Jump to content

Land value tax: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dab295 (talk | contribs)
456 edits
direct tax note added
Dab295 (talk | contribs)
456 edits
corrected
Line 17: Line 17:
The Federal Property Tax Act of 1798.<ref>[http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalHistoryII/TaxII.html The Federal Property Tax Act of 1798]</ref>
The Federal Property Tax Act of 1798.<ref>[http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalHistoryII/TaxII.html The Federal Property Tax Act of 1798]</ref>


In 1894, "a bill ... introduced by Representative Maguire of California "to provide increased revenue by a direct<ref>[http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/DirectTax.html Direct tax is unconstitutional]</ref> tax on the value of land in the United States," is in the line of putting into execution the theories of Henry George, one of whose ardent disciples Mr. Maguire is."<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F05E4D91638E233A2575BC2A9679C94659ED7CF&oref=slogin "A DIRECT LAND TAX PROPOSED", New York Times, 1/28/1894]</ref>
In 1894, "a bill ... introduced by Representative Maguire of California "to provide increased revenue by a direct<ref>[http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/DirectTax.html] Direct tax is unconstitutioanal</ref> tax on the value of land in the United States," is in the line of putting into execution the theories of Henry George, one of whose ardent disciples Mr. Maguire is."<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F05E4D91638E233A2575BC2A9679C94659ED7CF&oref=slogin "A DIRECT LAND TAX PROPOSED", New York Times, 1/28/1894]</ref>


On February 20, 1935, [[Theodore L. Moritz]] of Pennsylvania introduced HR 6026, which would have implemented a national land value tax. It would have imposed a 1% tax on the value of land in excess of $3,000.<!-- Does anyone have a link to the actual bill? -->
On February 20, 1935, [[Theodore L. Moritz]] of Pennsylvania introduced HR 6026, which would have implemented a national land value tax. It would have imposed a 1% tax on the value of land in excess of $3,000.<!-- Does anyone have a link to the actual bill? -->

Revision as of 16:48, 20 February 2008

Public finance
Detail from the mural "Government" by Elihu Vedder in the Library of Congress
Policies
Fiscal policy
Monetary policy
Trade policy
Optimum
Reform

Land value taxation (LVT), or site value taxation, is a tax that charges landholders a portion of the unimproved value of a site or parcel of land.

LVT is a special form of property tax. There are three species of property: land, improvements to land (immovable man-made things) and personal property (movable things).

LVT is an ad valorem tax where only the value of land is taxed, ignoring improvements to the land (e.g., houses, factories, ...) and personal property (e.g., cars, furnishings, ...). This is different from other property taxes which generally tend to fall on real estate--the combination of land and improvements to land.

Implementation

In reality, every jurisdiction that has a real estate property tax has a land value tax, because part of the ad valorem basis for real estate is, in fact, the locational or land value in addition to the improvement value.[1] So for example, every single state in the United States has some form of property tax on real estate and hence, in part, a tax on land value.

United States

National level

The Federal Property Tax Act of 1798.[2]

In 1894, "a bill ... introduced by Representative Maguire of California "to provide increased revenue by a direct[3] tax on the value of land in the United States," is in the line of putting into execution the theories of Henry George, one of whose ardent disciples Mr. Maguire is."[4]

On February 20, 1935, Theodore L. Moritz of Pennsylvania introduced HR 6026, which would have implemented a national land value tax. It would have imposed a 1% tax on the value of land in excess of $3,000.

Cities

Hyattsville, MD

The first city in the United States to enact land value taxation was Hyattsville, MD in 1898, through the efforts of Judge Jackson H. Ralston. The Maryland Courts subsequently found it to be barred by the Maryland Constitution. Judge Ralston and his supporters commenced a campaign to amend the state Constitution which culminated in the Art. 15 of the Declaration of Rights (which remains today part of the Maryland State Constitution). In addition, he helped see that enabling legislation for towns be passed in 1916, which also remains in effect today.[5] [6]

The Single Tax Colonies

The towns of Fairhope, Alabama and Arden, Delaware were founded as model Georgist communities.

Pennsylvania and the "two-rate" experiments

Nearly 20 Pennsylvania cities in the USA employ a two-rate or split-rate property tax: taxing the value of land at a higher rate and the value of the buildings and improvements at a lower one. This can be seen as a compromise between pure LVT and an ordinary property tax falling on real estate (land value plus improvement value). Alternatively, two-rate taxation may be seen as a form that allows gradual transformation of the traditional real estate property tax into a pure land value tax.

