Land Taxation in Philadelphia:
A General Equilibrium Analysis
Mary Braun
[A University of Pennsylvania Research Paper, 2003.
Reprinted with permission by the author. The mathematical equations
contained in the original paper could not be reproduced in this format
and have been omitted. Additonally, Appendixes and References are
omitted from the original. Researches interested in the subject should
contact the author for a version of this paper in Microsoft Word]
Abstract
Although economists generally agree that land value taxation is
economically efficient, only a handful of U.S. municipalities have
ever implemented a land tax. The relative rarity of this type of
taxation makes it difficult to predict how land tax reform effects
local economies. Research on this type of taxation typically involves
examining the impact modest land tax reforms have had on small
Pennsylvania towns, or using general equilibrium modeling to examine
radical land tax reforms. This paper uses a small-open economy general
equilibrium model to estimate the nature and the magnitude of economic
change resulting from modest land tax reform. The model is calibrated
to resemble Philadelphia's current fiscal and economic climate. Two
different types of tax reform are examined, (1) Philadelphia's Real
Estate Tax is modified so that revenues generated by taxing property
structures equal revenues generated by taxing land, and (2) the tax
burden is shifted from the Wage Tax onto the Land Tax. The model found
that in Philadelphia, modest land tax reform resulted in significant
jobs creation and population growth. Thus, when compared to other
revenue alternatives, land value taxation can act as a strong economic
stimulant.
I am indebted to Robert Inman and Andrew Haughwout, without their
help, this paper would not have been possible. All errors and
oversights are my own.
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The Need for a Change in Philadelphia's Tax Structure
2.1 The City Controller's Tax Structure Analysis Report
- 3. What is Land Value axation
3.1 What do Critics Say about the Land Value Tax?
3.2 What do Proponents of Land Value Taxation Claim?
- 4. Empirical Research on Land Value Taxation in
Pennsylvania
- 5. General Equilibrium Modeling and Land Taxation
5.1 Open and Closed Case for Property Tax Reform (Tideman)
5.2 Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax
Reforms (Nechyba)
5.3 A General Equilibrium Analysis of Land Taxation in NYC
(Haughwout)
- 6. The Need for New Research Analyzing Policy Proposals in
Philadelphia
- 7. Modeling Philadelphia's Economy (Haughwout & Inman)
- 8. Model Modifications and Simulations
8.1 Modifying the Model
8.2 First Policy Proposal
8.3 Second Policy Proposal
- 9. Results
- 10. A Word of Caution
- 11. Conclusion
- 12. Appendixes
- 13. References
|
Introduction
Land is unique because, no matter how much you tax it, the supply
will never change. This makes it possible to levee a tax on land rents
without changing people's production decisions and stifling economic
progress. When compared to most other types of taxation, a land tax is
both more efficient and more equitable. Land taxation is more
equitable because it recaptures for society the portion of property
value that is derived from the community rather than from the property
owner's labor. Additionally, there are both theoretical and empirical
reasons to believe that replacing more distortionary taxes with a land
value tax would help stimulate the economy.
In Philadelphia, there is ongoing debate both among policy makers and
city residents about the relative merits of land value taxation. Much
of this debate was generated by a series of policy proposals laid out
in the City Controller's
Tax Structure Analysis Report. Because this type of taxation
is relatively unknown, and because most land tax municipalities in the
United States are quite small, there exists some uncertainty about the
ways in which the economy of a large city, like Philadelphia, would
respond to land tax reform. Although several general equilibrium
models have been used to examine the impact of dramatic land tax
reform, no research has been done which explores the consequences of
adopting a modest land tax reform, like the one proposed by the City
Controller. My research is designed to fill this void.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 establishes the fact
that, in Philadelphia, there is a great need for tax reform. This
section also contains a brief summary of the policy proposals put
forth in the City Controller's Tax Structure Analysis Report.
In Section 3 there is an in-depth analysis of land value taxation.
Section 4 provides an overview of empirical research done on land
value taxation in Pennsylvania. In section 5, three prominent general
equilibrium models used to analyze the impact of land value taxation
are discussed. Section 6 establishes the fact that there is a need for
new research explaining how a city like Philadelphia would be effected
by modest land tax reform. Section 7 contains an overview of Andrew
Haughwout and Robert Inman's general equilibrium model. A modified
version of their model is used in this paper to analyze the impact
land value taxation would make on Philadelphia's economy. Section 8
describes how the original model was modified and what simulations
were conducted. The results of these simulations are presented and
discussed in Section 9. Section 10 contains information about the
limitations of general equilibrium modeling and offers a word of
caution about interpreting the results.
2. The Need for a Change in Philadelphia's Tax Structure
Philadelphia reached its population peak in 1950 at 2.1 million and
since that time roughly a quarter of Philadelphia's population has
left the city. Since the 1950's the tax burden on those who remained
dramatically increased. This occurred because the wealthy and middle
class moved out of the city at a faster rate than the poor and because
the city's budget did not decreased as rapidly as the population did.
An increased demand for city services and a lack of fiscal discipline
on the part of elected city officials lead to increased per capita
city spending. Year after year as the tax base shrunk, local
politicians chose to hold constant and even increase taxes rather than
cut back on the levels of service provision. Philadelphia's taxes are
now the highest in the region. Figure 1 gives a breakdown of the tax
burden faced by the median household in different parts of the
Philadelphia metropolitan area.
Figure 1: Median Household Tax Burden in the Philadelphia
Region
This comparison of the tax burden faced by median households in the
region illustrates how much greater the tax burden currently is for
Philadelphia residents. Figure 1 also illustrates that the tax burden
for workers commuting into Philadelphia is greater than for people
living an working outside of Philadelphia. This adversely affects both
employees and employers. Businesses located in the city that wish to
remain competitive, must pay their employees more to compensate for
the tax burden they face as commuters.
In its January 2001 A Philadelphia Report Card, the Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that, "the city is near its
peak of revenue-generating capacity - that is, raising taxes shrinks
the city's economy and tax base so much that revenues will not rise
significantly."[1] This leaves elected city officials in a
difficult position; they cannot raise taxes and they cannot easily
reduce service levels, which would upset the municipal unions and
would likely cause more residents to flee to the suburbs in order to
find better schools and safer streets. Some experts, such as those at
the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, suggest that though it may
at first seem counterintuitive, the solution lies in cutting taxes. "While
lowering taxes will reduce the city's tax revenues it will increase
economic activity in the city. Thus, in the long run, the annual
revenues loss will be less than the initial loss in taxes."[2]
The City Controller takes a different approach and suggests that by
readjusting rather than reducing the tax burden, it will be possible
to stimulate the economy without causing a loss of revenue and
therefore a loss in services.
