient outcomes. The combination of property taxation and zoning is the way many public finance scholars describe the characteristics of local finance in the U.S.
Disadvantages of the Property Tax
On the other hand, the property tax is difficult to administer. It requires substantial administrative effort on the part of public officials to discover and maintain the property records of every land parcel. Even with effective methods to discover property, determining its taxable value has always been a challenge to public assessors. Unlike other sales taxes and income taxes, there is no annually occurring event to place a market value on unsold properties. Assessors must value property as if it had sold. Assessors also confront limited budgets and a finite number of trained experts.
Nevertheless, we want public assessors to value property, land and the improvements to land accurately, and to do so as inexpensively as possible. Fortunately, progress has been made in the technical area of property valuation. It is now common to find large and small taxing jurisdictions using statistically driven valuation processes to estimate property values based on carefully designed hedonic models. The technical advantages of statistically driven appraisal systems in terms of efficiency and effectiveness are substantial.
However, the advantage of accurate and timely property appraisals highlights what I believe is a fundamental problem with the property tax and why it receives such low marks from taxpayers and elected officials. When an assessor conducts a reappraisal, the outcome is likely to increase assessed property values. If there is no reduction in the tax rate that was applied to the old tax base, the local government that relies on the property tax receives a potential windfall. It is not surprising, then, that in such situations the assessor and the assessor’s office are quickly identified as the villains of the tax increase. More importantly, these circumstances are powerful incentives to not reassess property regularly and thus avoid the angry backlash of property owners and voters.
Public finance experts have an expectation that the assessor will follow the legal and professional requirements and value property according to state law and professional practice. But, because of the uncertain political outcome when property is revalued, the assessor may act in self-interest, understandably being more concerned about reelection or reappointment than in ensuring that property is revalued properly. A system has been created that requires a reappraisal process and penalizes any assessor foolish enough to ignore it, but over time such avoidance behavior can foster nonuniformity in the property tax.
Political Challenges and Full Disclosure
We have solved many of the technical problems of property appraisal but not the political problems. Nevertheless, I believe there is at least one viable response to the political challenges: states and assessors can adopt a process of truth-in-taxation or full disclosure. The logic of full disclosure design is simple. A chilling effect on property tax growth is posited to occur when the “real” causes of increased property taxes are exposed to property owners. Helen Ladd (1991) states that full disclosure laws “tighten the link between taxpayer voter demand and local budgetary decisions.”
The standard annual tax notice, common in thousands of local tax jurisdictions, does not create a similar chilling effect. A typical tax notice informs property owners about the assessed value of the property, often a modest percentage of market value, tax rates listed in mills, and the total taxes due. If any increases in the assessed value of properties are not offset by reduced tax rates, the new assessed values create additional revenue for the taxing authority. In fact, elected officials can honestly boast that property tax rates have not changed and thus avoid most of the responsibility for any tax increase. An analysis of the behavior of elected officials in Massachusetts found precisely this type of behavior following several cycles of increases in assessed value due to revaluations (Bloom and Ladd 1982).
A property tax full disclosure law generally proceeds in the following manner. Local taxing districts are required to calculate a rate that, when applied to the tax base, produces property tax revenue that is identical in amount to the property tax revenue generated during the previous year. The rate to accomplish this is often referred to as the certified rate; it is calculated by dividing the new assessed value into the property tax revenue from the previous year. The resulting rate is the rate that, when applied to the taxable value of the taxing jurisdiction, will generate the same amount of revenue as the previous year.
This process forces elected officials to reduce the property tax rate—or at least acknowledge that any increase is their choice. If the elected officials choose not to reduce the rate, a public notice must be given that a tax rate increase is anticipated. The public notice is generally carried in a newspaper with specific requirements about the size, placement and language of the notice. In some states a preliminary tax notice is also sent to the taxpayers before that actual budget is adopted, to announce when and where the particular budget hearings on the issue will be held.
Full disclosure laws are intended to create a system with opportunities for input on property tax rate changes and the subsequent size and mix of government, but not at the expense of informed outcomes (Council of State Governments 1977). Full disclosure laws have the aim of a process to inform citizens and limit the rate of growth in property taxes. Nevertheless, like the property tax, full disclosure laws have not enjoyed universal or even modest acclaim. Researchers hold full disclosure laws in such subdued regard that when studying the implications of property tax limitations they commonly classify states having full disclosure laws among the states having no property tax limits.