Primarily as a result of technical assistance from the Henry George Foundation of America[7] and the Center for the Study of Economics, nearly two dozen local Pennsylvania jurisdictions use two-rate property taxation in which the tax on land value is higher and the tax on improvement value is lower. Local governments in Pennsylvania which use the two-rate tax system as of 2006 include:

Pittsburgh used the two-rate system from 1913 to 2001[10] when an ineffective property assessment system led to a drastic increase in assessed land values during 2001 after years of underassessment, and the system was abandoned in favor of the traditional single-rate property tax. Pittsburgh's tax on land was about 5.77 times the tax on improvements. Notwithstanding the change in 2001, the Pittsburgh Improvement District still employs a pure land value taxation as a surcharge on the regular property tax.

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has taxed land at a rate six times that on improvements since 1975, and this policy has been credited by its long time mayor, Stephen R. Reed, as well as by it city's former city manager during the 1980s with reducing the number of vacant structures in downtown Harrisburg from about 4,200 in 1982 to less than 500.

The effect of "two-rate" Land Value Taxation has been studied by Plassmann and Tideman. In their article, "A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of the Effect of Two-Rate Property Taxes on Construction", Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, vol. 47, issue 2, p. 216-247, they compared Pennsylvania cities using a higher tax rate on land value and a lower rate on improvements with similar sized Pennsylvania cities using the same rate on land and improvements and concluded that the increase in land value taxation and decrease in improvement taxation leads to increased construction within the jurisdiction.

Other countries

Pure LVT, apart from real estate or generic property taxation, is used in Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Estonia. It is currently being introduced in Namibia, and there are campaigns for its introduction to South Korea and Scotland. Many more countries have used it in the past, particularly Denmark[11] [12] [13] and Japan. Many pre-modern societies used land tax systems that were not based on the land's value, but nevertheless approximated a limited LVT by taxing agricultural land according to its yield or expected yield.

Several cities around the world also use LVT, including Sydney, Canberra, and many other Australian cities[14].

Claimed advantages

A correlation between high LVT and growing economic prosperity is predicted by Georgist economic theory, and has consistently been observed in practice.[15][16] For example, the effect of Land Value Taxation has been studied by Plassmann and Tideman. In their article, "A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of the Effect of Two-Rate Property Taxes on Construction", Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, vol. 47, issue 2, p. 216-247, they compared Pennsylvania cities using a higher tax rate on land value and a lower rate on improvements with similar sized Pennsylvania cities using the same rate on land and improvements and concluded that the increase in land value taxation and decrease in improvement taxation leads to increased construction within the jurisdiction.

Empirical studies of Australia are also available: Brown (1980) describes a study by Hutchinson (1963) that compared suburbs around Melbourne, which found those taxing land only (not buildings) had twice the value of residential improvements as those using a standard property tax. Edwards (1984) analyzed differences among tax jurisdictions in the Melbourne area with econometric models and found results similar to those of Hutchinson. By contrast, Lusht (1992a and 1992b) found little effect of land value taxation on housing construction around Melbourne, but a considerable effect on industrial development.

Economically neutral

If labour, buildings or machinery and plant are taxed, people are dissuaded from constructive and beneficial activities and enterprise and efficiency are penalized due to the excess burden of taxation. This does not apply to LVT, which is payable regardless of whether or how well the land is actually used. Because the supply of land is inelastic market land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay rather than on the expenses of landlords, and so LVT cannot be passed on to tenants.[17] The only direct effect of LVT on prices is to lower the market price of land. Put another way, LVT is often said to be justified for economic reasons because if it is implemented properly, it will not deter production, distort market mechanisms or otherwise create deadweight losses the way other taxes do.

Efficient use of land

The necessity to pay the tax encourages landowners to develop vacant and under-used land properly or to make way for others who will. Because LVT deters speculative land holding, dilapidated inner-city areas are returned to productive use, reducing the pressure to build on green-field sites and so reducing urban sprawl. LVT is a Green tax since it discourages the waste of locations, which are finite natural resource.

Simplicity and certainty

Levying a Land Value Tax is straightforward, requiring only a valuation of the land and the identity of the landholder. There is no need for the tax payers to deal with complicated forms or intrusive demands for information as with an Income Tax[neutrality is disputed]. Land cannot be hidden, removed to a tax haven or concealed in an electronic data system and so the tax can not be evaded.