2.1 The City Controller's Tax Structure Analysis Report
Recognizing that a change in Philadelphia's economic climate is
necessary, the City Controller's Office created a comprehensive Tax
Structure Analysis Report. This report describes many of the economic
problems facing Philadelphia. It explains how recent tax cuts have
produced favorable results and proposes a series of key changes. The
City Controller's goal was to stimulate the economy through tax reform
without reducing aggregate revenues. By significantly reducing
business taxes and by shifting the tax burden to reduce the
Residential Wage Tax to encourage development, the Controller's Office
argues that it will be possible to stimulate the economy without
changing the city budget. Part of the Controller's plan involves
transforming the Real Estate Tax into a split-rate land value tax and
then shifting the tax burden from the Wage Tax onto the newly modified
Real Estate Tax. See Appendix A to read excerpts from the Tax
Structure Analysis Report related to land and wage tax reform.
The Controller's Office proposes taxing land at 3.44 times the rate
of structures so that half of the Real Estate Tax revenues come from
land and half from buildings. Currently, land only generates 22.5% of
the Real Estate Tax revenues even though it is taxed at the same rate
as structures. Initially the shift towards land value taxation would
be revenue neutral, meaning that, in the first year, revenues
generated by the higher tax on land and the lower tax on structures
would be sufficient to meet the current revenue projections for the
Real Estate Tax. Using property assessment data from the Board of
Revision of Taxes (BRT), the Controller's Office estimates that
approximately 78% of residential taxpayers would see their Real Estate
Taxes reduced with this shift, while approximately two thirds of those
whose taxes might increase would see increases of less that $100 per
year.[3]
The Controller's Office also proposes reducing the City Wage Tax to
4% and increasing the city's Real Estate Tax to create a budget
neutral first year shift. In this context, the term budget neutral
refers to the fact that aggregate revenues generated by the Wage Tax
and the Real Estate Tax would remain constant. After the proposed
shift, there would be sufficient revenues to meet the current combined
revenue projections for those taxes. In this scenario, the
Controller's Office predicts that, "only individuals whose homes
have a resale value of more than three times their annual household
income might see an increase in taxes."[4] This proposed shift
builds on the fact that land taxes distort people's economic
incentives less than other types of taxation. People can leave the
city but they cannot take their land with them. See Appendix B for a
brief discussion about Philadelphia's Wage Tax. This appendix contains
information about why, out of all the different typed of distortionary
taxes, the Controller's Office focuses on reducing the Wage Tax.
3. What is the Land Value Taxation?
The concept of land value taxation can be traced all the way back to
Adam Smith and the birth of modern economics. In the 19th century,
classical economist David Ricardo advanced land tax theory by studying
the existence and importance of land rents.[5] Ricardo noticed that
all of the earnings from poor quality land must be used to cover labor
and capital cost; yet, because it is more economically productive,
high quality land produces more than enough to cover these basic labor
and capital costs. Ricardo considers these extra earnings to be
economic rent. Ricardo's law of economic land rent is as follows: the
rent of land is determined by the excess of its product over that
which the same application can secure from the least productive land
in use.[6] Ricardo goes on to theorize that, as the population grows,
more poor land must be cultivated in order to meet the growing demand.
Thus the rent "earned" by good land increases. This
phenomenon (coupled with the fact that poor land necessitates
increased labor input to maintain minimal output) results in falling
profit levels for everyone except for the few lucky land owners who
prosper without themselves contributing to the productive process.
Ricardo claimed that since rents gobble up profits, and profits lead
to investment, which leads to growth, rising rent costs indirectly
hinder societal economic progress.
The late 19th century social philosopher Henry George built upon
Ricardo's theory, that land rents would absorb all of the fruits of
progress. Convinced that, "the association of poverty with
progress is the great enigma of our times," George sought to
unravel this riddle in his groundbreaking book,
Progress and Poverty. In this book, George eloquently
expresses his belief that poverty exists in America's rapidly growing
cities (in the midst of unprecedented prosperity and unparalleled
rates of growth) because owners of land and other "natural
opportunities," appropriate the benefits derived from other
people's capital and labor. To bring about greater economic justice
without stifling economic progress, George proposed that the
government adopt a "single tax" on land. George's argument
for land value taxation has two primary components, one ethical and
one relating to economic efficiency.
George believed that, because increases in land values are caused by
society rather than by land owners, land rents should be taxed away
for the good of society. To support his theory, George points out that
land or "site" value is not created by the actions of an
individual owner but by the community, acting in three capacities.
First, society provides the legal institutions of land ownership from
which the concept of land value springs. Land would be of little value
without the legal framework which assures land owners that their
investments won't be taken away from them without due compensation.
Second, the larger community is the provider of infrastructure and
amenities such as good schools, roads, and police protection, which
give land much of its value. Third, it is the community, in the shape
of the market, which causes local economies to grow and develop
directly affecting land values. At first it may appear as if the value
of land is only linked to the soil's fertility but without legal
protection, a network of roads upon which crops can be transported, or
markets in which to sell these crops, agricultural land becomes
infinitely less valuable. Thus, as scholar Dick Netzer claims, "the
ethical conclusion is than that the community, not the individual site
owners, should recoup the fruits of these economic activities."[7]
In addition to the ethical argument, George claims that there are
convincing economic reasons for implementing the single land tax;
namely that a tax on land rent it is the most efficient type of
taxation possible. Unlike other forms of taxation, a tax on land rents
does not stifle economic growth. In order to understand this claim it
is first important to understand that typically, under perfect
competition, economic rents only exist when a change in supply is not
possible. Because the supply of land is fixed, land rents can
accrue.[8] Although theoretically, any type of economic rents could be
taxed without distorting production decisions, in the long run it is
nearly impossible to tax excess wages or interest earned by capital.
When the market is working perfectly, the supply and price of capital
and labor continuously adjust until equilibrium is reached and no
excess economic wages or profits from interest rates remain. Thus, in
a perfectly functioning market, it is impossible to tax the rent on
capital and labor. Any tax on elastic goods (such as labor and
capital) will simply reduce the amount people are willing to consume
or produce. This stifles economic growth and leads to economic
inefficiencies.[9] In contrast, because the supply of land is fixed,
it is possible for land rents to accrue, allowing the land to be taxed
without distorting production decisions and leading to economic
inefficiency.[10]
Throughout the rest of our discussion it is important to note the
difference between property and land. Although these two terms are
commonly viewed as interchangeable, in this paper the term property
will be used to describe the combination of land and all structures on
the land. Hence, property rent is the combined return on land and
capital improvements. The term land value refers to the value of land
without improvements, the residual value after the values of other
assets that exist on the land are removed. Unlike land taxes, the
implementation of property taxes results in economic distortions
because people no longer have as good of an incentive to improve their
property and use it efficiently.
