SHARE
The study of property taxation in Europe offers special challenges because each country has a different definition of land and property, and a different approach to local property taxation. The term property often includes both land and buildings, but may also include plants and machinery as well as certain possessions, such as automobiles. In Denmark, for example, separate taxes may be levied on the land and property elements of a single holding.
Among the 41 counties in our study, we identified 61 different forms of local taxation. Most are based on annual value, usually assessed on a capital or rental basis, and are payable annually. While most countries tax the sale of property at the state level, the Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain levy such taxes locally. Yet, amid such diversity, a basic central pattern emerges. Each county, except Malta, operates some form of annual property tax on the use or occupation of land and/or property, usually levied at the local level, and the revenues contribute to the provision of local services.
Tax Reform and the European Union
Over the last 10 years France, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have either completed or are in the process of completing substantial reforms to their taxation systems. Other countries have undertaken more minor reforms. Even some emerging democracies are reviewing and reforming their relatively new taxation systems in light of changes elsewhere. No individual tax exists in isolation, and all are affected by larger fiscal, economic and political developments. The reform of one tax will often have consequential effects on others, and property taxation in all its forms is no exception.
One impetus to tax reform in Europe is the European Union (EU). Fifteen of the countries in our study are members, and many other countries are in various stages of being considered for membership. Many countries are taking this opportunity to reform and improve their tax administration systems and to make their taxation rates competitive with those of other member states. Tax harmonization is not one of the declared aims of the EU, although it may be a natural consequence of many EU polices.
The main incentive for tax reform in Europe is coming from the states themselves. In one of the first signs of the problems caused by traditional national taxation systems, the Ministry of Finance in the Netherlands noted in the early 1990s that not only were businesses locating in the most tax-favorable areas but they also were buying goods and services from other countries where tax rates and other costs were lower. The close proximity of the Netherlands to Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg, as well as the good transport links between the countries, exacerbated the situation.
The introduction of the Single European Market has opened internal markets to foreign competition with the removal of trade barriers and the abolition of customs duties between member states. Business competitiveness now depends primarily on efficiency and the amount of taxation imposed by the national government, rather than on state aid and trade policies.
Approaches to Local Taxation
The Taxpayer
The majority of property taxes are payable by the owner. Of the 51 taxes we studied, 29 identified the owner as the taxpayer and 12 are paid by the occupier; the remaining 10 are sales-based taxes. The occupier figure was distorted because the United Kingdom accounted for 50 percent of this figure, due to differences in the implementation of its local taxes. In the Netherlands both parties can be taxed at different amounts. For sales-related taxes the results were less clear, with the taxpayer being the seller in half the cases and the purchaser in the other half.
Sources of Valuation Information
Many countries have some form of computerized cadastral system to record property-related information, and as part of the assessment process different levels of government usually exchange information. The nature and implementation of such systems vary considerably, from a series of different registers administered at various levels of government to a single register administered nationally.
The rights of the taxpayer to centrally held information also differ among countries. Some provide no rights to any information, while others provide notice whenever a new valuation or alteration is made. In some cases, valuation and comparable evidence may be made available at the request of the taxpayer.
Bases of Valuation
Three alternative approaches for the valuation bases are used most frequently. The Capital Value Approach is normally based on the open market value of the property at a specified baseline date, which may be a current date such as the start of the tax year. Sweden designates a date two years before the tax year. This approach has the advantage of giving valuation authorities more time to consider all the evidence available before arriving at their final valuations. The open market value is usually defined on the basis of a property’s best and/or highest value.
The Rental Value Approach is based on the open market rental value at a specified date. England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland specify a baseline date some time before the new values come into effect, as in Sweden. The open market rental value may be restricted by assumptions as to changes of use and alterations. The rationale is that the tax is levied on the occupier and the amount of tax is based on the current use of the property, not its potential value.
Properties not normally bought and sold in the market require alternative approaches to valuation. For example, the use of a revenue (or accounts) approach has been adopted in England and Wales for many types of leisure-related property, and its use is expected to increase. The cost approach, related to the cost of construction, also is widely accepted in England and Wales and in other European countries.
The Overall or Unit Approach relates to a property’s size. The tax is levied at a prescribed rate per square meters or per unit, which may vary depending on the predominant use of the property. These rates may be loosely based on rental or capital values, but are more often an arbitrary rate fixed by the appropriate taxation authority. In 1997 the Netherlands moved away from such a system in favor of a market-related capital value approach. Many new democracies have adopted the unit approach due to a lack of property information, a limited and restricted property market, and insufficient resources to enable the development of alternative systems. It is anticipated that many of these countries will move to a value-based system when resources and circumstances permit.
A number of other approaches are used under special circumstances. One is the capital value banding approach adopted for the valuation of residential property for the Council Tax in England, Wales and Scotland. In this approach property is ascribed to various value bands rather than valuing each individual property precisely. Another example is the local business tax, which includes the value of the property plus in the case of France a percentage of salaries and in the case of Spain and Switzerland the business profits.
Revaluation of the Tax Base
One of the key factors in examining European property tax systems is whether the valuations on which the tax is charged are up-to-date. Our research identified a very mixed picture: some countries have not revalued their tax bases for many years and others undertake revaluations regularly, every four or five years (see Table 1). Many countries have either no provision for regular revaluations or have postponed revaluations so often that their tax base bears little resemblance to current market values.
Indexation
Many countries have attempted to overcome the problems associated with infrequent revaluations by some form of indexation. Those countries performing annual revaluations may implement them through actual annual revaluations, indexation of an earlier revaluation or self-assessment declarations by the taxpayer. While annual indexation between regular revaluations every few years may ensure a relatively accurate tax base, its use becomes more questionable when the base has not been updated for 10 or 20 years. The position is made far worse in countries where the property market is changing rapidly, especially in major cities and towns. Any adopted index needs to be closely related to the property market in that location and to the specific property type. In most cases, however, the index is a single figure applied across the entire country and for all types of property.
Exemptions and Reliefs
Exemptions can be considered from two viewpoints: the nature of the property or the nature of the taxpayer. In addition, some countries have introduced arrangements that place a ceiling on the amount of tax payable. Some common features relating to the types of properties for which some form of relief may be granted are:
Relief to taxpayers takes many forms and can include:
Calculating the Amount of Tax
The simplest systems for calculating tax payments adopt a given tax per square meter occupied. Once the area of the property is agreed, it is a relatively simple matter to apply a given tax rate to that area. In some countries, the assessed value must be multiplied by an index or co-efficient and then by a locally determined rate that can vary depending on the size of the authority levying the charge. In France, the situation is even worse for the business tax, where a series of limitations have to be calculated to ascertain whether a ceiling or cap applies to the taxable amount.
Appeal Systems
Most countries have a system by which the taxpayer may challenge the tax assessment or valuation, although that action generally does not postpone the payment of the tax. In some cases the first step is an informal approach to the authority, which may be able to resolve the dispute without the need for more formal action. Where a formal approach is adopted, the appeal may be dealt with as part of the general tax appeal process through the normal tax tribunals and courts, or it may be handled outside the normal tax system, often in courts and tribunals established for the purpose.
Tax Collection and Payment
In many countries taxes are collected by the national tax authority, often as part of the income tax process. This method has the advantage of being linked with national exemptions and benefits; the resulting tax is usually payable over the whole tax year. Under the second common method, the tax is paid directly to the relevant taxing authority, sometimes in installments.
Conclusion
European countries are constantly reviewing their tax systems and adopting the best features of other systems. This presents special challenges to a survey such as ours, but also enhances its potential impact by allowing comparative analysis to influence new legislation. One very important conclusion at this early stage of the research project is the importance of keeping the tax base up-to-date. This not only simplifies the entire valuation and collection process but also ensures a tax base that is more acceptable and understandable to taxpayers. During this year we propose to widen our research and complete data collection on other European countries. In addition, we will attempt to compare the amounts of revenue raised by each type of taxation and analyze them within the context of each country’s local government and finance system.