Less speculation

Speculative bubbles in land price direct savings into rent seeking activities rather than productive investment, and usually end in corrective slumps which damage the entire economy. Land Value Taxation reduces the speculative element in land pricing, thereby leaving more money for productive capital investment and making the economy more stable.[18]

Fairness and justice

Land (unlike goods and services) has no cost of production. If an ample supply of land of equal desirability were available everywhere, there would be nothing to pay for its use. In reality land acquires a scarcity value owing to the competing needs of the community for living, working and leisure space. Thus the unimproved value of land owes nothing to the individual efforts of the landowner and everything to the community at large[neutrality is disputed]. It belongs justly and uniquely to the community[neutrality is disputed]. Conversely, the reward for individual effort can belong only to the one who earns it, to spend, save, or give away as he or she may see fit.

LVT is also justified with the philosophical premise that the natural world was originally the common resource of all persons, and therefore LVT is not really a tax, but simply the collection of rent on behalf of those who waive their right of access to the resources they would otherwise have been free to use. In religious terms, land is a common gift to all of mankind[neutrality is disputed].

Land value also appears to be much maldistributed than income. While sizeable numbers of households own no land, few have no income. For example, 10% of land owners (all corporations)in Baltimore, Maryland own 58% of the taxable land value. The bottom 10% of those who own any land own less than 1% of the total land value. Study by Kromkowski for CSE and HGFA[citation needed].

Claimed disadvantages

Difficult to implement because land is hard to value

One of the biggest alleged potential problems with a Land Value Tax lies in the valuation process. Under current property tax systems, the notional value for taxation purposes is often allowed to diverge from the actual market value. Some jurisdictions assess property value at a fraction (sometimes quite a small one) of actual market value, and others tax only a fraction of reasonably accurate appraisals. Different rates of assessment and/or tax for different classes of property and even different sorts of owner also abound. When such complications go too far, people may end up paying an unfairly high or low amount of tax. Sudden, large changes may occur in the tax amount, owing to the politically unpopular revaluations to market occurring in a single year after long periods of no change, rather than small changes occurring every year in step with changes in the true market value.

These problems arise only because the property tax is administered badly. In a proper implementation of land value taxation, the assessment is based on the current and total market value of land. The assessment of site value is made at least annually. Therefore, the valuation issue is not inherently a problem of land value taxation, but of dysfunctional enactment or enforcement of property taxes.

Not possible where there is no clear ownership

LVT is nearly impossible to implement where there are no certain land titles and clearly established and recognized ownership. This phenomena is found world-wide in developing countries and is in part the subject of the work of Hernando de Soto.

Loss of asset value

Land value is the discounted present value of expected future after-tax rents; so LVT, by increasing the taxation of those rents, would reduce the value of all real estate owners' holdings. A rapid reduction of real estate values could have profoundly negative effects on banks and other financial institutions whose asset portfolios are dominated by real estate mortgage debt, and could thus threaten the soundness of the whole financial system. Rapid introduction of LVT must therefore be considered a somewhat irresponsible approach, and most LVT advocates consequently favor a long phase-in process lasting at least a decade, and potentially much longer. However, if by the power to regulate commerce among the several States delegated to Congress by We the People, commercial use of the land supply were regulated by the Federal Reserve Bank; and if by the power of eminant domain reserved to the States the LVT tax-rate were regulated by the State Banking system, this problem should be resolved.

If land's value were reduced to zero or near zero by recovering effectively all its rent, as LVT economists[19] say is possible, total privately held asset value could decline by as much as 1/4 or even more, a massive reduction of private sector wealth; however, if a more equitable distribution of land and wealth is the result it could be justified and accepted in the long-run.

Focus on land obscures monopoly of capital

Marx's criticism of land tax (as anything more than one of the measures to be imposed during a transition to communism) was relatively influential. He argued that "The whole thing is...simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one." He also criticized the way land value tax theory emphasizes the value of land - arguing that "Theoretically the man is utterly backward! He understands nothing about the nature of surplus value and so wanders about in speculations which follow the English model but have now been superseded even among the English, about the different portions of surplus value to which independent existence is attributed--about the relations of profit, rent, interest, etc. His fundamental dogma is that everything would be all right if ground rent were paid to the state."[20]

Land used less efficiently

Herbert J. Davenport, an early 20th century economist from the University of Missouri and Cornell University, was a major critic of the land value tax. Davenport sympathized with the goal of taxing the "unearned increment." However, he believed that efforts to do this by means of a land value tax would cause the land to be used less efficiently. For farm land, he thought that this was obvious. "The farmer", he said, "is continually renewing his land's fertility and other characteristics. A tax on one parcel of land will simply cause farmers to abandon it and to prepare and fertilize other untaxed land. And a tax on all agricultural land will simply be a tax on the production of farm goods." The result, he believed, would be a decreased supply of farm goods relative to other goods, higher prices of farm goods, and a fall in the amount of land on which crops are grown. [citation needed]

Advocates

Henry George

Henry George

The most influential advocate of LVT was Henry George. George (September 2, 1839 – October 29, 1897) was an American political economist and proponent of the "Single Tax" on land. He was the author of Progress and Poverty, written in 1879.