It is not surprising that many observers suspect that full disclosure laws have little influence on policy outcomes. In states with full disclosure laws, the property tax increases more rapidly than in states with legally binding limits. This suggests that, because full disclosure laws cannot prevent all growth in the property tax, the strongest antagonists of the property tax and the often single-minded opponents to any growth in government will never find the approach acceptable.
However, I believe that full disclosure laws, like property tax limits, have other positive unintended outcomes. They may facilitate improvements in the administration of the property tax because they create a climate that fosters more frequent property tax appraisals by elected county assessors and more thorough and rigorous intervention on property tax matters by state revenue departments. If I am correct, the result is improvement in property tax uniformity. If this posited outcome is validated, then full disclosure laws can and should be judged beyond their immediate role in controlling the rate of increase in the property tax.
Gary C. Cornia is a visiting senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute this year and a member of the Institute’s board of directors. He is also professor in the Romney Institute of Public Management at Brigham Young University and president of the National Tax Association.
References
Bloom, H.S. and Helen F. Ladd. 1982. Property tax revaluation and tax levy growth. Journal of Urban Economics 11: 73-84.
Council of State Governments. 1977. 1978 Suggested State Legislation 37. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 125-28.
Hamilton, Bruce. 1975. Zoning and property taxation in a system of local governments. Urban Studies 12 (June): 205-211.
Ladd, Helen F. 1991. Property tax revaluation and the tax levy growth revisited. Journal of Urban Economics 30: 83-99.
McGuire, Therese J. 1999. Proposition 13 and its offspring: For good or evil. National Tax Journal 52 (March): 129-138.
O’Sullivan, Arthur, Terri A. Sexton, and Steven M. Sheffrin. 1995. Property taxes and tax revolts: The legacy of Proposition 13. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sears, David O. and Jack Citrin. 1982. Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Slemrod, Joel. 1995. Professional opinions about tax policy. National Tax Journal 48: 121-148.
Sokolow, Alvin D. 2000. The changing property tax in the West: State centralization of local finances. Public Budgeting and Finance 20 (Spring): 85-102.
SHARE
The Institute’s June 2007 Land Policy Conference focused on decentralization—the degree to which local and provincial governments exercise power, make decisions about their revenues and expenditures, and are held accountable for outcomes. Because the services,regulatory constraints, and institutional environments provided by local governments are major factors in the location decisions of households and firms in urban areas, decentralization is a key determinant of policies that affect land and property taxation.
SHARE
The recent recession has been recognized as the worst in memory, and its effects are still being felt. Less well understood is the fact that this recession has been far worse for state governments than the drop in gross domestic product (GDP) would suggest. While state government finances have stopped falling off a cliff, they are closer to the bottom of that cliff than the top. Tax receipts have not returned to their pre-recession levels, and new revenue demands may overwhelm any interim improvements in collections. Even if states can avoid these challenges, it will be a long, slow road to fiscal recovery, with several large risks along the way.
State and local governments play a major role in the economy and in our daily lives. They finance more than 90 percent of K-12 education and deliver virtually all of it. Public colleges and universities educate three-quarters of students enrolled in degree-granting institutions. State and local governments oversee, design, and build more than 90 percent of the nation’s public infrastructure. They finance much of the nation’s social safety net and implement much of it as well. In fact, state and local governments spend more on direct implementation of domestic policy than does the federal government.
The services financed and delivered by state and local governments tend to have stable and generally rising demand. When a recession hits, there is no reduction in the numbers of children in school or elderly people in nursing homes—two of the most important spending areas for state and local governments—or in the numbers of fires or crimes. For programs such as Medicaid and higher education, for example, demand for the kinds of services that state and local governments provide typically rises during recessions. Unless and until states can fix their revenue structures or develop adequate reserves, public policy will continue to gyrate with every turn in the economy.
Decline in State Tax Collections
The Great Recession that started in December 2007 was the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The unemployment rate rose to 10.1 percent and has remained stubbornly high, falling only to 9.1 percent after two years of recovery. State tax collections plummeted, falling for five consecutive quarters beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008 and continuing through 2009. Tax revenue fell by a dizzying 16.8 percent in the second quarter of 2009, and over the next several years it declined further and more sharply than it had in any other recession since World War II (figure 1).