Peter K. Brown is professor of property taxation at Liverpool John Moores University, a frequent author and a regular speaker on valuation, rating and taxation matters. Moira Hepworth is head of research at the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation (IRRV), based in London. The authors are joint recipients of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation. This article is based on their first year of research and their recent working paper.
Related Publication
Peter K. Brown and Moira Hepworth. 2000. “A Study of European Land Tax Systems.” Lincoln Institute Working Paper. 156 pages.
SHARE
Governments have often intervened in land markets in Asian cities, but with limited effects. In recent decades, economic globalization and political democratization have created even stronger demands for more efficient and equitable land use policies. Rapid economic growth in cities with scarce land resources has generated a wave of new thinking on land values and land markets among scholars and policymakers.
The GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) negotiations are stimulating new production structures in much of Asia, which consequently shift demand from agriculture into manufacturing and other urban land uses. At the same time, local governments are struggling with more financial autonomy and are becoming dependent on revenues from increased land values to subsidize the costs of development.
Three countries illustrate emerging land and tax policy issues raised by these complex interactions of international and local economies.
In Taiwan, land values for urban and agriculture uses are extremely divergent. The immediate issues are: 1) how to better use the 40,000 hectares of agricultural land that are no longer needed for production as a result of the GATT agreements; and 2) how to distribute the development benefits created by this conversion of agricultural land.
In Korea, the challenge concerns the legality of taxation to capture excessive increases in land value and gains from land speculation. Faced with builders’ pressure to develop greenbelts and open spaces in metropolitan areas and with local politicians’ concerns over fiscal autonomy, the central government is preparing a major tax reform to capture these increments in land value.
In Japan, land values have changed dramatically over the past ten years, but the reasons for these fluctuations are not always clear. Land speculation, unpredictable market forces and government regulation all play a part. Analysis of failed attempts to control land prices will be valuable in developing future policies.
Land Value and Speculation
The perception of land value in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan may not be significantly different from that in other capitalist countries. The problem is in the speculative value, also known as “unearned income” or the “unearned increment” in land value. This value can be so high that it distorts all the legal, administrative, political and social measures designed to manage the use of land. In Japan, for example, land value in major cities tripled from 1983 to 1989. In Korea, land value increased 13 times between 1975 and 1990, while the national income increased only 5 times in the same period. In Taiwan, the value of farm land increased 155 percent from 1986 to 1990, compared to the GDP’s 36 percent growth during the same period.
Policies intended to control land values during periods of high speculation are unlikely to succeed. During the boom times of the 1980s in all three Asian countries, special interest groups and politicians dependent on economic growth failed to anticipate any negative downturn effects. Land policies became disorganized, and conflicts arose among different government departments. For example, some local governments subsidized farmland owners who had already sold their land for conversion to urban uses and had benefited financially from this speculation. Financial institutions provided loans to corporations which depended on land speculation for their corporate earnings. The results were devastating: farmers who wished to farm could not afford to buy farm land; manufacturers could no longer compete when 60 percent of their investments were spent on land costs; and average citizens had an even more difficult time owning a house.
Reevaluating Land and Tax Policy
As land values have dropped in recent years, there is a new opportunity to revise land policies. Special interest groups and land value speculators have softened their opposition to government intervention on land markets. The GATT and WTO (World Trade Organization) negotiations are requiring countries to better coordinate their land policies and general economic policies in the interests of industrial readjustment. Future policies in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan will likely incorporate the following measures:
New regulations will be designed to convert some farmland and environmentally less-sensitive land for housing and mixed-use urban development. The goals are to continue sustainable development and to assist the conversion of the agricultural sector.
Tax reform and exaction-like laws will be introduced to capture the “unearned income” from land speculation. A capital gains tax, land value tax and land value increment tax will be the hallmarks of tax reform. Local government will be given more autonomy to require private developers to share benefits with the community.
Land use planning systems will be coordinated at all levels of government to manage growth. New land use controls will be designed to cope with new economic activities derived from the economic readjustments.
To help advance these land and tax policy reforms, the Lincoln Institute research staff is working with colleagues in each country. The Council of Agriculture in Taiwan, Republic of China, and the Institute are conducting a three-year joint study (1994-97) on land value capture and benefit distribution mechanisms. A team of researchers from the Lincoln Institute and the Korea Tax Institute is researching tax reform for the Korea Ministry of Finance during the 1995-1996 academic year. Both American and Japanese scholars are examining land values in Japan from a macroeconomic perspective.
Alven Lam in a Lincoln Institute fellow whose current research focuses on land value capture and property rights in Asia.
Additional information in the printed newletter.
Chart: Indices of Korea Land Values and Major Economic Indicators: 1980, 1985 and 1990. Land prices, housing prices, national income and wholesale prices are charted. Source: Office of National Statistics, Korea Statistical Yearbook, each year, and Kim, Dai-Young, “Choices for Future Land Policy,” in Land Policy Problems in East Asia, 1994.
Large-scale urban redevelopment projects (termed grandes projectos urbanos or GPUs in Spanish) raise many questions about the impacts of subsequent urban development induced by the intervention. GPUs are characterized by an impact in a significant part of the city, often with the use of some new fiscal or regulatory instruments and the involvement of a large network of agents and institutions. These projects are expected to affect land prices, recycle existing or create new infrastructure and facilities, and attract other new buildings.
GPUs as an urban policy instrument have been the object of considerable controversy and debate throughout Latin America. It is often argued that they promote social exclusion and gentrification, have limited effects in stimulating real estate activities, and require large (sometimes hidden) public subsidies that often draw fiscal resources from other urban needs. In spite of their increasing popularity in Latin America, there is little empirical evidence to support these criticisms.
This article presents the case of a GPU introduced in São Paulo, Brazil, in 1996 as an “urban operation” to redevelop a middle-income area of mostly single-family homes that was to be traversed by the extension of the Faria Lima Avenue. The project is known as the Faria Lima Urban Operation Consortium (OUCFL). We examine economic principles that affect the fiscal performance of the project and its opportunity for value capture, evaluate changes in residential density, and analyze changes in income distribution and ownership structure. Finally, we offer some policy suggestions on how and when to use this kind of instrument based on these assessments.
What is an Urban Operation?
An urban operation is a legal instrument that seeks to provide local governments with the power to undertake interventions related to urbanistic and city planning improvements in association with the private sector. It identifies a particular area within the city that has the potential to attract private real estate investments to benefit the city as a whole. The proper city planning indexes (i.e., zoning and other regulations on construction coefficients, rates of occupation, and land uses) are redefined in accordance with a master plan, and investments are made in new or recycled infrastructure.
An urban operation allows the municipality to capture (through negotiated or mandatory means) the land value increments associated with the subsequent land use changes. In contrast to other value capture instruments, these funds are earmarked or internalized within the perimeter of the project to be shared between government and the private sector for both investments in urban infrastructure and subsidies to private real estate investments to support the project itself.
Each urban operation in Brazil is proposed by the executive and approved by the legislative branch of the jurisdiction. In the case of São Paulo, this authority was created in the Lei Organica Municipal (Constitution of the City) in 1990, which was later inserted in the new Brazilian urban development law (Statute of the City of 2001). The first proposed projects were the Operation Anhangabaú (subsequently expanded as a part of the Downtown Operation and renamed Center Operation) and Água Branca, followed by the Água Espraiada and Faria Lima operations. After the approval of the city’s new Master Plan in 2001, nine other urban operations were generated. These thirteen projects are expected to affect 30 to 40 percent of the buildable area of the City of São Paulo.