3.1 What do Critics Say About the Land Value Tax?
Leo Tolstoy once claimed that, "people do not argue with the
teachings of George, they simply do not know it
and it's
impossible to do otherwise with his teachings, for he who becomes
acquainted with it cannot but agree."[11] Most critics of the
land tax often question how practical it would be to implement such a
policy.
Some scholars, such as Dick Netzer, point out that the sudden
implementation of a new land value tax would unjustly victimize recent
buyers of land.[12] Netzer claims that (until the market had time to
adjust) a pure land tax could be confiscatory in its nature.[13] A
similar criticism is that voters and elected officials would likely be
sympathetic to any individuals who found themselves bankrupt as the
result of the new tax. These may be valid concerns, but as Steven B.
Cord argues, a gradual shift towards land value would give both
markets and people time to adjust and to begin putting land to its
best use.[14] Land owners who are not currently maximizing their
land's productive potential would have time to adjust and would be
able to prepare for a large tax increase. Though gradual
implementation delays potential benefits, land tax proponents such as
Walter Rybeck suggest that a full tax reform would arouse too much
political opposition to gain acceptance, thus a land tax should be
gradually adopted.[15] This can easily be achieved by gradually
increasing the land tax to structure tax ratio.
George and the original single tax supporters advocated replacing all
local, state, and federal taxes with a single tax on land rents.
Several prominent land tax critics claim that though a single tax may
have been possible at the turn of the century, when George first wrote
Progress and Poverty, such a tax is no longer feasible. Since
1933, persistent and reoccurring unemployment has produced pressure
for increased federal spending. This has caused government spending to
skyrocket. According to economist Arthur P. Becker, "government
intervention has grown to the point where the public sector now
comprises 35 percent of Gross National Product and 49 percent of
national income."[16] Thus, because the magnitude and focus of
U.S. government expenditures has greatly increased in the past 100
years, it is no longer possible to generate sufficient revenue from a
land tax to run the federal government. Other land tax critics argue
that because the trend of increasing government spending permeates all
levels of government, it is not even feasible to finance local
government expenditures with a single land tax. While this may be a
valid argument against single taxation, this criticism does not hold
when a two-rate land tax is implemented alongside other types of
taxes. Despite the fact that property taxes are currently a major
source of revenues for local jurisdictions,[17] many ardent advocates
of land value taxation seem to agree that, "with the commitments
of modern governments, land value taxation would, by itself, be hard
pressed to raise sufficient revenue to cover all spending demands."[18]
Rather than advocating for a single tax, most modern followers of
George envision a scenario in which land value taxation accounts for a
significant share of all local public sector revenue (10-20%).[19]
Perhaps the most frequent criticism of land value taxation is that an
accurate assessment of land values is impossible, or too costly, to
obtain. In theory, a tax that is levied on the value of land alone
does not cause any economic distortions, but in order to levy such a
tax, assessors must have the ability to estimate the value of land
separately from improvements. Jerome German, Dennis Robinson, and Joan
Youngman suggest that George's single tax argument is based on the
assumption that appraisers would always be well supplied with plenty
of nearby unimproved land, so that the improved land sites could be
valued easily by comparison.[20] Although this assumption made sense
in George's day, the American landscape has dramatically changed since
then. Now, data on the value of unimproved land can be difficult to
obtain because in urban areas most parcels of land have already been
improved.[21]
Virtually everyone on both sides of the land tax debate agrees that "the
single greatest challenge to any type of land value taxation system is
accurate valuation of land on a large scale."[22] Skepticism
about the feasibility of urban land valuation has historically proven
to be a major stumbling block to serious consideration of two-rate
property taxes. However, recent advances in computerized property
assessment tools have important implications for this debate.
Assessors now have access to a vast array of sophisticated techniques
that would enable them to accurately determine the value of urban
land. For a detailed description of the most common land assessment
techniques see Appendix C. More then twenty years ago, Oliver Oldman
of Harvard Law School wrote, "the key to developing an accurate
land value assessment role is the process of land value mapping."[23]
New computerized methods of spatial data analysis make this type of
mapping possible and make it difficult to reject land value taxation
on the grounds that accurate land valuation is not possible.
3.2 What do Proponents of Land Value Taxation Claim?
Most scholars agree that the majority of the benefits associated with
land value taxation accrue because land is fixed both in supply and
location. Arlo Woolery, points out that one of the strongest arguments
for a land-based tax is its relative stability. Woolery claims that
since land, unlike other forms of wealth, is fixed in its location, it
makes an ideal tax base.[24] Similarly, Andrew Reschovsky suggests
that revenues from land value taxation would be more stable over the
course of the business cycle than either a tax on income or
consumption (although he conditions his statement by claiming that
there is a need for more research on the topic).[25] Often government
deficits arise because while government spending is relatively fixed
in the short term, tax revenues fluctuate with the business cycle. Any
method of taxation that promises a relatively constant revenue stream
would have obvious benefits.
Advocates of the land value tax argue that land value taxation
results in increased societal economic prosperity by encouraging
landowners to maximize the productive potential of their land. Working
from the assumption that people own productive sites and capital
assets because of the return they yield, Georgian theorists claimed
that the most efficient economic climate occurs when land owners seek
the use of their assets that yields the greatest return available.
Thus, when every parcel of land is already being put to its highest
and best use, within the legal limits imposed by zoning regulation,
the land tax is neutral and does not affect production decisions.
