2009
Center for the Study of Economics 413 S. 10th Street Philadelphia, PA 19147 Office: 215.923.7800 www.urbantools.org
[LVT AND AXI PHILADELPHIA TASK FORCE] Analysis and recommendations submitted to the Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force
Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................... 3 City-Wide Values ................................................................................ 4 Land Value Taxation (LVT).................................................................. 5 LVT Impact by Tax Class ................................................................ 6 LVT Impact by Council District .................................................... 11 Assessed Exemption of Improvements (AXI) ................................... 18 AXI Impact by Tax Class .............................................................. 18 AXI Impact by Council District..................................................... 22 LVT and AXI by Neighborhood ......................................................... 28 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................ 32 Supplemental Material .................................................................... 33
Table of Figures Figure 1: Citywide Real Estate Assessment Totals ............................. 4 Figure 2: Revenue Neutrality Among Options ................................... 5 Figure 3: Overall Impact of LVT vs Current Tax .................................. 6 Figure 5: LVT Count of Increase vs. Decrease by Tax Class ................ 8 Figure 6: LVT Total Dollar Difference by Tax Class ............................. 9 Figure 7: LVT Average Dollar Difference by Tax Class ...................... 10 Figure 8: LVT Average Percent Change by Tax Class ........................ 11 Figure 9: LVT Residential Percentage Increase vs. Decrease by Council District ................................................................................. 12 Figure 10: LVT Non-residential Percentage Increase vs. Decrease by Council District ................................................................................. 13
Figure 11: LVT Residential Count of Increase vs. Decrease by Council District .............................................................................................. 14 Figure 12: LVT Non-residential Count of Increase vs. Decrease by Council District ................................................................................. 15 Figure 13: LVT Residential Average Dollar Difference by Council District .............................................................................................. 16 Figure 14: LVT Non-residential Average Dollar Difference by Council District .............................................................................................. 17 Figure 15: AXI vs Current Tax, Total and Average by Tax Class........ 19 Figure 16: AXI Percentage Increase vs Decrease by Tax Class ......... 20 Figure 17: AXI Count of Increase vs Decrease by Tax Class ............. 21 Figure 18: AXI Residential Percentage Increase vs Decrease by Council District ................................................................................. 22 Figure 19: AXI Non-residential Percentage Increase vs Decrease by Council District ................................................................................. 23 Figure 20: AXI Residential Average Dollar Difference by Council District .............................................................................................. 24 Figure 21: AXI Non-residential Average Dollar Difference by Council District .............................................................................................. 25 Figure 22: AXI Residential Total Dollar Difference by Council District .......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 23: AXI Non-residential Total Dollar Difference by Council District .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 24: LVT Total Dollar Difference by Neighborhood ................ 28 Figure 25: LVT Average Dollar Difference by Neighborhood ........... 29 Figure 26: AXI Total Dollar Difference by Neighborhood................. 30 Figure 27: AXI Average Dollar Difference by Neighborhood ........... 31
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 2
Introduction The Center for the Study of Economics is pleased to speak again before the Mayor’s Task Force. Testimony provided by many others and ourselves has clearly narrowed the menu of choices to a few basic concepts: Philadelphia’s taxes are not progressive, they are too high, and they are confusing and repellent to capital and labor. As Paul Levy said in earlier testimony we as a City must find a way to implement taxes on subjects that are immobile. If that is where the taskforce moves, then we must repeat: land is immobile; buildings as an expression of capital investment are mobile. We believe that the facts and the theory point to a gradual shift and implementation of tax policy to one that removes most distortions that effect personal, commercial and policy choices. To that end, we are happy to present summaries of our research into land value taxation, and an alternative that relieves lower-end values properties of the burden of taxation, while maintaining revenue flows. Using our BRT database from April 2009, we believe these simulations will provide a clear picture of how land value taxation and the assessment exemption for improvement alternative1 will work: 1. 2. 3. 4.
By Citywide By Class By council District By Neighborhood
11
Land Value Tax (LVT) is a way of taxing land using a change in tax rates. For example, a drop of 10% in the building tax rate would require that revenue loss be made up by an increase in the tax rate on land values. The direct effect is to put a greater reliance on publicly created value (land) rather than privately created wealth (buildings, commerce, or wages). A higher tax on land has the acknowledged effect of removing the distortions on markets that traditional taxes create. Assessment Exemption on Improvements (AXI) is slightly different. Put simply, a blanket permanent abatement of a certain dollar amount on a building is put into effect. The overall tax rate then rises accordingly, with a greater impact on land value. For example, if a building is worth $50,000 and the AXI is $50,000, there will be no tax on the building. If the building were worth $500,000 then the owner would pay tax on $450,000. This has the effect of sometimes dramatically reducing tax burden on lower valued properties, most often residential properties
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 3
City-Wide Values Using current BRT assessments, the city has to work with a total taxable value of $12.1 Billion, with $5.1 Billion of non-taxable value. The value of taxable land is $2.9 Billion and the taxable value of buildings is $9.2 Billion. The current combined tax rate applied to both land and buildings for city and school purposes is 82.64 mills. As many have thus far noted, this tax system of equal tax rates on land and buildings creates a disincentive to build, rehab, or otherwise invest in real estate inside Philadelphia’s borders. The 10-year tax abatement is an explicit acknowledgement of the high cost of construction in Philadelphia serving as a barrier to it. We believe there are alternatives.