Financing Faria Lima
The Faria Lima urban operation (OUCFL) was proposed and approved in 1995 with the aim of obtaining private resources to fund the public investments necessary to purchase land and install infrastructure in order to extend Faria Lima Avenue. These costs were deemed at the time to be approximately US$150 million, two-thirds for land acquisitions and one-third for the avenue itself. The project was heavily contested by many stakeholders on grounds ranging from the source of the funds (i.e., advanced out of the local budget through new debt) to neighborhood concerns (one of which managed to keep the floor-area-ratios [FARs] unchanged and legally excluded from the OUCFL zoning) and technical design issues.
Technical studies carried out at the time indicated that it would be possible to take advantage of an additional potential 2,250,000 square meters beyond what was already permitted by the city’s zoning legislation, and the FARs were changed accordingly. These additional building rights were granted against a payment of a minimum of 50 percent of their market value using the existing “Solo-Criado” (Selling of Building Rights) instrument. OUCFL aroused great interest on the part of real estate entrepreneurs. This instrument nevertheless was also questioned for its lack of transparency, its project by project approach, and the arbitrariness in the way relevant prices were established and then used to calculate the value of the additional building rights.
By August 2003 a total of 939,592 square meters, or nearly 42 percent of the available total of these 2,250,000 square meters, had already been licensed. More than 115 real estate projects were approved, including nearly 40 percent commercial buildings and 60 percent high-quality residential buildings. Nevertheless, the resources (approximately US$280 million) obtained from these approved projects had not fully compensated for the expenditures (US$350 million, including principal plus interest) associated with the expansion of the avenue, considering the high interest rates prevailing in Brazil for the nearly eight years since the realization of expenditures. Thus, about 80 percent of the cost (albeit more than anticipated) has been recovered through the Selling of Building Rights process. Since July 2004 the compensation for these advance funds was obtained through an ingenious new value capture mechanism known as CEPAC, an acronym for a Certificate of Additional Potential of Construction. One CEPAC represents one square meter.
The Introduction of CEPACs
Although CEPACs were defined in Brazil’s Statute of the City of 2001, they were not approved by the CVM (Brazilian equivalent to the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission) as freely tradable in the Brazilian Stock Exchange until December 2003. The regulation establishes that the price of each certificate is defined by public auction and that the corresponding square meters of building rights (which also include use changes and occupation rates) expressed in each certificate may be executed at any time. The regulation also states that new batches of certificates can be issued (and sold through auction) only upon confirmation that the resources captured by the previous sale have been effectively earmarked to the project. To ensure this designated use, the revenues are deposited in a special account, not in the municipal treasury. From the perspective of the private investors this designation ensures the acceptability of this value capture instrument at its own valorization. By issuing a lower number of certificates than potential building rights—that is by managing their scarcity—the public sector may benefit from the valorization and thus be able to capture value “ex-ante” (Afonso 2004, 39).
The final approval of CEPACs for OUCFL and all the necessary steps for launching them in the financial market occurred in mid-2004, and the first auction at the end of December 2004 generated nearly R$10 million (about US$4 million), corresponding to the sale of approximately 9,000 CEPACs out of an authorized stock of 650,000 square meters. The OUCFL certificates were sold at a face value of R$1,100 (about US$450) per square meter with no observed premium pricing as a result of the bidding process.
This situation contrasts with that of the Água Espraiada urban operation, which was expected to be fully funded by CEPACs from its start. In its third auction, the certificates were already capturing R$370 per certificate against a face value of R$300 set for this operation. A more recent auction in Água Espraiada sold 56,000 CEPACs and captured R$21 million ($US9.5 million), reflecting a certificate price of R$371. This pricing contrast reflects the different original face values in the two projects. In the case of OUCFL developers bought (and stocked) building rights in advance, to benefit from the more flexible rules prior to the CVM approvals. The certificate price in Faria Lima started at more than R$1,100 because it is a more valued area. In Água Espraiada developers were willing to pay more than the original face value because the certificates were less expensive and thus in greater demand.
Land Price Implications
The prices of vacant land and developed areas experienced a considerable increase in some blocks within the perimeter of OUCFL during the 1990s, but decreased in other blocks. Yet, the average square meter price of new real estate development fell throughout the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo (RMSP) in all price bands, when comparing the average price from 1991 to 1996 with those of 1996 to 2000.
After controlling for a number of attributes associated with the changing character of the developments and their location, the price estimations showed an unequivocal relative increase after the operation was launched. The average price per square meter within the OUCFL perimeter increased from R$1.68 thousand in the 1991–1996 period to R$1.92 thousand in the 1996–2001 period, a 14 percent increase, while prices in RMSP decreased from R$1.21 thousand to R$1.06 thousand, a 12 percent decrease in the same period (R$1.95/US$1.00 in December 2000). Thus, the price per square meter in OUCFL was higher than that of RMSP by around 26 percent. The price per square meter in OUCFL was 38 percent higher than the average price in the RMSP in 1991–1996, and it increased to 81 percent higher in 1996–2001.
Was this increase captured by the municipality as anticipated? Considering that the cost of construction in average is around R$1,000 per square meter, the 2004 auction (the only one so far) captured almost all of the value added at current prices. The previous pre-CEPAC system captured about 50 percent or more, depending on the capacity and success of municipal negotiators, and the correctness of the reference price. CEPAC now changes this percentage and the face value of the instrument may capture all the value increment or even more, depending on the relation of this face value to market prices, and on the results of future auctions. Comparing a redevelopment project financed totally by construction bonds (like CEPACs) and one financed totally with general property taxes, there is no doubt that the former is less regressive than the latter. Even with a progressive property tax, with rates increasing according to values, part of the costs would be paid by poorer households.
This evidence that about 80 percent of the total cost of the project has already been recovered, combined with the auctioning of the remaining building rights through CEPACs and the impact of the property appreciation on the current property tax revenues, indicates that the project should not only pay its own way but actually generate a fiscal surplus for the city as a whole over the next five or seven years.
In effect, the changes caused by substituting older single-family houses with new residential and commercial buildings resulted in a substantial change in property tax collection in the OUCFL area. Many lots and even entire blocks had been occupied by single- and two-story houses constructed since the 1950s. Many of these structures were eligible for a discount coefficient for obsolescence of up to 30 percent of the property tax. They were replaced with new, taller and higher-quality buildings for which the discount was null. Our estimates indicate that the differences in property tax collection by square meters constructed may have increased by at least 2.7 times and up to 4.4 times. That is, the average property tax per square meter increased to a minimum of R$588.50 up to R$802.50 from R$220.95 if the house was 25 years old, or from R$179.70 if the house was 30 years old.
Social Implications
The OUCFL case offers a unique opportunity to quantify changes in resident characteristics before and after the intervention, since data at the census track level is available for 1991 and 2000, and the intervention began in 1996. Our analysis of gentrification and displacement of poorer residents mainly confirms the findings of Ramalho and Meyer (2004) that the average income has increased relatively in most of the blocks inside the OUCFL perimeter. By Brazilian standards, the upper-middle class was displaced from the region by the richest 5 percent of households in the metropolitan area. The census data also showed that residential density fell between 1991 and 2000, from 27 to 22 residences per hectare, although these figures may be distorted because they reflect the ratio of total residences in the entire area, not an average of the ratios per plot where land use was converted.
The data from 1991 indicated that the population was already leaving the OUCFL area before the approval of the urban operation, but this exodus intensified after 1996, generating vacant plots in the process of site-assembly to accommodate the new high-rise developments. At the same time, building density increased. The average number of floors per new building in the area increased from 12.6 in the 1985–1995 period to 16.7 in the 1996–2001 period. The number of housing units per building increased from 37.1 to 79.6 over the same periods.
This apparent contradiction between decreased residential density and increased numbers of housing units is explained in part by the construction of commercial buildings that replaced many single-family residencies on small and average-sized lots. OUCFL induced considerable real estate concentration as the new commercial and residential buildings replaced the houses and required greater land areas for high-class architectural projects. The 115 projects approved between 1995 and August 2003 that requested increases in the utilization coefficients required a total of 657 lots, or an average of 5.7 lots per project.
