|
.
I have been working with
assessment rolls of various municipalities,
counties and states to simulate what actual
shifts in burden would be if a land value tax
were implemented. This involves both aggregate
analysis and presentation by property
classification, by revenue stream (i.e., school
and municipality), and for consolidated tax and
administrative units. It also involves
tabulation of what burden each individual
taxpaying parcel would assume under an LVT
scenario right down to the penny. (This assumes,
however, no credits, deductions, deferrals or
other adjustments as sometimes apply for
veterans, elderly, disabled, clergy, and so on
never completely the case in fact.)
Any legislature considering adoption of LVT
likely wants to find out first "who wins
and who loses?" This is what I try to show.
Very concrete, very practical. I worry about the
theoretical and moral arguments after that if
political leaders are still interested after
first knowing this.
Of course any simulation necessarily assumes a
modicum of accuracy in the assessments. Many
municipalities have such poor or outdated
valuations that the simulations re inaccurate
and lack credibility. There have been instances,
however, where the assessments have been so
evenly inaccurate that it is still possible to
do a simulation that will be convincing to
reviewers when, for example, the land component
is uniformly undervalued. I have some instances
where the scenario presents an improvement over
current practices.
This raises a second issue: the challenge of
performing accurate and reliable valuations. I
believe it is possible to employ GIS (geographic
information systems) algorithms to improve upon
the quality of assessment standards typically
reached by conventional (eyeball) assessment
methods. I have therefore been hoping to secure
some data from some municipality that would
allow me to experiment with various formulas
that might improve the state of the art. Ted
Gwartney, my GIS tech and I have been working me
on this; as yet, however, we've not been
successful in securing the data that we need
from any municipal government. It's either the
cost of purchasing the data or else the
reluctance of the government to release it.
Occasions arise when, doing simulations or
applying GIS triangulation algorithms to assess
land values, it is necessary to presume a
certain default proportion of land value. In the
aggregate, what assumed percentage land value
should we take? A rule of thumb is between
thirty and forty percent land value in the
aggregate, except in instances where the economy
is booming and real estate values are really
increasing rapidly. Data that I have suggests
that in such areas Aspen Colorado, Jackson Hole,
Wyoming, Kings County, Washington land value
proportions can even exceed fifty percent in the
aggregate. But this is the kind of hypothesis
that needs further research. Having such numbers
will help us lots to analyze the tax base, the
potential revenue and burden distribution, and
how implementing a land tax would effect the
region's economic vitality.
|
|