From the U.S. founders

A land tax was advocated by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Hamilton writing in the Federalist Papers No.36 [21] gives the argument calling it the "most simple and most fit resource" for the several States. It was probably known to Franklin and certainly known by Jefferson as they were ambassadors to France from whence it sprang via the physiocrats, Quesnay and Turgot. Jefferson brought his friend du Pont *[6] to the United States to promote the idea. *[7]

Physiocrats

The physiocrats were a group of economists who believed that the wealth of nations was derived solely from the value of land agriculture or land development. Their use of the term laissez faire meant that the only legitimate form of government revenue derived from the value of land. Their theories originated in France and were most popular during the second half of the 18th century. Physiocracy is perhaps the first well developed theory of economics. The movement was particularly dominated by Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (1727–1781) and François Quesnay (1694–1774).[22] It immediately preceded the first modern school, classical economics, which began with the publication of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776.

Liberal Party in the UK

In the United Kingdom, LVT was an important part of the platform of the British Liberal Party during the early part of the twentieth century - David Lloyd George and H. H. Asquith proposed "to free the land that from this very hour is shackled with the chains of feudalism".[23] It was also advocated by Winston Churchill early in his career.[24] Labour's 1931 Budget included an LVT, but before it came into force it was repealed by the Conservative-dominated National Government that followed shortly after.

The Henry George Foundation of America and the Center for the Study of Economics

The Henry George Foundation of America[25], a 501 (c) 4 non-profit foundation, was founded in 1926 by some of the leading lights of the progressive Democratic Party in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh Mayors Scully and McNair, City Assessor Percy Williams, State Senator and Allegheny County Democratic Chairman Bernard B. McGinnis, and Councilman George Evans (driving force behind Buhl Planetarium). Its national office is now located in Philadelphia, where Henry George was born.

The Center for the Study of Economics[26], a 501 (c) 3 non-profit educational foundation, was established in 1980 as the sister organization of the Henry George Foundation of America. Its mission is to research land value taxation, to assist governments in implementation and to study the effect of land based property taxation where used. It suggests implementation where appropriate but does not support political candidates or become involved in the electoral process. The Center also gathers and disseminates articles, studies and monographs on the subject of land based taxation.

HGFA and CSE use actual assessment data and have tax calculators to illustrate how "two-rate" taxation (lower on improvements and higher on land value) might actually be implemented and the effect on parcel by parcel basis in a variety of jurisdictions. They also sponsor the land value tax projects in Maryland[27], New York[28], Indiana[29], Washington[30], Pennsylvania[31] and New Jersey[32].

The HGFA and CSE were instrumentally in providing technical assistance (e.g. how to calculate rates, etc.) to the Pennsylvania cities that adopted two-rate taxation in the 70s, 80s and 90s. They continue to provide technical assistance and do implementation studies across the country.

Contemporary economists

In 1990, several leading economists – including 4 Nobel Prize winners – wrote[33] to then President Mikhail Gorbachev suggesting that Russia use Land Value Taxation in its transition towards a free market economy.[34]