The combination of the increase in income level and the reduction in household density indicates that the gentrification process advanced in and around the OUCFL region during the 1990s. Nevertheless, this is not a classic case of gentrification, where poor families are driven out of an area due to various socioeconomic pressures. In this case mostly upper-middle classes were displaced. Except for the small nucleus of remaining favelados (Favela Coliseu), the region was already occupied by people belonging to the richest segments of society.
Some Policy Observations
This article contributes to the debate about the social management of land valuation by furnishing real data assessments and economic elements. These elements have been missing from most analysis, and we believe that this gap in the literature has contributed to an incomplete interpretation of the implications of an urban operation and to mistaken public policy recommendations.
Our conclusion is that the CEPAC funding mechanism itself does not increase the regressive characteristic of urban operations, since without those building rights bonds all the investment in redevelopment would be financed by general taxes. If the OUCFL project were inadequate in terms of income distribution, it would have been even worse without the value capture mechanism. Instead, CEPAC and the value capture mechanism used previously offered two desirable characteristics of any public investment: charging the new landowners is at least neutral in terms of income distribution; and the primary beneficiaries end up paying for the project.
Furthermore, the urban operation mechanism offers incentives for redevelopment. Given that most projects increase land prices and drive out the poor from the region, it would be better to invest the entire municipal budget in small-scale projects. This is the opposite of what happened with the redevelopment of the adjacent high-end Berrini area where developers decided how to concentrate their investment, resulting in even more income concentration than in the OUCFL area. Because of inaction by policy makers in that case, the municipality did not capture any value from Berrini, yet paid the entire cost of infrastructure.
The use of building rights bonds may diminish the regressive aspect of land development, but to make a project truly progressive requires attention on the expense side, by funding all the investment through instruments like CEPACs. The main limitation on distributing benefits to the poor is that the law establishes that all funds collected through value capture (CEPACs or other instruments) must be invested within the perimeter of the intervention. One way to make these interventions more progressive is to invest in activities that will furnish spillovers to the poor, such as public transit, education, and health. Moreover the relevant legislation allows the administration to select an area inside the perimeter of an urban operation and declare it a zone of special social interest (ZEIS) where lots can be used only for low-income social housing.
Another alternative is to establish social housing areas within the perimeter of the urban operation. By subsidizing low-income housing with money from developers and new landowners, there would be no distortion in prices outside of the housing industry. The subsidy results from segmenting the market and transferring the extra rent to poor households. This is real social management of land valuation.
Ciro Biderman is affiliated with the Center for Studies of Politics and Economics of the Public Sector (Cepesp) at the Economic and Business School at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo, Brazil. He is a visiting fellow in international development and regional planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Paulo Sandroni is an economist and professor at the Economic and Business School at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation.
Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean.
Photograph Credit: wsfurlan via iStock / Getty Images Plus.
References
(These publications are available only in Portuguese.)
Afonso, Luis Carlos Fernandes. 2004. Financiamento eh desafio para governantes (Financing is a challenge to government). Teoria ane Debate No. 58, Maio-Junho: 36–39.
Ramalho, T., e R.M.P. Meyer. 2004. O impacto da Operação Urbana Faria Lima no uso residencial: Dinâmicas de transformação (The impact of the Faria Lima Urban Operation on residential use: Transformation dynamics). Mimeo. São Paulo: Lume/FAUUSP.
Biderman, Ciro, e Paulo Sandroni. 2005. Avaliação do impacto das grandes intervenções urbanas nos precos dos imoveis do entorno: O caso da Operação Urbana Consorciada Faria Lima (Evaluation of property price impacts near large-scale urban interventions: The case of Faria Lima Urban Operation Consortium). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Report (April).
How will local government finances be affected by the large and increasing burden to pay for previously obligated pension costs? How, in particular, will these pension legacy costs change residents’ perceptions of the local property tax and their willingness to pay? As a first step in a larger Lincoln Institute of Land Policy research agenda on these questions, we ask: What is known–and just as importantly, what is not known–about the magnitude of unfunded local government pension liabilities in the United States? (see Gordon, Rose, and Fischer 2012)
It is a first principle of public finance that current services should be paid with current revenues and that debt finance should be reserved for capital projects that provide services to future taxpayers. This principle is violated when pension liabilities associated with current labor services are not funded by current purchases of financial assets and instead have to be paid for by future taxpayers.
Alas, principles of prudence in public finance are not always observed, and local governments in the United States have accumulated substantial unfunded pension liabilities in recent years. This situation breaks an important link in the relationship between taxpayers and the services they receive–the rough correspondence between the overall value of public services and the resources taken from the private sector. There is considerable debate about the strength of this correspondence and how price-like the relationship is between value paid and value received for individual taxpayers, but there can be little question that using current revenues to pay for past services weakens the link.
Growing Public Awareness
State and local government employee pensions are in the headlines almost daily (box 1). Only a few years ago, they were the nearly exclusive province of a few elected officials, appointed boards, investment advisors, actuaries, and credit rating agencies. What changed? The most immediate answer is the Great Recession, which sapped not only state tax revenue but also the value of pension plan assets. In particular, state and local pension fund equity holdings lost nearly half of their value, dropping from a peak of $2.3 trillion in September 2007 to a low of $1.2 trillion in March 2009 (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2012).
———–
Box 1: Where Are Local Pensions in Trouble?
To understand where local pensions were experiencing particular difficulties, Gordon, Rose, and Fischer (2012) used media monitoring software to conduct a search of all U.S. domestic news outlets for the first three months of 2012. To satisfy the query, articles had to include the word “pension” in conjunction with terms that identify local governments (e.g., municipality, city, or county) and descriptions of funding problems (e.g., liability, deficit, underfunded, cut, default, reform, or problem). The search yielded over 2,000 separate articles from places all over the country.
Their analysis suggests several types of places are experiencing pension troubles. One group consists of jurisdictions that have been losing people and jobs over time. A prominent example is Detroit, Michigan, which has twice as many retirees as active workers. Also in this category is Prichard, Alabama, which has lost more than 45 percent of its population since 1970 and by 2010 had fewer than 23,000 residents. It simply stopped sending pension checks to its former employees in September 2009 and declared bankruptcy one month later. For such communities, pension problems may also be a symptom of larger fiscal distress or political dysfunction.
Another group of jurisdictions rode the housing boom and bust. Examples include fast-growing California cities like Stockton, which just entered bankruptcy proceedings this year, the largest city ever to do so. More puzzling are relatively affluent places, such as New York’s Suffolk or Nassau Counties, which appear unable to make tough spending cuts or raise taxes because of political gridlock. Instead, many of these jurisdictions have turned to borrowing to meet their pension obligations.
Only two recent municipal bankruptcies (Vallejo, California, and Central Falls, Rhode Island) stemmed from public pensions and employee compensation pressures together with falling revenues. Other places such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Jefferson County, Alabama, are struggling with poor investment decisions. Also, major cities such as Atlanta, San Francisco, and New York have taken steps to limit pension growth, often with cooperation from local public employee unions. Central Falls managed to extract concessions from active police officers and fire fighters as well as current retirees, but even this was insufficient to stop the slide toward bankruptcy.
Although stock markets have largely recovered and state and local plan equity holdings have climbed back over $2 trillion, public pensions remain under scrutiny. Credit rating agencies increasingly are taking unfunded pension liabilities into account when developing their assessments of state and local government borrower risk. In addition, analysts are growing more vocal in their criticisms of methods commonly used to evaluate pension funding levels.
The federal government is also paying attention. Alarmed by the prospect of defaults, Congress held a series of hearings into state and local government finances in early 2011. More recently, the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) has issued reports raising the specter of a Eurozone-like crisis due to unfunded state pension liabilities (JEC 2011; JEC 2012).