However, if speculators are holding large amounts of land fallow and
off of the market, scholars argue that a land tax would increase
productivity by encouraging speculators to use their land more
productively. Because, as Becker claims, "high speculative land
values lower profitable investment opportunities and lead to
unemployment," thus any system that discourages speculation would
increase economic productivity.[26]
Economists and policy makers have long assumed that, even if land
value taxation is not allocatively neutral, because of existing
inefficiencies in land use, it is more efficient than other existing
forms of taxation. In the past twenty years, several scholars have
demonstrated that a tax on land value is non-neutral,[27] but Duck-Ho
Lim suggests that because the land tax is still more efficient than
other forms of taxation, any such findings are of little practical
significance.[28] Using a two period model, Lim proves that while a
land value tax may be distortionary, its economic impact is
significantly less than the impact caused by a wage tax of equivalent
yield. Lim's findings reinforce what other scholars have long argued:
namely that, in order to alleviate poverty and stimulate progress, the
introduction of a land value tax must be commensurate with sharply
reduced taxes on earnings and other economic endeavors.[29] Analyzing
the tradeoff between a tax on land rents and a tax on capital income,
Thomas J. Nechyba, demonstrated that land taxes are significantly more
efficient than capital taxes.[30] Similarly, in a purely theoretical
paper, Mitch Kunce proves that when local jurisdictions are allowed to
tax land as well as two distinct types of capital, the most efficient
choice will always be a pure land tax.[31]
Not only do proponents of the land tax claim that it is an
economically efficient form of taxation, they argue that it is an
incredibly powerful urban planning tool. George predicted that, "if
land were taxed to anything near its rental value, no one could afford
to hold land that he was not using."[32] By penalizing random,
unplanned withholding of land from more extensive development, land
value taxation could theoretically reduce land speculation and promote
increased urban density. Because a pure land tax would result in lower
taxes in decaying areas and higher taxes in rapidly growing areas,
land taxes could help cover the cost of new development and could
channel development back into the largely abandoned urban core. Jeff
Wuensch, Frank Kelly, and Thomas Hamilton claim that, "if true
land values have fallen to very low levels, as they do in 'urban decay
settings,' a moderate stimulus to redevelopment should emerge, given
that the costs of demolition are not too high and potential profits
can become sufficiently large."[33] Thus, when properly
implemented, a land value tax would promote urban renewal in the city
core.
4. Empirical Research on Land Value Taxation in Pennsylvania
In the Unites States, most municipalities collect some form of
property tax, yet a few of these municipalities have a pure, gradated,
or two-rate land tax. This makes empirical analysis of land value
taxation difficult. As a result, the bulk of all empirical research
has focused on a handful of cities in Pennsylvania. Because it is the
only state that allows all of its first, second, and third class
cities to tax land and structures at different rates, the overwhelming
majority of land tax municipalities are in Pennsylvania. A host of
research has been done on these municipalities to determine whether
land value taxation significantly impacts the economy. In all of the
Pennsylvania studies, researchers use the value of new construction as
a proxy for economic growth.
Three separate empirical studies found little direct connection
between land taxation and economic growth in Pennsylvania. In the late
1970's, when only three cities had adopted two-rate taxes, Mathis and
Zech undertook a cross-sectional analyses of 27 Pennsylvania cities;
they were unable to detect a statistically significant correlation
between construction activity and the structure to land tax ratio.[35]
In a more comprehensive study using fourteen years worth of data from
53 different Pennsylvania cities Tideman and Johnson found no
statistically significant correlation between new construction and
structure to land tax ratios.[36] However, these authors speculated
that limitations in both the data and the econometric techniques used
in this analysis could have an obfuscating effect. Performing separate
time series analysis for three Pennsylvania cites that had previously
adopted two-rate taxes, Bourassa was equally unable to show any
connection between land tax rate and new construction.[37]
In all three aforementioned studies, estimated coefficients capturing
the effect of a change in the tax regime had strikingly large standard
errors. The resulting lack of statistical significance can be
attributed to insufficient data, poor choice of proxy measurements,
and data that is already biased against finding a tax effect. Because
two-rate taxes were primarily adopted by small municipalities in
severe economic distress, and because in these municipalities school
real estate taxes were not reformed, tax relief might not have created
a sufficiently incentive to overcome economic depression. Furthermore,
because the existing capital stock in many of Pennsylvania's older
towns exceed the residents' needs, it is unlikely that researchers
using the value of new construction as a proxy for economic growth
would be able to fully capture the effect of any tax reform.
Additionally, according to Plassmann and Tideman, inconsistencies in
the data make the traditional econometric methods of analysis used in
previous studies unreliable.[38] In any given year many of these
municipalities did not experience any new construction, which skewed
the calculation of the mean and median number and monetary value of
new construction permits. In their mathematically sophisticated model,
Plassmann and Tideman estimate key parameters with a Markov chain
Monte Carlo method, the Gibbs sampler, to correct for the this
irregularity in the data. After comparing 15 land tax municipalities
with 204 similar Pennsylvania municipalities, over a period of 22
years, their research shows that two-rate and land tax cities do
indeed experienced significantly higher levels of construction.
In addition to the comparative research done in Pennsylvania
municipalities, a large body of research focuses specifically on
two-rate taxation Pittsburgh.[39] In 1914, Pittsburgh became the first
large city in the Unites States to implement any sort of land value
tax. Initially Pittsburgh taxed land at twice the rate as buildings.
The 2:1 ratio was adopted for political rather than theoretical
reasons. At the time, because the majority of local government
revenues were generated by property taxes, this was considered to be a
significant tax reform policy. In 1979, as part of a wide sweeping
urban revival project, Pittsburgh restructured its property tax system
by raising the rate on land to more than five times the rate on
structures. During the 1980's, Pittsburgh bucked the trend of steady
decline set by similar rust-belt cities and experienced a dramatic
boom in new building construction. An empirical analysis, conducted by
Oates and Schwab, found that an increased reliance on land taxation
was not a direct cause of Pittsburgh's dramatic economic revival. In
their regression analysis, Oates and Schwab found that the coefficient
for the dummy variable representing the change in tax regime was not
statistically significant. They claim that this is inline with
economic theory, which holds that a tax on land rents should be
neutral and will not impact people's decisions. However, the
researchers argue that just because this tax is "neutral"
does not mean that the tax played no part in Pittsburgh's revival.
Oates and Schwab argue that land value taxation, "played an
important supporting role by enabling the city to avoid rate increases
in other taxes which would have impeded development."[40] A land
tax allowed the city to provide more public services, which attracts
people to the city, without imposing a tax which dampens economic
growth. These authors also suggest that, because the role of land
value taxation is best understood in terms of the revenue
alternatives, "the interesting and the relevant issue here is the
response of the Pittsburgh economy to such an alternative tax."[41]
The results from these empirical studies are somewhat inconclusive.
Three early studies executed with various degrees of complexity failed
to find any link between economic activity, measured as a change in
the total number and value of new construction permits. However recent
research indicated that there might indeed be a connection. It is
simply difficult to find without sophisticated econometric techniques.
Oats and Schwab offer an eloquent explanation as to why the connection
between new construction and land taxation should be difficult (or
even impossible) to identify. They suggest that to truly understand
the impact land taxation can have on an economy, it is necessary to
study land taxation in terms of its revenue alternatives.
5. General Equilibrium Modeling and Land Taxation
A general equilibrium model examines how changes in one market affect
all other markets. Increasingly sophisticated and complex modeling
techniques have allowed researchers to thoroughly analyze the economic
effects of different fiscal policy proposals. This makes it possible
to understand how different types of taxes impact different aspects of
the economy. Although a rich literature exists on this type of
modeling, few researchers have used these methods to directly study
land value taxation; Tideman, Nechyba, and Andrew Haughwout have all
recently presented or published papers that use equilibrium modeling
techniques to understand the impact of a shift to land taxation.