The recent drop in GDP has been significant in comparison to past recessions, but the declines in taxable consumption and personal income, two components that typically constitute the tax bases of state and local government, have been far worse. Taxable consumption fell by about 11 percent, while GDP fell by about 5 percent. Taxable components of personal income also fell much more sharply than the overall economy and still languish more than 5 percent below the pre-recession peak, reflecting the jobless recovery.
Even though this has been the worst post-war recession by traditional economic measures, these measures do not tell the whole story. Capital gains, an important component of state tax bases, are not included in personal income as measured in the nation’s economic accounts. These gains have increased in importance and are a major cause of increased volatility in state finances. Capital gains fell by more than 55 percent, driving down tax collections in the final quarter of the 2009 fiscal year, when tax returns reflecting the 2008 stock market collapse were filed.
The net result of these and other forces was huge declines in state income, sales, and corporate taxes. Figure 2 shows that annual income taxes fell by more than 15 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, sales taxes fell by more than 10 percent, and corporate income taxes fell by more than 25 percent. Property taxes, which are crucial to local governments but generally not a significant revenue source for states, remained quite stable through much of the period, although they are beginning to weaken and in some parts of the country have fallen significantly.
A Slow Recovery
The recession ended in June 2009 and the economy has been recovering slowly. State tax collections grew in each quarter of calendar year 2010, and the character of that growth has improved over time. In the first two quarters of 2010, increased tax rates more than offset declines caused by the weak underlying economy, but in the last two quarters tax revenue growth was driven primarily by the improving economy. By the fourth quarter, tax revenue grew by 7.8 percent, but even with-out tax rate increases it would have grown by 7.0 percent. Tax revenue in the January–March 2011 quarter grew 9.3 percent compared to the previous year, and 21 states had double-digit growth. Preliminary data for the April–June quarter show tax revenue up 11.4 percent.
Inflation-adjusted state tax revenue for the nation as a whole in the latest four quarters (ending in the first quarter of calendar year 2011) was 7.7 percent below the peak attained in 2007. The heady growth in the first two quarters of 2011 probably cannot be sustained because much of it appears to have been driven by stock market gains in tax year 2010, boosting income tax returns in the second quarter. Those gains almost certainly will not be repeated in 2011.
In addition, turmoil in European debt markets and the recent Standard & Poor’s downgrade of U.S. long-term debt have contributed to fears of a double-dip recession. There are indications that economic growth will be slower than most states have assumed in their current budgets. States are closer to the bottom of the cliff than the top, and are at risk of falling back down. Meanwhile, there are some signs that local government tax revenue also is beginning to weaken.
While tax revenues are now growing in most states compared to the last year’s low collection rates, they have not reached the levels prior to the recession. After adjusting for inflation, tax revenues for the latest four quarters are below the calendar year 2007 level in 43 states, and revenues are 10 percent or more below that level in 20 of those states. Among the seven states showing a positive shift in revenue collection, only Oregon (8.9 percent), Delaware (13 percent), and North Dakota (62.9 percent) are at levels above 2 percent.
State and Local Government Responses
States hit by falling revenue also face rising entitlement costs driven in large part by Medicaid enrollment, which typically increases after unemployed workers exhaust health insurance benefits. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers (2011, ix), Medicaid enrollment rose by 8.1 percent in fiscal year 2010, and by an estimated 5.4 percent in fiscal year 2011; states project a further increase of 3.8 percent in fiscal year 2012. These and other types of required expenditures cause further stress in the day-to-day operations of state and local governments.
It is difficult to measure the impact of spending cuts on state and local programs, but changes in state and local government employment can be tracked. Although private sector employment fell sharply from the beginning of the recession, state and local government employment continued to rise modestly for about a year and a half. Shortly before private sector employment reached its nadir, state and local government employment began to decline, and states and localities have been cutting employment aggressively. Local government employment is now about 3 percent below its peak, and state government employment is about 2 percent below its peak.
Education employment in most states is related primarily to higher education—community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities—although some is related to the administrative bureaucracy for elementary and secondary education, and in some states it includes part of the K-12 workforce. State government education employment has continued to rise significantly throughout the recession and recovery, reflecting in part the increased demand for higher education that usually comes with recessions (figure 3). When jobs are hard to find, many people choose to build skills and knowledge by entering an education program or extending their time in school (Betts and McFarland 1995).