In light of these criticisms and concerns about growing pension costs, 43 states enacted significant reforms to their pension systems between 2009 and 2011 (Snell 2012). The most common changes were: increased employee contribution requirements (30 states); raised age and service for eligibility (32); adjusted formulas for calculating benefits (17); and reduced cost of living increases (21). In some states the changes applied to new employees only, but in others they affected active workers and current retirees. The latter actions have proven especially controversial, prompting lawsuits in Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, and South Dakota.
Most of the heightened attention to government employee pensions has concentrated on state government plans, while local public employee pensions remain relatively unexplored. Although local plans represent a modest share of total public pension membership (10 percent) and assets (18 percent), their failures could be devastating. Mobile residents and businesses could flee communities that levy higher taxes to rebuild pension assets rather than to provide basic services. A shrinking tax base would leave the fund even worse off and potentially less able to pay promised benefits. The result could be more cities like Prichard, Alabama.
Looking at State and Local Pension Plans Together
State and local pensions are an important part of the nation’s retirement system. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the total of $15.3 trillion in retirement assets at the end of 2011 by type of plan. State and local public employee retirement funds held a combined $2.8 trillion in assets, or almost one-fifth of the total.
Every state has at least one public employee pension plan and some have many. There are more than 220 state plans—some of which are state-administered plans that cover local government workers—and almost 3,200 local government plans (table 1). Together these plans cover 14.7 million current workers, 8.2 million current beneficiaries, and 4.8 million people eligible for future benefits but not yet receiving them.
State and local pensions are all the more important because 27.5 percent of government employees do not participate in Social Security (Nuschler, Shelton, and Topoleski 2011). These uncovered public employees are highly concentrated in a handful of states. Figure 2 ranks the 16 states with the highest concentrations of government workers not covered by Social Security. Almost all state and local government employees in Ohio and Massachusetts and more than half in Nevada, Louisiana, Colorado, California, and Texas are not covered.
Another key feature of state and local pensions is that they are mostly defined benefit (DB) plans. Benefits are calculated by a formula, typically something like:
(Average salary in final 3 years) x
(Years of service) x
(2% for each year of service) =
Benefits
Most state and local government pensions also include a cost of living adjustment. A minority of public sector workers are enrolled in defined contribution (DC) plans where a specified amount is put in a retirement fund for each year of work. Compared to DC plans, DB pensions protect employees from investment, inflation, and longevity risks. As of 2009, nearly 80 percent of state and local workers were enrolled in DB plans and just over 20 percent were in DC plans. Private sector workers had the opposite mix: 20 percent in DB plans and 80 percent in DC plans (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011).
DB plans used to be more prevalent in the private sector but have been disappearing partly because the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) imposed minimum funding standards, required insurance contributions, and other administrative burdens on them.
The weaker funding and reporting requirements that apply to public pensions allow governments to shift labor costs into the future. This is an implicit form of borrowing that can evade balanced budget rules and avoid the voter approval usually required for issuing bonds.
Funding and Reporting Requirements for State and Local Pensions
For most of their history, state and local pensions were financed out of general revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis. The current practice of prefunding state and local pension plans began in the 1970s and 1980s. While public sector plans were not covered by ERISA, the act did mandate a report on their practices. The 1978 report found a “high degree of pension cost blindness . . . due to the lack of actuarial valuations, the use of unrealistic actuarial assumptions, and the general absence of actuarial standards” (Munnell et al. 2008, 2).
This wake-up call led to voluntary increases in funding levels by many plans and increased attention to actuarial and accounting standards. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) was formed in 1984, issued its first rules for pension plans in 1986, and extensively revised its actuarial valuation standards in 1994. Compliance with these rules is voluntary, but is rewarded by credit rating agencies, auditors, and other data consumers. Unlike ERISA rules that require specific valuation methods for all private plans, GASB sets out criteria that allow some latitude as to which specific methods are used by public plans. As a consequence there are serious transparency and comparability concerns with the self-reported data on state and local pension plan liabilities.
Employer Contribution
The calculation of a plan’s Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) requires the following information: ages and salary histories of members; assumptions for salary growth, retirement ages, asset earnings, and inflation; longevity probability tables; and a discount rate to translate estimated future values into present values. Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAA L) equals AAL minus plan assets.
The “Normal Cost” of a pension plan is the increase in AAL due to the current year of service by existing employees. ERISA requires that normal cost be covered by employee and employer contributions. GASB specifies an “Annual Required Contribution” (ARC) of normal cost plus a 30-year amortization of UAA L. The problem is that, contrary to its name, payment of ARC is not strictly required in most jurisdictions.
Choice of Discount Rate
The issue that has received the most recent attention is the choice of discount rate. Current GASB rules allow discounting future liabilities based on projected investment returns, which averaged 8 percent per year prior to the recession. But most economists and financial theorists would agree with Brown and Wilcox (2009, 538) that “the discount rate used to value future pension liabilities should reflect the riskiness of the liabilities,” not the assets. Constitutional and other legal guarantees make government pensions of low risk, while historical investment returns include a risk premium.
State and local governments cannot avoid longterm risks such as a protracted productivity slump or a decade-long down market. Therefore, the historical long-term rate of return on an equity-heavy portfolio–before risk adjustment–is too high a discount rate. Higher discount rates can make pensions appear better funded than they truly are. This reduces contribution requirements and imposes unwarranted obligations on future taxpayers if the high rates of return are not achieved. Worse, there is an incentive for plan managers to seek high-risk portfolios in order to get a higher discount rate and lower ARC.
There are strong arguments that the 8 percent discount rate used by many public pension plans is too high, but there is less agreement on just how much lower the appropriate rate should be. Rather than review the arguments, we report one estimate of just how much of an impact a lower rate would have. Munnell et al. (2012) calculate the would-be change in reported liabilities if all plans used a 5 percent rather than an 8 percent discount rate. They estimate that state and local liabilities would increase from $3.6 trillion to $5.4 trillion and aggregate funding ratios (Assets/AAL) would fall from 75 to only 50 percent. This is a huge change, and represents a doubling of unfunded liabilities (UAA L = AAL – Assets).
Recent Changes in GASB Standards
GASB (2012) has released new accounting standards to take effect in 2013 and 2014. The key change requires state and local governments to apply different discount rates to the funded and unfunded portions of liabilities. An earnings-based rate will still be applied to the funded portion, but a lower, riskless rate will be applied to UAA Ls. The impact of this change on reported liabilities depends on how well funded a plan is: no change for fully funded plans; a small change for well funded plans; and large increases in reported liabilities and decreases in funding ratios for poorly funded plans. The new standards also require that the UAA L be shown on the government’s balance sheet, which will increase the visibility of unfunded liabilities to voters.
What Do We Know About Local Pensions?
Despite mounting concerns about the fiscal health of local pension plans, systematic knowledge about them is rare. The best available information comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s (2012) Annual Survey of State and Local Public Employee Retirement Systems. Detailed data for each government entity is reported every five years. Plan-level data for a sample that includes roughly half of the 3,200 local plans is reported each year and is used to create estimates of totals for each state by type of government. Tables 1 and 2 exemplify the types of information in the survey.
The main virtues of the Census Bureau’s employee retirement survey are its quality and comprehensiveness. A key disadvantage is lack of timeliness, since the most recent local data available is for fiscal year 2010. Another problem is that the Bureau only recently began reporting plan liabilities, and it does so only for state plans. Like other pension data sources, the Census Bureau does not collect information on DC plans or other post-employment benefits (OPEBs).
Nevertheless, the employee retirement survey provides some insights into local pensions. For example, the number of local plans per state varies greatly: 7 states have no local plans; 20 states have fewer than 10; Florida and Illinois have over 300 each; and Pennsylvania has over 1,400. The number of active members per beneficiary is a crude measure of how well employee contributions can fund the plan. Table 1 indicates the national average for local plans is 1.4 workers per retiree, but there is considerable variation across states. This support ratio is less than 1 in 12 states; between 1 and 2 in 31 states; and over 2 in 7 states, with Utah having the highest ratio at 6.8.