5.1. Open and Closed Case for Property Tax Reform (Tideman)[42]
Although Tideman is interested in the economic impact of replacing
local property taxes with a land tax, his dynamic general equilibrium
model is calibrated using national data. Tideman rationalizes this by
pointing out that economic behavior depends on all taxes which a
person is subject to and that the best data is available only for the
national economy. As such, he argues that even though the model uses
national data it should, "be considered an expansion of a model
of a city, by a scale factor that does not affect the question of
interest."[43]
Tideman's fairly straightforward model involves three factors of
production (land, labor, and capital) as well as a parameter capturing
technological advances over time. Unlike most general equilibrium
models, which assume that the amount of land available in the economy
never changes, Tideman's model attempts to capture the effect of land
speculation. The percentage of economically available land is given by
T = e?(1-n) where n is the percentage of land rent that is collected
by the property tax and ? is chosen to yield an estimate of land
efficiency under the existing tax regime. The model analyzes the labor
and investment decisions of one infinitely lived representative
household that, following a linear approximation of U.S. population
growth, expands over time. Although a constant portion of the
household is employed, the model contains a parameter capturing
labor-leisure decisions. Household utility is a symmetric CSE function
based upon: private goods per worker, public goods per worker, and
leisure per worker.
What makes Tideman's research particularly interesting is the fact
that he conducts separate model simulations for both closed and open
economies. In the closed model, the quantity of capital that is used
in any year is the amount that the household has accumulated in
maximizing its intertemporal utility function. In the open model, the
quantity of capital that is used in any year is the amount that earns
an after tax return equal to what the after tax return on capital
would have been that year without tax reform. Tax reform would mirror
that of a closed economy, if taxes were simultaneously reformed all
over the country (or at least throughout out one large region).
However, if tax reform only occurred in a single locality, an open
economy model would be more suitable.
According to the model, eliminating the structural component of the
property tax and increasing the tax on land, in a revenue neutral
manner, would significantly enhance real per capita income. In a
closed economy, tax reform causes per capita income to grow between
$650 and $2,000 per year. In an open economy, real income grows by
approximately $500 per worker per year. Significantly larger wages do
not lead to an increase in real per capita income; in the short term
wages rise by 1% to 2% and in the long they rise by 2.75%. Real income
grows because, in a closed economy, property tax reform leads to
significantly larger returns to capital (5% per year for the first 20
years), and because, in both open and closed economies, people have an
increased incentive to invest. Increased investment causes capital
stock in a closed economy to grow by 100% and capital stock in an open
economy to grow by 130%.
5.2 Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reforms
(Nechyba)[44]
Nechyba, building on Jan Brueckner's property tax analysis,[45]
created a general equilibrium model of an economy that produces output
using capital, land and labor as inputs. He uses this model to predict
how the economy would respond if different types of distortionary
taxes were replaced (in a revenue neutral manner at the state level)
with a tax on land. Nechyba conducted this analysis for all 50 states
and one "typical" state. When developing state specific tax
rates for the individual factors of production (capital, land, and
labor) Nechyba was forced to make a series of simplifying assumptions.
Specifically, he assumed that the property tax is a tax on land as
well as all forms of capital; the corporate income tax is a tax solely
on capital; and the personal income tax, the sales tax, and all "other"
taxes are born by all forms of income. After developing a series of
state specific models, Nechyba preformed policy simulations to
identify which types of tax reforms are likely to be economically and
politically successful. Under plausible yet conservative assumptions
about the elasticity of substitution between capital and land as well
as the supply elasticities for capital and labor, Nechyba found that
large tax reforms replacing entire classes of distortionary taxes with
land taxes are feasible in virtually all states.[46] One of the
Nechyba's more intriguing findings is that a tax on land could
actually increases the value of that land. Typically, experts in local
finance agree that property taxes, consisting of a tax on land and a
tax on capital, are quickly and completely capitalized into the price
of the land.[47] Nechyba concedes that because it reduces the
discounted present value of land rents, when considered in isolation,
a tax on land should reduce land prices. However, in his model,
Nechyba considers land taxation to be part of a revenue-natural tax
reform in which land taxes replace other classes of taxes. Because
these other classes of taxes are distortionary, eliminating them
stimulates the economy and indirectly increases land values.
Furthermore, a land tax that replaces capital taxes increases the
intensity of capital usage, which in turn raises land prices (because
the land is now more desirable). Thus, when capital/building taxes are
lowered, construction of an office building becomes more profitable
and investors are willing to pay a higher price for the land upon
which the office building is being constructed.
5.3. General Equilibrium Analysis of Land Taxation in NYC
(Haughwout)[48]
By modifying the computable general equilibrium model of a small open
economy originally presented by Haughwout and Inman in 2001, Haughwout
is able to examine the impact land tax reform in New York City.[49]
Readers interested in a detailed overview of the original Haughwout
and Inman model are referred to section 7 of this paper. For
Haughwout, conducting research on land value taxation in New York City
required several different steps. First, it was necessary to calibrate
the original model using fiscal, economic, and demographic data from
New York City. This made it possible for Haughwout to conduct two
different model simulations calculating the economic impact created by
replacing part or all of New York City's current tax system with a
land tax. Haughwout also modified the original model by stipulating
that the all purpose public good "G" might not be a pure
public good. By definition, pure public goods are "non-rivalrous"
in consumption; there is no congestion and the marginal cost of
providing the good to an additional person is zero. This may be true
for some traditional public goods, such as street lights, but at the
local level many publicly funded programs are subject to a degree of
congestibility. For example, after a threshold level has been
surpassed, the addition of another child to a classroom becomes
noticeable as the quality of education provided to all students is
diminished.
Haughwout's first simulation looked at what might happen if the land
portion of the property tax remained unchanged while all sales,
capital, and income tax rates were eliminated. Although the removal of
these distortionary taxes would make New York City a more attractive
place to live and work, Haughwout found that a reduction in the tax
rates reduced government revenues and public good provision. This
reduction in public good provision decreased the relative
attractiveness of living and working in the city, effectively negating
some of the benefits caused by the removal of distortionary taxes.
Haughwout's second simulation increased the land portion of the
property tax so that if all sales, capital, and income tax were
eliminated, the aggregate tax revenue would remain at its pre-tax
reform equilibrium level. Originally land was taxed at a rate of
2.83%, but in order to conduct the prescribed tax reform in a revenue
neutral manner, the rate on land would increase to 21.7%.