Notes

  1. ^ Washington Monthly - Two Cheers for the Property Tax by Steven Ginsberg
  2. ^ The Federal Property Tax Act of 1798
  3. ^ [1] Direct tax is unconstitutioanal
  4. ^ "A DIRECT LAND TAX PROPOSED", New York Times, 1/28/1894
  5. ^ 80 Atty Gen Op 316 (1995)
  6. ^ School of Cooperative Individualism / Jackson H. Ralston
  7. ^ [2]
  8. ^ Hallwatch.org - Land Tax for Philadelphia
  9. ^ The Progress Report - Land Reform versus Sprawl
  10. ^ The Progress Report - Some States Already Have Two-Rate Site Value Tax Enabling Laws
  11. ^ Glass Wings - Denmark
  12. ^ LVT in Denmark
  13. ^ Denmark is the happiest nation
  14. ^ Andelson 2000
  15. ^ Andelson 2000
  16. ^ The Progress Report - Property Tax Shift Successes
  17. ^ Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations Book V, Chapter 2, Part 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses:
    Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.
  18. ^ New Statesman - The case for taxing land
  19. ^ Mason Gaffney's Website
  20. ^ Karl Marx - Letter to Friedrich Adolph Sorge in Hoboken
  21. ^ [3]
  22. ^ Steiner (2003) p62
  23. ^ New Statesman - A revolutionary who won over Victorian liberals
  24. ^ Winston Churchill: Land Price as a Cause of Poverty
  25. ^ [4]
  26. ^ [5]
  27. ^ Maryland Land Value Tax Project
  28. ^ New York Land Value Tax Project
  29. ^ Indiana Land Value Tax Project
  30. ^ Washington Land Value Tax Project
  31. ^ Pennsylvania Land Value Tax Project
  32. ^ New Jersey Land Value Tax Project
  33. ^ Wikisource:Open letter to Mikhail Gorbachev (1990)
  34. ^ CounterPunch - Standard Schaefer: An Interview with Michael Hudson on Putin's Russia