Neither of these pieces of information tell us how well funded local pensions are. For this information, we must turn to independent surveys. Most have good coverage of state plans, but they generally survey only a few of the larger local plans: e.g., the National Association of State Retirement Administrators’ (NASRA ) annual survey of member plans. A small number of national studies have focused on local, as opposed to state, pension liabilities. For example, Novy-Marx and Rauh (2011) analyze local pension finances using data from Consolidated Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) for city and county plans holding more than $1 billion in assets as of 2006.
The Boston College Center for Retirement Research (CRR) maintains a Public Plans Database (PPD) for the largest state and local plans with data from individual plan actuarial reports and local government CAFRs. Using the PPD plus information on some additional local plans, CRR recently issued a report with data for 2010 from a sample of 97 plans in 40 states (Munnell et al. 2011). This is a modest sample relative to the total of 3,200 local plans, but by concentrating on large plans it covers 59 percent of local pension assets and 55 percent of participants.
An important finding is the wide dispersion around the average funding ratio of 77 percent in 2010 (figure 3). Of 95 large plans in the CRR sample with usable information, only 16 had assets covering more than 90 percent of liabilities. At the other tail are 9 plans with below 50 percent funding (Munnell et al. 2011). This study also shows the ARC as a percent of local government payroll. The overall average for 2010 is 22 percent, and again there is wide dispersion (figure 4). Of 91 large plans in the CRR sample with usable information, more than half (49) have ARC below 20 percent of payroll, but 16 have shares in the less manageable 30 to 80 percent range. Five plans have such large pension obligations that if paid in full they would cost more than 100 percent of payroll.
Keep in mind that local governments in most states are not required to pay the full amount of the ARC. We do not have data at the local level, but a state-level study reported wide variation in the percent of ARC actually paid across plans, across years, and across states (State Budget Crisis Task Force 2012). Munnell et al. (2011) calculate pension payments actually made as a share of local budgets and again find considerable variation, with 14 percent of the sample governments devoting more than 12 percent of their budgets to pay for pensions.
Conclusions
Local government pensions are on average significantly underfunded. The key reason is that, absent a legal compulsion to do so, many governments have not set aside enough funds each year to cover the extra pension liabilities incurred in that year, much less to amortize unfunded liabilities from earlier years. In effect, they are borrowing to pay for current labor services and shifting the burden to future taxpayers.
We know much less about the 3,200 locally administered plans that we do about the 220 state plans. The best information on local plans comes from researchers who review the detailed financial reports of the plans and local governments. Of necessity, these studies concentrate on the larger plans. We do know that there is wide variation across plans on key measures: the share of liabilities that are covered by assets; the would-be full contribution to cover both current year pension costs and amortization of unfunded liabilities (ARC) relative to payroll or annual revenues; the share of ARC that is actually paid; and the share of the current budget that goes to pension costs. A significant fraction of local governments are in trouble by one or more of these measures.
Worse, what we know about liabilities comes from municipalities’ self-reported data and their own choice of discount rate. In almost all cases this discount rate is inappropriately high, and the use of a lower discount could more than double unfunded liabilities. The result is a big problem with local pension liabilities that threatens local government finances, but we do not know how big, and we do not know how unequally it is distributed.
About the Authors
Richard F. Dye is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He is also a professor at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago, and professor of economics emeritus at Lake Forest College.
Tracy Gordon is a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Her research focuses on state and local public finance, political economy, and urban economics.
References
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2012. Flow of funds accounts of the United States, June 7. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/data.htm
Brown, Jeffrey R., and David W. Wilcox. 2009. Discounting state and local pension liabilities. American Economic Review 99(2): 538–542.
Gordon, Tracy M., Heather M. Rose, and Ilana Fischer. 2012. The state of local government pensions: A preliminary inquiry. Working Paper. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 2012. GASB Improves Pension Accounting and Reporting Standards. Press Release. June 25. http://www.gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?c=GASBContent_C&pagename=GASB/GASBContent_C/GASBNewsPage&cid=1176160126951
Joint Economic Committee (JEC). 2011. States of bankruptcy, part I: The coming state pensions crisis. Republican Staff Commentary, Washington, DC, December 8.
Joint Economic Committee (JEC). 2012. States of bankruptcy, part II: Eurozone, USA? Republican Staff Commentary, Washington, DC, May 15.
Munnell, Alicia H., Jean-Pierre Aubry, Josh Hurwitz, and Laura Quimby. 2011. An update on locally administered pension plans. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Policy Brief, July.
Munnell, Alicia H., Jean-Pierre Aubry, Josh Hurwitz, and Laura Quimby. 2012. The funding of state and local pensions: 2011–2015. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Policy Brief, May.
Munnell, Alicia H., Kelly Haverstick, Steven A. Sass, and Jean-Pierre Aubry. 2008. The miracle of funding by state and local pension plans. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Policy Brief, April.
Novy-Marx, Robert, and Joshua Rauh. 2011. The crisis in local government pensions in the United States. In Growing old: Paying for retirement and institutional money management after the financial crisis, Robert Litan and Richard Herring, eds., 47–74. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Nuschler, Dawn, Alison M. Shelton, and John J. Topoleski. 2011. Social Security: Mandatory coverage of new state and local government employees. Congressional Research Service, July. http://www.nasra.org/resources/CRS%202011%20Report.pdf
Snell, Ronald K. 2012. State pension reform, 2009–2011. Washington, DC: National Council of State Legislatures, March.
State Budget Crisis Task Force. 2012. Report of the State Budget Crisis Task Force. http://www.statebudgetcrisis.org/wpcms/wp-content/images/Report-of-the-State-Budget-Crisis-Task-Force-Full.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Employee benefits survey, retirement benefits: access, participation, and take-up rates. March.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. 2010 annual survey of state and local public employee retirement systems. http://www.census.gov/govs/retire
SHARE
Uno de los argumentos principales para justificar la tributación del valor del suelo es que no crea ningún incentivo para alterar el comportamiento con el objeto de evadir el pago del impuesto. En contraste, un impuesto sobre la propiedad convencional, que se grava sobre los edificios, puede frenar la intención de los propietarios de erigir estructuras en su terreno que de otra manera serían deseables. Por ejemplo, los propietarios pueden dejar un sótano sin terminar o no agregar un segundo baño, porque ello aumentaría su obligación tributaria. Por lo tanto, un impuesto sobre la propiedad convencional llevaría a relaciones de capital/suelo excesivamente bajas y un ‘carga excedente’, es decir un costo para los contribuyentes mayor que el mero pago monetario efectuado a las autoridades fiscales. Este artículo informa sobre un estudio reciente de carga excedente al antecesor británico del impuesto moderno sobre la propiedad: el impuesto sobre la ventana, del siglo XVII.
El caso del impuesto sobre la ventana
En 1696, el Rey Guillermo III de Inglaterra, en apremiante necesidad de recursos adicionales, introdujo un impuesto sobre la unidad de vivienda que gravaba la cantidad de ventanas de una morada. El impuesto fue diseñado como un impuesto sobre la propiedad, tal como se deduce del debate en la Cámara de los Comunes en 1850: “El impuesto sobre la ventana, cuando se lo concibió, no tenía intención de tributar una ventana sino una propiedad, ya que se consideraba que una casa era una estimación segura del valor de los bienes de una persona, y se suponía que la cantidad de ventanas era un buen índice del valor de la casa” (HCD, 9 de abril de 1850).