One interesting feature of Haughwout's second simulation is that,
when the size of the public sector is constrained, this type of land
tax reform would cause land values to fall. The model predicts that,
under these specific conditions, the removal of distortionary taxes
would actually make the city less attractive as a place to live and do
business.[50] A possible explanation as to why land prices fell in the
second model simulation has to do with the fact that the tax shift
dramatically increased the number of city residents and workers. At
this new city size it may not be efficient to provide services to
everyone in the city. This problem would be even worse if the large
public sector was financed with distortionary taxes.[51] This
explanation is partially supported by the fact that when Haughwout
conducted further test simulations, the net effect of a reduction of
the land tax rate (and public service provision) actually increased
land values.
6. The Need for New Research Analyzing Policy Proposals in
Philadelphia
The existing body of empirical and general equilibrium research done
on land value taxation provides a good base from which to broadly
speculate about the impact that a land value tax would have in
Philadelphia. However, this research does not lend itself well to
analyzing the effect that the City Controller's land tax proposal
would have on Philadelphia's economy.
All of the empirical research done on land taxation in Pennsylvania
municipalities relies on time series data. Because land tax reform has
not yet been implemented in Philadelphia there is no time series data
on which to draw. This makes a isolated, forward-looking Philadelphia
analysis quite complicated. Furthermore, because Pittsburgh is the
only large city to have implemented a land tax, it is not clear that
conclusions drawn from the majority of these studies should be
directly extended to a city as large as Philadelphia. These studies
can generally indicate how Philadelphia might be impacted, but they
cannot provide a detailed understanding of how such a tax reform would
effect the city's economy.
Although the three general equilibrium models provide a better
framework from which to analyze the effect of a proposed land tax
reform in Philadelphia, to some extent their findings are inconclusive
and inapplicable. Part of the discrepancy among these three
researchers' results has to do with the fact that they all modeled
different types of economies: Tideman examined the effect of revenue
neutral property tax reform on both open and closed economies, Nechyba
looked at how revenue neutral replacement of different classes of
distortionary taxes would impact large non-open economies, and
Haughwout studied the effect that replacing all distortionary taxes
with a land tax (both in a revenue neutral and non-neutral manner)
would have on a small open economy.[52] Although it might seem as if
Tideman's work on open and closed economies could be used to easily
link the work done by Nechyba and Haughwout, this is not entirely
true. Tideman's study nicely complements existing general equilibrium
research, but his model is quite different from the other two models
described in this paper. Although Tideman looks at factors largely
ignored by Nechyba and Haughwout (such as labor-leisure decisions and
the incidence of land speculation), Tideman's model does not provide a
mechanism for measuring how tax reform would effect property values.
This is a crucial component of the other two models. Furthermore,
while the Nechyba and Haughwout's models are static, Tideman's model
is dynamic and looks at the yearly equilibrium effect of tax
reform.[53]
Another source of discrepancy between these models stems from the
fact that they all look at different types of land tax reform: Tideman
transformed traditional property taxes into land value taxes by
removing the tax on structures and improvements, Nechyba replaced
entire classes of distortionary taxes with land taxes, and Haughwout
eliminated all taxes except for the tax on land. Despite the fact that
they look at different types of land tax reform, in each of the models
at least one entire type of tax is eliminated and replaced with a tax
on land. All three models could have been set up to examine the effect
of a more modest tax reform. However, these researchers all chose to
publish the results of dramatic tax reforms. This not only allowed
them to remain fairly true to George's original vision of a single tax
on land rents, it also allowed them to illustrate what would happen in
the best (or worst, depending on your personal view of land taxation)
case scenario.[54] However, by focusing on the impact of dramatic tax
reforms, these researchers worked outside of the realm of political
reality. It is true that Nechyba and Haughwout discuss the political
feasibility of their proposed tax reform (by examining the likely
impact on land values and thus on land owners), but they never take
account of the fact that public policy proposals always reflect a
political compromise. Proposed tax reforms, such as the ones studied
by these researchers, would likely face staunch political opposition.
Not only are these extreme tax reform packages politically
unrealistic, but from an econometrician's perspective, the results
from such model simulations are only marginally reliable. All three of
the discussed general equilibrium models are very sensitive to
elasticity estimates and to assumptions made about the relative
importance of land capital consumption.[55] Elasticity estimates play
a central role in determining the equilibrium effect of policy
proposals, yet relatively little is known about them. Typically,
aggregate elasticity estimates are formulated by looking at large
amounts of historical data. If the economic climate of a city were to
be suddenly altered by the introduction of a new and dramatic type of
tax reform, it would be difficult to predict how the elasticities of
supply and demand might change. Similarly, if such a drastic tax
policy were introduced, existing ratios relating to personal
consumption and firm production might no longer be accurate. This is
not to discredit the structure of these models, but simply to say that
the less policy proposals differ from the status quo, the more
reliable equilibrium estimates will be.
After identifying why none of the existing empirical or equilibrium
research should be used to evaluate the impact of the Philadelphia
City Controller's land tax proposal, it is necessary to identify what
type of research would be the most appropriate. Because the
Controller's policy proposal would only be implemented within city
limits, it makes sense to use small open economy model. Ideally, this
model should be calibrated to Philadelphia's fiscal, economic, and
demographic conditions. In order to replicate the Controller's
proposal, land tax reform would have to be limited in its scope and
all simulations would have to be conducted in a revenue neutral
manner.
7. Modeling Philadelphia's Economy (Haughwout and Inman)[56]
In this paper, rather than creating an entirely new general
equilibrium model, a modified version of Haughwout and Inman's open
city model is used to analyze the effect that land value taxation
would have on Philadelphia's economy. The following section contains
an overview of the model's structure and important features.
The Model:
The model is of a small open economy with mobile firms, resident
workers, and commuters (who work in the city while consuming housing
and other goods outside of the city).[57] In the model, there is a
fixed supply of land and an exogenously determined number of
non-working, non-mobile, dependent residents. All factors of
production (except land) must meet certain criteria in order to remain
located in the city: capital must earn its competitive rate of return,
firms must be able to sell the goods they produce in the city at
competitive world prices, labor working within the city, but living in
the suburbs, must earn a competitive after-tax wage, and residents
living and working in the city must maintain an overall level of
utility comparable to that outside of the city. Equilibrium is
achieved in this open city model when no mobile firm, resident, or
commuter has an incentive to change its location, residence, or job.
For each combination of different fiscal polices, a unique equilibrium
is reached. When evaluating tax reform policies it is necessary to
find and contrast the initial equilibrium outcome with the equilibrium
outcome created after implementing the tax reform. The model consists
of 15 exogenous parameters and 18 endogenous variables. See Appendix D
for a complete list of these parameters and variables.