References

  • Land-Value Taxation Around the World, 3rd edition, Robert V. Andelson (Ed) (2000), ISBN 0-631-22614-1
  • A land tax is 200 years overdue
  • An Alternative Tax Regime for the Bahamas, 2005
  • Economics of Enterprise, Davenport, H. (1914), New York: Macmillan.
  • Elements of Land Taxation, R. T. Ely and E. W. Morehouse, (1924)
  • Geo-Rent: A Plea to Public Economists, Fred E. Foldvary, Econ. Journal Watch, Vol. 2, No. 1, April 2005, pp.106-132
  • Herbert Davenport on the Single Tax." Gunning, J. Patrick (1997) American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 56: (4): 565-574.
  • Jamaican Land Value Tax, By David L. Sjoquist (sjoquist@gsu.edu) March 2005
  • Land-value taxation is deeply rooted in Denmark American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Dec, 2000 by Ole Lefmann, Karsten K. Larsen
  • Land Tax Reform Proposed For Iowa, 2004
  • LVT: Cure For Poverty And Unemployment, by Pat Aller. International Research Foundation for Development, Inc.. June 2000
  • Maryland Land Value Tax Project
  • Pennsylvania Land Value Tax Project
  • Indiana Land Value Tax Project
  • New Jersey Land Value Tax Project
  • New York Land Value Tax Project
  • Philadelphia Champions Of Tax Reform Spoke At 2005 CGO Conference, August 2005
  • Tax shift now! - Regaining our common wealth, By Tony Vickers in Free Think Center Forum, 2005, 57 pages, Word Document
  • "The case for taxing land", Dave Wetzel, New Statesman, 20 September 2004
  • An Alternative Tax Regime for the Bahamas, 2005
  • The Extent and Significance of the Unearned Increment", Davenport, H. (1911),American Economic Review 1: 322-332)
  • The Single Tax in the English Budget", Davenport, H. (1910), Quarterly Journal of Economics, (February): 1910.
  • Theoretical Issues in the Single Tax", Davenport, H. (1917), American Economic Review, 7 (March): 1-30.
  • Land Value Tax : Unfinished business, Emer Ó Siochrú, November 2004. Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability. Dublin, Ireland
  • Plassmann and Tideman, "A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of the Effect of Two-Rate Property Taxes on Construction", Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, vol. 47, issue 2, p. 216-247
  • Archer, R.W., Site Value Taxation in Central Business District Redevelopment (Sydney, Australia). (Urban Land Institute Research Report 19, 1972).
  • Bell, Michael E. and John H. Bowman, eds., Property Rates in South Africa: A Preliminary Assessment of Current Practices, (The Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies, June 1997).
  • Bentick, Brian L., "The Impact of Taxation and Valuation Practices on the Timing and Efficiency of Land Use," Journal of Political Economy, Vol.87 (August 1979), pp. 859-68.
  • Bourassa, Steven C., "Land Value Taxation and New Housing Development in Pittsburgh," Growth and Change (Fall 1987), pp. 44-55.
  • Center for the Study of Economics, "C.S.E. What It Is and What It Does," (pamphlet).
  • Cord, Steven B., "Taxing Land More Than Buildings: The Record In Pennsylvania," The Property Tax and Local Finance, C. Lowell Harriss, ed., (The Academy of Political Science, 1983), pp.172-179.
  • Department of Finance and Revenue, Government of the District of Columbia, The Impact of a Split-Rate Property Tax in the District of Columbia, (September 1994).
  • Edwards, Mary E., "Site Value Taxation in Australia," American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Vol. 43, (October 1984), pp. 481-495.
  • Flaherty, John and Kenneth M. Lusht., Site Value Taxation, Land Values, and Development Patterns, (The Mary Jean and Frank P. Smeal College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University, October 1996).
  • Gaffney, Mason, "Henry George," The New Palgrave, (MacMillan Press Limited, 1987), pp.514-515.
  • Grinath III, Arthur C., "Why the British Did Windows: The Window Tax and Its Historical Context," (mimeo, December 13, 1988).
  • Kitchen, Harry M. Property Taxation in Canada. (Canadian Tax Paper, No. 92, Canadian Tax Foundation, 1992).
  • Lusht, Kenneth M., "The Site Value Tax and Residential Development," (The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, 1992).
  • Mark, Jonathan and Michael A. Goldberg., "Multiple Regression Analysis and Mass Assessment: A Review of the Issues," The Appraisal Journal, Vol. 56 (1988), pp.89-109.
  • McCluskey, William, "Mass Appraisal Modelling Techniques and the Application of Geographic Information Systems," Designing Local Government for South Africa: Structures, Functions & Fiscal Options, (Session 6, Policy-Oriented Conference hosted by the Center for Business Law, University of South Africa and the Financial & Fiscal Commission, July 23-25, 1997)
  • Mills, David E., "The Non-Neutrality of Land Value Taxation," National Tax Journal, Vol. 34, (March 1981), pp. 125-129.
  • Oates, Wallace E. and Robert M. Schwab, "The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience," National Tax Journal, Vol. 50 (March 1997), pp.1-21.
  • Oates, Wallace E. and Robert M. Schwab, "The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience," in Helen F. Ladd, ed. Local Government Land and Tax Policy, (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Company, forthcoming).
  • Pennsylvania Economy League, Development, Equity, and the Graded Tax in the City of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, Pa.: March 1985).
  • Perry, J. Harvey, Taxation in Canada, fifth edition. (Canadian Tax Paper, No. 89, Canadian Tax Foundation, 1990).
  • Pollakowski, Henry O., Adjustment Effects of a Tax on Land: The Pittsburgh Case (Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Lincoln Institute Monograph #82-8, 1982).
  • Pro-Housing Property Tax Coalition, "Real Property Tax Rates for Tax Year 1992," (June 1991).
  • Reeb, Donald J., "Political Economy of the Two Rate Property Tax Amsterdam, New York," (mimeo, October 12, 1993).
  • Rybeck, Walter, "Pennsylvania's Experiments in Property Tax Modernization," NTA Forum (Spring 1991), pp. 1-5.
  • Silagi, Michael, "Henry George and Europe: In Denmark the Big Landowners Scuttled the Age-old Land Tax But the Smallholders, Moved by George, Restored It," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 53, (October 1994), pp.491-501.
  • Stewman, Shelby, and Joel A. Tarr, "Four Decades of Public-Private Partnerships in Pittsburgh," in R.S. Fosler and R. Berger, eds., Public-Private Partnership in American Cities: Seven Case Studies (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1972), pp. 59-127.
  • Tideman, T. Nicolaus, "A Tax on Land Value is Neutral," National Tax Journal, Vol. 35 (March 1982), pp. 109-111.
  • Tideman, T. Nicolaus, "The Economics of Efficient Taxes on Land," in Nicolaus Tideman, ed., Land and Taxation, (London: Shepheard-Walwyn in association with Centre for Incentive Taxation, 1994), pp. 103-104.
  • Tideman, T. Nicolaus and Cathleen Johnson, "A Statistical Analysis of Graded Property Taxes in Pennsylvania," (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, 1995).
  • Vickrey, William, "Defining Land Value for Tax Purposes," in D.M. Holland, ed., The Assessment of Land Value (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), pp. 25-36.
  • Wiencek, Henry, "Laying Out the Idyllic Life in a Latter-Day Arden," Smithsonian Magazine. (May 1992), pp.124-142.
  • Wildasin, David E., "More on the Neutrality of Land Taxation," National Tax Journal, Vol. 35 (March 1982), pp. 105-108.
  • Woolery, Arlo. "The Fairhope, Alabama, Land Tax Experiment," Land Value Taxation: The Progress and Poverty Centenary, Richard W. Lindholm and Arthur D. Lynn, Jr., eds., (University of Wisconsin Press, 1982), pp.197-204.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_value_tax&oldid=192826107"