En su forma inicial, el impuesto consistió en una tasa única de 2 chelines por cada casa y un cargo adicional de 4 chelines sobre casas que tenían entre 10 y 20 ventanas, u 8 chelines sobre casas que tenían más de 20 ventanas. La estructura tarifaria se fue enmendando a lo largo de los años; en algunos casos, las tasas crecieron significativamente. En respuesta, los dueños de las moradas intentaron reducir sus facturas de impuestos tapando ventanas o construyendo casas con muy pocas ventanas. En algunas viviendas había pisos enteros sin ventanas, lo que causaba efectos adversos muy graves para la salud. En un caso, la falta de ventilación causó la muerte de 52 personas en el pueblo circundante, según el informe de un médico local que fue llamado a una casa ocupada por familias pobres:
“Para reducir el impuesto sobre la ventana, todas las ventanas de las que todavía podían prescindir los pobres habían sido clausuradas, y por lo tanto se eliminaron todas las fuentes de ventilación. El olor dentro de la casa era sobrecogedor y nauseabundo hasta un extremo insoportable. No había ninguna evidencia de que se hubiera importado la fiebre a esta casa, sino que más bien se propagó de la misma a otras partes del pueblo, y 52 moradores murieron” (Guthrie 1867).
La gente protestó y presentó numerosas peticiones ante el Parlamento. Pero a pesar de sus efectos perniciosos, el impuesto duró más de 150 años, hasta que fue finalmente revocado en 1851.
Para la mayor parte de las familias, el impuesto sobre la ventana representaba una suma sustancial. En Londres, oscilaba entre aproximadamente el 30 por ciento del valor de renta en “casas más pequeñas de la calle Baker” hasta el 40 al 50 por ciento en otras calles, según un debate en la Cámara de los Comunes de 1850 (HCD, 9 de abril de 1850). El impuesto era particularmente oneroso para familias pobres que vivían en conventillos, donde los tasadores tributaban el impuesto a los residentes en forma colectiva. Por lo tanto, si un edificio contenía 2 apartamentos, cada uno de ellos con 6 ventanas, el impuesto se cobraba sobre 12 ventanas. En contraste, en las casas muy grandes de los ricos, el impuesto normalmente no excedía del 5 por ciento del valor de renta.
La tasa de impuestos sufrió varios cambios importantes antes de ser finalmente revocada. En 1784, el Primer Ministro William Pitt aumentó las tasas tributarias para compensar la reducción del impuesto sobre el té. Después, en 1797, la Ley de Triple Tributo de Pitt triplicó la tasa tributaria para ayudar a financiar las guerras napoleónicas. Al día siguiente de esta nueva ley, los ciudadanos cubrieron miles de ventanas y escribieron con tiza en los espacios cubiertos: “Ilumina nuestra oscuridad, ¡te rogamos oh Pitt!” (HCD, 24 de febrero de 1848).
Inglaterra y Escocia estaban sujetas al impuesto sobre la ventana, pero Irlanda estaba exenta debido a su estado de pobreza. Un miembro del Parlamento bromeó: “Al abogar por la extensión del impuesto sobre la ventana a Irlanda, el honorable caballero parece haber olvidado que una ventana inglesa y una ventana irlandesa son cosas muy distintas. En Inglaterra, la ventana es para dejar que entre la luz; pero en Irlanda, la ventana se usa para dejar que se vaya el humo” (HCD, 5 de mayo de 1819).
El impuesto sobre la ventana, dicho sea de paso, era considerado una mejoría con respecto a su antecesor, el impuesto sobre el hogar. En 1662, Carlos II (después de la Restauración) impuso un tributo de 2 chelines sobre cada hogar y estufa en Inglaterra y Gales. El impuesto generó una gran indignación, sobre todo por el carácter entrometido del proceso de tasación. Los “chimeneros”, como llamaban a los tasadores y cobradores de impuestos, tenían que entrar en la casa para contar la cantidad de hogares y estufas. El impuesto sobre la ventana, en contraste, no exigía acceso al interior de la morada; los “mirones de ventanas” podían contar los vanos desde el exterior sin invadir la privacidad del hogar.
El impuesto sobre la ventana, sin embargo, creó algunos problemas administrativos propios, sobre todo con respecto a la definición de ventana con fines tributarios. La ley era vaga y frecuentemente no quedaba claro qué era una ventana para el cobro de impuestos. En 1848, por ejemplo, el profesor Scholefield de Cambridge pagó impuestos por un agujero en la pared de su depósito de carbón (HCD, 24 de febrero de 1848). El mismo año, el Sr. Gregory Gragoe de Westminster pagó impuesto por una trampilla de entrada a su sótano (HCD, 24 de febrero de 1848). Todavía tan tarde como en 1850, los contribuyentes urgían al Secretario del Tesoro que aclarara cuál era la definición de ventana.
Las tallas y sus efectos sobre el comportamiento
A lo largo de su historia, el impuesto sobre la ventana consistía en una serie de “tallas (notches)”. Se produce una “talla” en una estructura tributaria cuando un pequeño cambio de comportamiento, como el agregado de una ventana, provoca un gran cambio en la obligación tributaria.
Las tallas son poco comunes (Slemrod 2010) y no se deben confundir con las discontinuidades o “pliegues” (kinks), que son mucho más comunes, incluso en la actualidad. Una discontinuidad en la estructura tributaria se produce cuando un pequeño cambio de comportamiento lleva a un gran cambio en la tasa tributaria marginal, pero sólo un pequeño cambio en la obligación tributaria. El impuesto sobre los ingresos en los Estados Unidos, por ejemplo, tiene varias discontinuidades. Las parejas casadas con ingresos tributables de US$17.850 a US$72.500 están en el segmento tributario marginal del 15 por ciento; las parejas con ingresos tributarios de US$72.500 a US$146.400 están en el segmento tributario marginal del 25 por ciento. Si una pareja con ingresos de US$72.500 ganara un dólar más, su tasa tributaria marginal saltaría al 25 por ciento, pero su obligación tributaria sólo aumentaría 25 centavos.
Los registros de microfilm de datos tributarios locales en el Reino Unido entre 1747 y 1830 permiten examinar de manera más sistemática el impacto del impuesto sobre la cantidad de ventanas y las tallas. Este artículo utiliza el conjunto de datos de 1747 a 1757, con información de 493 moradas en Ludlow, un pueblo comercial en Shropshire, cerca del límite con Gales. En este período, la estructura del impuesto sobre la ventana contenía 3 tallas. Durante este período, un propietario:
Los propietarios que compraban una 10a ventana, por lo tanto, pagaban un impuesto de 6 peniques sobre la 10a ventana y también sobre las 9 ventanas restantes, que antes eran libres de impuestos. O sea, el impuesto total sobre la 10a ventana era de 60 peniques, equivalente a 5 chelines. Si el impuesto sobre la ventana distorsionara las decisiones tributarias y llevara a una carga excedente, podríamos esperar que muchas casas tuvieran 9, 14 ó 19 ventanas, pero muy pocas con 10, 15 ó 20. A continuación se ensaya esta hipótesis.
Durante la primera mitad del siglo XVIII, la administración del impuesto había sido problemática, ya que los propietarios frecuentemente camuflaban o cubrían las ventanas hasta que el cobrador de impuestos se había ido, o se aprovechaban de vacíos legales o ambigüedades en el código tributario. En consecuencia, la recaudación de impuestos fue mucho menor de lo esperado. En 1747, sin embargo, el Parlamento revisó el impuesto elevando las tasas e introduciendo medidas para mejorar su administración. En particular, prohibió la práctica de cubrir y luego reabrir ventanas para evadir el impuesto; los infractores tenían que pagar una multa de 20 chelines (1 libra) por cada ventana que reabrieran sin notificarlo al inspector de impuestos (Glantz 2008).