Meanwhile, state governments have been cutting noneducation employment at an accelerating pace, so that it is now down almost 5 percent from its mid-2008 peak, nearly comparable to the current, slightly recovered condition for private sector employment. In each of the nine previous recessions, state government noneducation employment either did not decline at all or it declined by much less, as was the case in the 2001 recession.
Figure 4 shows the same employment data for local governments, which are being hit increasingly hard by slowing property taxes and cuts in state aid. Education employment is now down about 3.5 percent from its late-2008 peak, and the noneducation sector is down about the same percentage from its peak. There are no signs that these cuts are slowing, and little reason to believe they will abate in the near term.
Continuing Fiscal Pressures
The recent improvement in state tax revenue is welcome, but many challenges remain. States still face fiscal trouble for four main reasons. First, total revenue remains well below its peak. Second, the recession has had lagged fiscal effects, driving up the demand for many government services, especially Medicaid, other safety net programs, and higher education. The recession also has created other pressures and problems for states by depleting unemployment insurance trust funds, which may lead to higher unemployment insurances taxes in order to repay federal loans.
Third, state cyclical adjustments are not yet complete because they must contend with losses in both federal stimulus aid of more than $50 billion in fiscal year 2011–12 and the fact that temporary revenue measures put in place in response to the recession will expire soon. Fourth, even after this cycle is fully stabilized, states will have to contend with large increases in pension contributions and payments for retiree health care—a pressure that is likely to build for years to come for several reasons, including: increasing numbers of retirements by an aging workforce; the likelihood that health care costs will continue to rise more quickly than the overall rate of economic growth (Keehan et al. 2011); and, in the case of some pension systems and most retiree health plans, years of chronic underfunding.
States finance these services with unstable revenue sources, and tax revenue has become much less dependable over the last two decades, reflecting in large part the increasing role of volatile capital gains taxes. Unless and until states broaden their tax bases to make their revenue structures less volatile, or develop adequate reserves, public policy will continue to gyrate with every turn in the economy.
About the Author
Donald Boyd is the executive director of the national Task Force on the State Budget Crisis, co-chaired by former Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker and former New York lieutenant governor Richard Ravitch. Boyd is currently on leave from his responsibilities as senior fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, where he conducts research on state and local government fiscal issues.
References
Betts, Julian R., and Laurel L. McFarland. 1995. Safe port in a storm: The impact of labor market conditions on community college enrollments. Journal of Human Resources 30(4):741–765.
Boyd, Donald. 2011. Recession, recovery, and state and local finances. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Keehan, Sean P., Andrea M. Sisko, Christopher J. Truffer, John A. Poisal, Gigi A. Cuckler, Andrew J. Madison, Joseph M. Lizonitz, and Sheila D. Smith. 2011. National health spending projections through 2020: Economic recovery and reform drive faster spending growth. Health Affairs 30(8): 1594–1605.
National Association of State Budget Officers. 2011. The fiscal survey of states. Washington, DC. http://nasbo.org/Publications/FiscalSurvey/tabid/65/Default.aspx
In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the financing of U.S. public elementary and secondary education has become particularly challenging, given the close link between school finance and property taxation. Across the nation, the sharp drop in housing prices that triggered the recession led to reductions in property tax revenues. Public schools derive more than 80 percent of their local own-source revenue from the property tax (McGuire, Papke, and Reschovsky 2015), and nearly half of total property tax dollars collected in the United States are used to finance public elementary and secondary education (U.S. Census Bureau 2014, U.S. Census Bureau 2013).
As a means of encouraging new research on these issues, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy organized a conference on “Property Tax and the Financing of K–12 Education” in Cambridge, MA, in October 2013. The Fall 2014 issue of Education Finance and Policy features five of the conference papers along with two additional works submitted as part of the journal’s call for papers for the special issue, which underwent the journal’s peer review process. We served as guest editors, working closely with the journal’s editors, Thomas A. Downes and Dan Goldhaber. Thanks to funding from the Lincoln Institute, the special issue is available for free downloading until January 2016 from the website of the Association of Education Finance and Policy (www.aefpweb.org/journal/free-fall-2014).