Figure 1: Citywide Real Estate Assessment Totals
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 4
Land Value Taxation (LVT) The Center proposes two revenue neutral alternatives in these simulations. The first, land value taxation, (or LVT) employs tax rates of 171.684 mills on land value and 54.417 mills on building values, to provide revenue-neutrality. These rates would garner 50% of revenue from land, and 50% of the revenue from buildings2. Figure 2 demonstrates revenue-neutrality for both alternatives compared to the current system.
Figure 2: Revenue Neutrality among Options
2
These revenue split rates are identical to the Controller’s Tax Structure Report (2001) and the Tax Reform Commission Report (2003) simulations of land value taxation
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 5
LVT Impact by Tax Class Land Value Taxation (LVT) is the option discussed at the previous task force hearing on May 21, 2009. Figure 1 compares LVT to the current total and average tax impact, both of which come out approximately the same.
Figure 3: Overall Impact of LVT vs. Current Tax
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 6
Figure 4 represents the change by class of property in Philadelphia. As every study or simulation of the past 20 years affirms, residential properties see a reduction in tax incidence, while commercial and industrial properties – the sectors that have already departed the city–see an increase in liability.
Figure 4: LVT Percent Increase vs. Decrease by Tax Class
Within each class of real property, the shift will result in greater or lesser tax liability for each parcel. In Figure 5, the green portion of the columns represents the parcels that see a reduced tax bill; the red portion will see an increase. Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 7
Figure 5: LVT Count of Increase vs. Decrease by Tax Class
Within each class, the annual dollar change in tax incidence is presented in Figure 6. As theory would predict, residential property is most capital intensive on the building side of the equation, and therefore would enjoy a greater reduction. The simulation demonstrates that outcome.
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 8
Figure 6: LVT Total Dollar Difference by Tax Class
Figure 7 provides the same outcome, but on an annual average basis. Citywide, these changes may appear modest, but the simulation can be changed in policy to effect greater or lesser impact.
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 9
Figure 7: LVT Average Dollar Difference by Tax Class
Figure 8 demonstrates the annual percentage class change for each class. Both Class 1 and Class2 (Residential and Hotels/Apartments) show a significant annual savings. Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 10
Figure 8: LVT Average Percent Change by Tax Class
LVT Impact by Council District Council districts are an easily recognizable part of the Philadelphia cityscape. As such, the Center has grouped its findings in this manner.
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 11
Figure 9 is clear that the Residential sector benefits greatly from LVT no matter the district. In general, the lower-valued residential properties in councilmanic districts (Districts 6, 7 or 9) fare better .
Figure 9: LVT Residential Percentage Increase vs. Decrease by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 12
Non-Residential Properties in the 10 (Figure 10) council districts see less of a direct benefit, as many are land intensive and less capital-intensive. Many are blighted, abandoned or are not put to best use.
Figure 10: LVT Non-residential Percentage Increase vs. Decrease by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 13
Broken out by Save or Increase by parcel (Figure 11) , the Council Districts again see benefit with LVT.
Figure 11: LVT Residential Count of Increase vs. Decrease by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 14
Non-residential parcels (Figure 12) vary more by council district. Yet, the changes are widely varied in many districts.
Figure 12: LVT Non-residential Count of Increase vs. Decrease by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 15
Figure 13 represents the average annual change per parcel in each council district. Established high value or up and coming districts (3, 5 or 8) experience little or no change in tax liability, here expressed as an average.
Figure 13: LVT Residential Average Dollar Difference by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 16
Figure 14 representes the non-residential annual average shift with land value taxation. The reality of business taxation in Philadelphia should show that the property tax would be preferable to the Business Privilege Tax.