La ley de 1747 redujo la evasión tributaria significativamente, así que los datos para los 10 años subsiguientes deberían brindar una estimación razonable de la cantidad de ventanas de una morada. Si el impuesto sobre la ventana distorsionara el comportamiento, se podría esperar un pico en la cantidad de moradas al límite de la talla, con 9, 14 ó 19 ventanas. Y esto es precisamente lo que demuestran los datos. La figura 1 es un histograma que muestra la cantidad de ventanas por vivienda de la muestra. El patrón es claro: hay aumentos bruscos en la cantidad de casas con 9, 14 ó 20 ventanas:
Los ensayos estadísticos estándar rechazan la hipótesis de que hay una cantidad igual de casas con 8, 9 ó 10 ventanas; con 13, 14 ó 15 ventanas; o con 18, 19 ó 20 ventanas. Es obvio que la gente respondió al impuesto sobre la ventana quedándose en una de las tallas para reducir al mínimo su obligación tributaria.
Los datos de una muestra de 170 casas en el período de 1761 a 1765 explican la respuesta del público a las revisiones parlamentarias del impuesto en 1761. Además de un aumento de tasas, las revisiones de 1761 ampliaron la cobertura del impuesto a casas con 8 ó 9 ventanas. En las estructuras impositivas anteriores, las casas con menos de 10 ventanas no pagaban ningún impuesto sobre la ventana. Para esta segunda muestra, en la figura 2 se observa un pico pronunciado en 7 ventanas: el 28,2 por ciento de las casas tiene 7 ventanas, pero sólo el 5,2 por ciento tiene 6 ventanas y sólo el 2,9 por ciento tiene 8 ventanas. Una vez más, es fácil rechazar la hipótesis de que había una cantidad igual de casas con 6, 7 u 8 ventanas.
En resumen, la evidencia de nuestras dos muestras demuestra claramente que había una amplia tendencia a alterar el comportamiento para reducir el pago de impuestos. La gente decidía cuántas ventanas poner, no para satisfacer sus propias preferencias, sino para no tener que pagar impuestos más altos. El impuesto sobre la ventana, en pocas palabras, generaba una “carga excedente”.
¿Cuán grande fue la carga excedente del impuesto sobre la ventana?
Como ya explicamos, el impuesto sobre la ventana era sustancial e indujo a un comportamiento generalizado para evitar el impuesto. De acuerdo a algunas técnicas estándar de análisis económico, nuestro modelo de simulación genera una estimación de lo que la gente hubiera estado dispuesta a pagar por su cantidad deseada de ventanas. El modelo captura la demanda de cada consumidor por ventanas con y sin el impuesto, la cantidad de impuestos pagada y la pérdida de bienestar al ajustar la cantidad de ventanas como respuesta al impuesto.
En la muestra de 1747 a 1757, las pérdidas estimadas de bienestar fueron muy grandes para los hogares que estaban al límite de la talla. Para ellos, la pérdida de bienestar (es decir, la carga excedente) es del 62 por ciento de los impuestos que pagaron. O sea, por cada dólar recaudado bajo nuestra versión simulada del impuesto sobre la ventana, el tributo impuso una carga o costo adicional de 62 centavos sobre dichos hogares. No es de sorprender que la carga excedente es particularmente grande para los hogares que eligieron tener 9 ventanas Uno de los criterios utilizados por los economistas para evaluar un impuesto es la carga excedente relativa a los impuestos pagados. Utilizando este criterio, un buen impuesto es aquel que recauda ingresos significativos pero produce cambios muy pequeños en las decisiones de los contribuyentes. Los consumidores que compraron 9 ventanas están por lo tanto en el peor de los casos. Estos consumidores no pagaron ningún impuesto; para ellos, entonces, toda la carga tributaria es excedente.
Para nuestra muestra completa de 1.000 hogares simulados, la carga excedente como fracción de los impuestos pagados es de alrededor del 14 por ciento. Por lo tanto, por cada dólar recaudado por el impuesto sobre la ventana, nuestra simulación sugiere la existencia de un costo adicional de 14 centavos para los contribuyentes como resultado de la distorsión en sus decisiones.
Algunos comentarios para concluir
El impuesto sobre la ventana representa un caso muy claro y transparente de carga excedente: un tributo que impuso costos altos sobre los contribuyentes además de sus obligaciones tributarias, debido a los ajustes de comportamiento que deben realizar para evitar el impuesto. Pero, como se mencionó anteriormente, los impuestos modernos sobre la propiedad también crean una carga excedente, si bien las consecuencias son menos drásticas que en el caso del impuesto sobre la ventana.
Es importante considerar este tema al diseñar un sistema tributario. Lo ideal, en principio, sería un impuesto neutral que incremente los ingresos deseados pero no distorsione el comportamiento del contribuyente creando cargas adicionales. Dicho impuesto es un tributo puro sobre el valor del suelo, gravado sobre el valor del suelo de una propiedad, es decir su valor sin mejoras. Por lo tanto, el valor de tasación del suelo (y por lo tanto la obligación tributaria del propietario) es completamente independiente de las decisiones efectuadas por el propietario de la parcela. A diferencia del impuesto sobre la ventana, que brinda un ejemplo convincente de los costos adicionales que surgen cuando la obligación tributaria depende del comportamiento del dueño de la propiedad, un impuesto sobre el valor del suelo no crea ningún incentivo de comportamiento para evadir su pago.
Sobre los autores
Wallace E. Oates es profesor universitario distinguido de Economía, emérito, de la Universidad de Maryland, y fellow universitario en Resources for the Future.
Robert M. Schwab es profesor de Economía en la Universidad de Maryland.
Recursos
Binney, J. E. D. 1958. British Public Finance and Administration, 1774–92. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Blinder, Alan S., y Harvey S. Rosen. 1985. “Notches.” American Economic Review 78 (Septiembre): 736–747.
Dickens, Charles. 1850. Household Words. Vol. 1. London: Bradbury and Evans.
Douglas, Roy. 1999. Taxation in Britain since 1660. London: MacMillan.
Dowell, Stephen. 1884. A History of Taxation and Taxes in England from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Vols. 2 and 3. London: Frank Cass & Co.
Fielding, Henry. 1975. The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling. Wesley University Press.
George, M. Dorothy. 1926. London Life in the XVIIIth century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Glantz, Andrew E. 2008. “A Tax on Light and Air: Impact of the Window Duty on Tax Administration and Architecture.” Penn History Review 1696–1851 15 (2): 1–23.
Guthrie, Thomas. 1867. “How to Get Rid of an Enemy.” The Sunday Magazine.
HCD (House of Commons Debates). 5 mayo 1819. Vol. 40 cc 126–148. “Motion for the Repeal of the Window Tax in Ireland.”
HCD. 24 February 1848. Vol. 96 cc 1259–1297. “Lowest Classes Under Assessment.”
HCD. 9 April 1850. Vol. 110 cc 68–99. “Window Tax.”
Kennedy, William. 1913. English Taxation, 1640–1799. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd.
Marshall, Alfred. 1948. Principles of Economics, 8th edition. New York: Macmillan.
Neary, J. Peter, y Kevin S. W. Roberts. 1980. “The Theory of Household Behaviour under Rationing.” European Economic Review 13 (Enero): 25–42.
Sallee, James M., y Joel Slemrod. “Car Notches: Strategic Automaker Responses to Fuel Economy Policy,” NBER Working Paper #16604, 2010. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16604.pdf.
Sinclair, Sir John. 1804. The History of the Public Revenue of the British Empire. London: Strahan and Preston.
Slemrod, Joel. 2010. “Buenas Notches: Lines and Notches in Tax System Design.” Unpublished working paper. http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/jslemrod/pdf/Buenas%20Notches%20090210.pdf.
Smith, Adam. 1937. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House.
Walpole, Spencer. 1912. A History of England from the Conclusion of the Great War in 1815. Vol. 5. London: Longmans, Green, and Company.
Weitzman, Martin L. “Prices and Quantities.” Review of Economic Studies 41: 477–491.