Commuting Workers:
In addition to hiring resident workers, firms employ commuting
workers. In this model commuters have been classified as "managers"
which mirrors the existing pattern of labor location in the United
States. However, the model is sufficiently general to allow managers
to live within the city and workers to commute from the suburbs, as
they do in other parts of the world. Commuters consume private goods,
housing, and land outside of the city; it is assumed that they
purchase these goods at competitive and constant world prices.
Although commuters work in the city, they have the option of working
in a suburban location. Thus, in order to retain and attract
commuters, not only must city firms pay a wage equal to the commuter's
suburban wage, but these firms must also compensate commuters for all
disamenities of working within the city (such as an additional tax the
city might levy on a commuter's labor income). It is assumed that
there is an infinite supply suburban residents who would become
commuters if they were adequately compensated.
In Philadelphia many skilled workers (such as professors, physicians,
and technical staff) live in the suburbs and commute into the city
because, for them, no regional suburban employment alternatives exist.
Although the argument could be made that the model is flawed because
these workers do not get compensated for working in the city, it is
important to remember that the model assumes perfect mobility of
labor. Thus, even though there may not be another school like the
University of Pennsylvania in greater Philadelphia region, if a Penn
professor felt that he was not adequately being compensated for having
to work in the city he would be free to leave the region and seek
employment at another ivy league institution.
Solving the Model:
All of the model's 18 exogenous characteristics, along with the
parameterized household preference and firm production technologies,
are used to derive the 15 endogenous variables and find an equilibrium
solution. By adjusting these exogenous variables it is possible to
calibrate the model so that it mirrors the economic, fiscal, and
demographic composition of any city in the United States. See Appendix
E for a complete list of exogenous variables and parameters. The model
is solved iteratively using a starting value of G (=G(0)). This yields
a set of private market outcomes which in tern yields a new
equilibrium level of public services. This process is repeated until
the model converges and G(t-1) = G(t) = G. Equilibrium exists within
the model when no mobile firm, resident household, or commuter has an
incentive to change their location, residence, or job.
8. Model Modifications and Simulations
Modifying the original Haughwout and Inman model and running
simulations to answer the research questions set forth at the
beginning of this paper involved three distinct steps. First, it was
necessary to modify the structure of the original model and to
calibrate the reformed model to Philadelphia's economic, fiscal, and
demographic environment. Next, a series of simulations were conducted
to evaluated two distinct policy proposals. Although these policy
proposals closely resemble the ones made by the Philadelphia
Controller's Office, due to the constraints of the model, some
adjustments were necessary.
Both of the policy proposals examined in this paper involve adjusting
tax rates in a revenue neutral manner. By revenue neutral the
Philadelphia Controller's Office means that the revenues generated by
a select group of taxes will be sufficient to meet the current
budgeted revenue projection for those same taxes.[68] General
equilibrium modeling makes it possible to more comprehensively define
revenue neutrality. The model makes it possible to predict how
changing the rate for any one type of tax would alter the tax base
(and thus the revenues collected) for each type of tax. Therefore, in
these simulations, the term revenue neutrality is applied to all taxes
(net government revenues are equal before and after tax reform).
By linking revenue neutrality to current budget projections, the
Controller's Office implicitly assumes that total government
expenditures will remain constant. In this situation household utility
derived from government spending would remain constant if: (1)
changing the city's tax structure did not alter city demographics, (2)
and/or if the all-purpose government produced public good were a pure
public good. However, the modified version of the model assumes full
congestion of public service provision. Thus, household utility
derived from constrained government expenditures would only remain
constant if the city's population remained constant. Because total
city population is endogenously defined, in the model, tax reform
could lead to changes in the city's total population. Therefore, in
order to isolate the true economic impact caused by a tax reform
policy, revenue neutrality must be defined as constant household
government spending (average household tax revenue collection). If
household government spending was not held constant in the face of a
changing city population, it would be impossible to determine if the
city's relative economic "attractiveness" changed because
the tax structure changed or because the level of public service
provision per household changed.
Once the model was properly calibrated a simulation was run in order
to determine the equilibrium baseline residential wage (W), rental
rate of land (R), total city population (N+ D), total number of jobs
(N+M), the value of capital used by firms (K), and the value of the
city's housing stock (H).
8.3 The Second Policy Proposal
The second part of the Controller's proposed land tax reform involves
shifting the tax burden from the Residential Wage Tax onto the Land
Tax. See Appendix B for more information about Philadelphia's Wage
Tax. Rather than running one simulation to examine the effect of the
Controller's proposed 11.86% resident wage tax reduction, five
different simulations were run to identify what would happen if
Philadelphia's Residential and Non-residential Wages Taxes are reduced
by 10%, 20%, 50%, 90%, and 100%.[69] The decision not to strictly
model the Controller's proposal was made because compelling research
indicates that, like the Resident Wage Tax, the Non-Resident Wage Tax
adversely affects job creation and economic growth in
Philadelphia.[70]
9. Results
When general equilibrium modeling is used to analyze a specific
policy proposal, the equilibrium results should be viewed as a crude
indication of the nature and magnitude of any economic change
resulting from the policy's implementation. To reinforce the fact that
the results generated by equilibrium models are not precise numerical
projections, all results in this paper are presented as proportion
changes from an established baseline.
These results indicate that the city's current property tax depresses
land values and stifles economic growth. Reforming the property tax by
decreasing the tax on structures and increasing the tax on land would
stimulate Philadelphia's economy. This stimulation would increase
total city employment, increase the city's population, increase the
amount of capital (both housing and productive) investment in the
city, and increase property values. All economic indicators, except
for residential wage, would be dramatically increased if this tax
policy were implemented. Given that the decrease in residential wage
is relatively negligible (-0.7%), and that total city employment
significantly and simultaneously increases (78%), land tax reform
would cause wage tax revenues to increase.
Initially, the Controller's Office predicted that, in order to
generate half of the current Real Estate Tax revenues from land and
half from buildings, land would have to be taxed at 3.44 times the
rate of structures. The modified general equilibrium model found that
such a split in revenues would occur when land is taxed at 4.36 times
the rate of structures. To understand why the results presented in
this paper differ from the Controller's predictions, it is necessary
to look more closely at the equilibrium results and at the definition
of revenue neutrality. The model found that this type of tax reform
would have significant positive effects on the amount of jobs,
residents, productive capital, housing stock, and land rents in the
city. Even if the Controller's Office took into consideration relative
increase in city land rents, housing stock, and capital stock, their
definition of revenue neutrality would preclude them from looking at
how this type of tax reform would effect revenue collection from other
types of taxes. Although there was a slight decrease in residential
wages, the magnitude of this decrease is insignificant when compared
to the large increase in city employment.