Challenges for Funding K-12 Education
Using revenue data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2014), we determined that in real per pupil terms, total revenues devoted to public education fell by 6.2 percent from September 2008 to June 2012. Although comprehensive figures are not yet available for the most recent years, existing evidence points to a continued decline in financial support for public education. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Quarterly Summary of State and Local Tax Revenue indicate that per capita real local government property tax revenues (for school and nonschool purposes) were 2.7 percent lower at the end of fiscal year 2014 than they were at the end of fiscal year 2011. And a survey conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that, in at least 35 states, real per-student state education aid was lower in fiscal year 2014 than in fiscal year 2008 (Leachman and Mai 2014).
Many school districts around the country responded to reduced revenues by laying off employees. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) reports that between the employment peak in June 2009 and the trough in October 2012, education employment by local governments fell by 357,400—a decline of 4.4 percent. During this same period, public school enrollment grew by 0.9 percent (National Center for Education Statistics 2013).
Current projections signal significant increases in both K–12 enrollment and cost per pupil. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 2013) projects that per pupil expenditures will increase from an average of $10,518 in the 2009–10 school year to $12,530 in 2021–22. The NCES also projects substantial increases in public school enrollment, although growth projections for specific states vary and are generally much higher for the southern and western states (8.9 percent and 12.7 percent from 2010 to 2021) than for the Northeast and Midwest (2.2 percent and 2.4 percent). Although public policies and priorities can change, based on current policies and revenue projections, it is unlikely that revenues in support of public education will grow fast enough to match the projected growth in student enrollment and in costs.
National data indicate that in 2011–12, 10 percent of total public education revenue came from the federal government, with the rest split fairly evenly between state and local government sources (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). Federal government programs in support of education are classified as domestic discretionary expenditures. While to date Congress has done little to rein in the growth of spending on entitlement programs, it has mandated strict limits on the growth of domestic discretionary expenditures through the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the fiscal year 2014 Congressional budget agreement. The Congressional Budget Office (2013) predicts that, relative to GDP, domestic discretionary spending will decline through at least 2023. Given these overall spending caps, along with competition from other pressing domestic needs, reductions in real per pupil federal education support appear likely.
School funding systems vary tremendously across states, and future trends in state support for public education will differ greatly across states as well. However, many state governments face several long-run structural problems that are likely to constrain future state funding for public education. On the revenue side, many states have narrow sales tax bases that exclude many services and, as a result, fail to grow proportionally to their economies. The revenue problems are exacerbated by the inability of states to collect sales taxes on many Internet and mail order purchases. In the past few years, a number of states have adopted individual income tax cuts. These tax cuts have generally been enacted with no offsetting revenue increases, or they have been funded using revenue from one-time state budget surpluses.
On the spending side, funding for K–12 education must compete with other priorities. In many states, spending on Medicaid will grow faster than state tax revenues, a trend influenced in part by the aging of the population. Many states are also facing large and growing unfunded pension liabilities. Addressing these unfunded liabilities will undoubtedly require substantial increases in state government pension contributions. Although polls indicate that voters favor increased spending on education over spending in other areas, unless state governments make politically difficult decisions to increase taxes, states’ growing Medicaid and pension obligations may crowd out spending on K–12 education (Pew Research 2011).
With diminished prospects for growth in funding from federal and state governments, local school districts will likely play an increasingly important role in funding public education. Increasing local government funding for public education will require the politically difficult step of increasing property taxes, or, if that proves impossible, the development and widespread adoption of alternative sources of local government revenue. Neither strategy will be easy to implement.
This rather bleak picture of the prospects for public education funding raises a number of research questions. For example, can state governments adopt policies that would make the property tax more publicly acceptable? What role do alternative local sources of revenue play in funding public education? Can their role be increased? Is it possible to design state education aid systems that result in a more steady flow of state aid during economic downturns? Can state policies aimed at providing property tax relief be made more effective? Can state aid systems be reformed in ways that increase the educational opportunities of all students? The Property Tax and the Financing of K–12 Education considers these and other questions.
Conclusion
Three central themes emerge from this special issue. The first is the potential for unintended consequences to arise from state legislation. Eom et al. find that New York’s prominent property tax relief program, STAR, induces voters to increase school spending and raise property taxes, thereby undercutting much of the intended property tax relief. Jeffrey Zabel finds that property tax overrides in Massachusetts have led to increased racial segregation. And Phuong Nguyen-Hoang finds that the use of TIFs in Iowa has led to modest reductions in education spending.