Discrepancy between results put forth in this paper and predictions
made by Controller's Office arises because revenue neutrality is
defined in different ways. In the first policy simulation, government
spending per household is held constant. However, the Controller's
Office holds aggregate government spending constant. If the city
population never changed, or if city services were pure public goods,
aggregate revenues would be an acceptable proxy for per household
government spending. However, empirical research indicates that the
city's population is sensitive to changes in the city's fiscal
structure, and that, at the margins, city services are congestible. If
tax reform caused the city's population to increase, and if aggregate
revenues were held constant, it would be impossible to separate the
impact of the tax reform from the impact caused by a drop in service
provision.
The Second Policy Proposal:
When analyzing the second policy proposal, the general equilibrium
resulting from the first policy proposal are used as a baseline. Five
different simulations were run in order to identify what would happen
when per household tax revenues, lost as a result of wage tax
reduction, are replaced by increasing the land tax. In each
simulation, wage taxes were proportionally reduced by 10%, 20%, 50%,
90%, or 100%. The magnitude of the resulting economic change varied
depending on the size of the wage tax reductions, yet in all
simulation there was a slight reduction in residential wages, a more
significant reduction in land rents, and a large positive increase in
city employment, city population, the value of the housing stock, and
the value of the productive capital. See Table 2 [not provided
here] for the complete simulation results.
These results generally indicate that shifting the wage tax burden
onto a land value tax would stimulate the economy. In fact, these
simulations suggest that, if policy makers were interested in
maximizing the total number of city jobs, or the total city
population, or the total capital stock (both of housing and productive
capital), they would eliminate the wage tax completely and make up
lost revenues by taxing land more heavily.
When interpreting these results, it is important to remember that the
percentage change of each variable is calculated against the values
generated in the first policy proposal. If one were to compare the
equilibrium levels from the second policy proposal to the existing
economic conditions in Philadelphia, the change in city employment,
city population, housing stock, and productive capital stock would be
much larger. Although the change in residential wage would be smaller,
when compared to the magnitude of change experienced by other
variables this finding remains fairly insignificant. Because the first
policy proposal increased land rents by 24%, not until the wage tax
rates are cut in half do land rents drop below their current values.
Because there are sound theoretical reasons for believing that land
taxation is more efficient than wage taxation, it was somewhat
surprising to discover that land rents decrease when the tax burden is
shifted from the taxation of residential and non-residential wages to
a land value tax. In theory, firms and households should be attracted
to the city when a more efficient tax structure is implemented. Thus,
given the significant increase in other economic indicators,
decreasing land rents were unexpected. More than anything else, this
unexpected finding emphasizes the fact that local taxation is
inextricably linked to the size of the local public sector. Thus,
theories which seek to identify an optimal system must also be
concerned with identifying the optimal size of both the city and the
local public sector.
10. A Word of Caution
Before moving on to the paper's conclusion, it is important to issue
a word of caution about the limits of economic modeling techniques.
Modeling inherently involves simplifying, consolidating, and even
ignoring many different variables in hopes of capturing the essence of
the forces that drive the economy. For example, although research
indicates that a whole host of city provided services (well kept
infrastructure, good schools, adequate police protection, etc.) factor
heavily into location decision, in this model these variables have
been condensed into one all purpose public good "G". This
type of consolidation allows researchers to easily take a variety of
different, yet related, variables into account. It would be an error
to assume that these factors are incorporated into the model simply
because the model sheds no light on their individual or relative
importance (e.g. how important are good schools when compared to low
crime rates or low taxes). This being said, even the most
sophisticated models omit a great number of factors that could
potentially affect the outcome. If these omitted factors are not
random, the estimated impact of tax reform on the economy would be
biased.
Another limitation of this paper's general equilibrium model is
related to the fact that the model implicitly assumes that the
structure of the relationship between factors remains constant over
time. If these relationships are not stable, then the inferences
derived from the model simulations may not be warranted. Thus, if the
economic climate of a city were suddenly altered by the introduction
of a new and dramatic type of tax reform, the relationship between
factors might change. This word of caution is not to discredit
economic modeling, but simply to suggest the less policy proposals
differ from the status quo, the more reliable equilibrium estimates
will be. Similarly, the model assumes that there will be no outside
events or influences introduced to change the relationship between
factors. For example, if World War III erupted tomorrow it is likely
that the relationship between tax base and tax rate might change in an
unpredictable way.
When looking at the results of this or any economic model, it is
important to exercise a good deal of caution. Model simulations allow
researchers and policy makers to understand the nature and the
magnitude of the economic change that would result from certain types
of tax reform. As such, the numbers generated by this model should
simply be viewed as general indicator of trends that might happen.
11. Conclusion
The goal of this research was to determine the nature of
Philadelphia's economic response to land tax reform. Analyzing the
effect of a policy proposal which has not yet been implemented can be
difficult, however this was accomplished by studying the theoretical
arguments offered in support of land value taxation, reviewing the
existing body of economic land tax research, and conducting policy
simulations using a general equilibrium model. Economists generally
agree that land value taxation is an economically efficient method of
generating government revenue. Yet, empirical studies of land tax
municipalities provide little insight into how land tax reform would
effect Philadelphia's economy. To truly understand the impact land
taxation could have on Philadelphia's economy, it is necessary to
study this tax in terms of its revenue alternatives. This type of
investigation can be done by running policy simulations on a general
equilibrium model. Although several different economists have used
general equilibrium modeling to examination land value taxation, all
of this research focuses on the elimination of entire classes of
distortionary taxes. Though this type of tax reform can be conducted
in a revenue neutral manner, passage of such radical tax reform would
require strong political support. Throughout this paper, a
comprehensive policy proposal, developed by the Philadelphia
Controller's Office, was set forth as an example of a politically
feasible, modest land tax reform. Using a general equilibrium model,
two policy proposals, similar to the ones designed by the Controller's
Office, were analyzed in terms of their revenue alternatives. A series
of model simulations found that, if these policies were implemented,
Philadelphia would experience significant job creation and population
growth. Assuming that these are considered to be socially desirable
outcomes, city residents and elected officials should embrace the
concept of land value taxation and work towards shifting some of
Philadelphia's tax burden onto land values.
LIST OF APPENDIXES IN THE ORIGINAL PAPER
Appendix A: The Controller's Tax Structure Analysis Report
Appendix B: Arguments for Wage Tax Reduction in Philadelphia
Appendix C: Assessing Land Value
Appendix D: Model Variables
Appendix E: Model Assumptions and Parameterization
|