A second theme is the potential for state school finance and property tax policies to provide greater advantages for high-wealth or high-income school districts than for low-wealth or low-income districts. In some cases, this pro-wealthy tilt is an explicit program feature. For example, the sales price differential adjustment factor in STAR channels a disproportionate amount of property tax relief to the wealthiest school districts. Likewise, Michigan’s state aid system sends about 7 percent more state aid per pupil to the wealthiest districts. In other cases, the tilt toward wealthier districts arises in more indirect ways. Chakrabarti et al. find that high-wealth school districts are likelier to increase property tax revenues in response to cuts in state aid. Zabel notes that higher income towns are more likely to pass property tax overrides. Nguyen-Hoang finds that TIFs have a greater negative effect on school spending in low-income or low-wealth districts than in high-income or high-wealth districts. Finally, Nelson and Gazley find that well-off districts are more likely to receive revenue from school-supporting nonprofits, and their per-pupil contributions tend to be higher.
A third theme is the enduring importance of the property tax as a funding source for public education in the United States. Papers by both Nelson and Gazley and by Downes and Killeen demonstrate that non-tax revenue plays a relative minor role in the funding of public schools. And no evidence suggests that the share of revenue from student fees and charges, school-supporting nonprofits, or from miscellaneous non-tax revenues has increased during or after the Great Recession.
These findings suggest that in order to ensure sufficient funding for public education into the future, efforts should be made to make the property tax a more appealing source of revenue. These property tax improvements might include the expansion of well-designed targeted property tax relief programs, such as circuit breakers, the adoption of property tax deferral programs for taxpayers facing high property tax burdens or rapid increases in their property tax bills, and improvements in tax administration that focus on increased transparency.
Given the great diversity in school finance and property tax systems across the U.S. and the fiscal challenges ahead, the papers in this special issue cannot possibly provide insights into the full range of policies needed to assure adequate and equitable funding for public education. However, it is our hope that these papers will be thought-provoking for both policy makers and researchers, and also inspire additional research on property taxation and school funding.
Contents
Introduction to Special Issue on the Property Tax and the Financing of K–12 Education
Daphne A. Kenyon and Andrew Reschovsky
Did Cuts in State Aid During the Great Recession Lead to Changes in Local Property Taxes?
Rajashri Chakrabarti, Max Livingston, and Joydeep Roy
Michigan and Ohio K–12 Educational Finance Systems: Equality and Efficiency
Michael Conlin and Paul Thompson
The Unintended Consequences of Property Tax Relief: New York’s STAR Program
Tae Ho Eom, William Duncombe, Phuong Nguyen-Hoang, and John Yinger
Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Proposition 2½ Overrides on School Segregation in Massachusetts
Jeffrey Zabel
Tax Increment Finance and Education Expenditures: The Case of Iowa
Phuong Nguyen-Hoang
The Rise of School-Supporting Nonprofits
Ashlyn Aiko Nelson and Beth Gazley
So Slow to Change: The Limited Growth of Non-Tax Revenues in Public Education Finance, 1991–2010
Thomas Downes and Kieran M. Killeen
About the Authors
Daphne A. Kenyon, Ph.D., is an economist who is a fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and principal of D. A. Kenyon & Associates.
Andrew Reschovsky, Ph.D., is a fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
References
Congressional Budget Office. 2013. Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023. Washington, DC (May). www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf.
Leachman, Michael and Chris Mai. 2014. “Most States Funding Schools Less Than Before the Recession,” Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Updated September 12. www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4011.
McGuire, Therese J., Leslie E. Papke, and Andrew Reschovsky. 2015. “Local Funding of Schools: The Property Tax and Its Alternatives,” chapter 22 in Handbook of Research on Education Finance and Policy, revised edition, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Margaret Goertz, Routledge, 376–391.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2014. “National Public Education Financial Survey Data,” School Year 2010–11. http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/stfis.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2013. “Projections of Education Statistics to 2021.” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2021/index.asp.
Pew Research. 2011. “Fewer Want Spending to Grow, But Most Cuts Remain Unpopular.” Center for People and the Press. February 10. www.people-press.org/2011/02/10/fewer-want-spending-to-grow-but-most-cuts-remain-unpopular.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Table B-1a: Employees on Non-Farm Payrolls by Industry Sector and Selected Industry Detail, Seasonally Adjusted. Current Employment Statistics, Establishment Data. www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceseeb1a.htm.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. 2011 Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finance, State and Local Government Data. www.census.gov/govs/local/.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2012 Data, Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data. www.census.gov/govs/school/.