Figure 14: LVT Non-residential Average Dollar Difference by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 17
Assessed Exemption of Improvements (AXI) If Philadelphia were to move to a property tax (or preferably) a land value tax to increase competitiveness, consideration must be given to the large number of retired homeowners on fixed incomes, owners of lower-valued residential (or commercial) real estate and renters. There are several traditional pathways to provide ameliorations (See Supplements). Our proposal here illustrates what we call Assessment Exemption on Improvements (AXI). AXI exempts a dollar amount of the taxable building value of a parcel. For the purposes of creating our simulation, CSE has chosen to exempt $10,460 (which is the median assessed value of taxable buildings in Philadelphia). By reducing the taxable building assessment, the tax rate would be 124.522 mills (as opposed to 82.64 mills), and thus the revenue would be the same. Such a property tax system has been used in the past in other jurisdictions. For example, in Vancouver, British Columbia, land values were assessed at 100% of market value, while buildings were assessed at only 50% of market value. Our AXI proposal is simpler to understand, with powerful effects: enacts a permanent, universal abatement on a dollar amount of building value which will proportionally exempt the greater part of a building from property tax, while a higher-valued parcel (Liberty Place, say) will see a statistically insignificant building abatment, while seeing some increase on the land portion. The principles of vertical equity and ability-to-pay come into play. We expect and hope that further research will be authorized by this task force or by city government. Granular examination of the data under AXI and LVT simulations will demonstrate the feasibility of these programs, both under current assessments and under AVI.
AXI Impact by Tax Class As Figure 15 demonstrates, AXI provides significant tax relief for residential properties while maintaining revenue levels, and suggests a way to shift additional revenue from mobile labor and capital tax bases onto the property tax without across the board impacts on all classes of property.
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 18
Figure 15: AXI vs. Current Tax, Total and Average by Tax Class
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 19
Figure 16 shows the outcome by class of our AXI proposal. Note that the percentage amount of parcels that save increases fairly substantially. Compared with Figure 4, the results favor classes 2 and 3, while improving classes 4 and 5. Grey sections represent tax-exempt.
Figure 16: AXI Percentage Increase vs. Decrease by Tax Class
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 20
Figure 17 Shows the parcel count changes with classes. Classes 1 through 3 see a majority decrease, while 4 through 6 experience an increase.
Figure 17: AXI Count of Increase vs. Decrease by Tax Class
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 21
AXI Impact by Council District The shift under AXI by council district is more pronounced in favor of residential properties (Figure 18) compared to LVT in Figure 9.
Figure 18: AXI Residential Percentage Increase vs. Decrease by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 22
Figure 19 is non-residential shift with AXI by council district. Savings by commercial properties, in generally less-desirable areas, are significant especially compared with Figure 9, the LVT shift
Figure 19: AXI Non-residential Percentage Increase vs. Decrease by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 23
Figure 20 shows the annual average residential change by council district. All districts see savings, with lower valued districts seeing dramatic reductions.
Figure 20: AXI Residential Average Dollar Difference by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 24
Figure 21 shows the resulting average shift in burden onto non-residential classes.
Figure 21: AXI Non-residential Average Dollar Difference by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 25
Figure 22 indicates the total residential dollar change under the AXI proposal by council district. Economically at-risk districts (such as District 6 and 9) see great benefit.
Figure 22: AXI Residential Total Dollar Difference by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 26
Figure 23 represents the total non-residential change by Council district using the AXI alternative
Figure 23: AXI Non-residential Total Dollar Difference by Council District
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 27
-$2,835K
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org -$152K
Point Breeze
-$51K -$60K -$22K
Powelton Fishtown University City
$73K $86K
East Falls West Mount Airy Cedar Park
Schuylkill
Fairmount
$395K
$1,046K
$983K
$1,000K
Chestnut Hill
$156K
$55K
Brewerytown
Belmont
$33K $21K
West Kensington
$10K
$3K
Hartranft Pennypack Park
$1K
Wissahickon Park
$10K
-$79K
Poplar
$0K
-$101K
North Central
Germantown
-$139K
Cobbs Creek
-$127K
Fairhill
$0K $0K -$207K
Mill Creek
-$142K
-$180K
Strawberry Mansion
-$161K
-$198K
Haddington
-$234K
Kensington Hunting Park
Allegheny West
-$213K
Tioga
-$185K
-$219K
Logan
-$207K
-$236K
East Germantown
Riverfront
-$253K
Grays Ferry
-$267K
Ogontz
-$319K
Harrowgate
-$320K Bridesburg
-$595K East Oak Lane
Marconi Plaza
-$340K
-$440K Kingsessing
-$537K
-$697K
Fox Chase Manayunk
-$695K
-$697K
Wynnefield
-$756K
Cedarbrook East Mount Airy
-$813K -$820K
Pennsport Rhawnhurst
-$817K
-$932K
Wharton Byberry
-$848K -$879K
Overbrook
-$966K
Holmesburg
-$953K
Eastwick
-$964K
Elmwood
West Torresdale
-$967K
South Philadelphia
-$1,176K
-$978K
Bustleton
-$1,044K
Pennypack
-$1,145K
-$1,000K -$1,145K
Roxborough
-$1,197K
Somerton Lawncrest
-$1,306K -$1,331K
Frankford
Juniata Park
-$1,346K
Olney
-$1,236K
-$1,478K
Richmond Center City West
-$1,488K
-$1,707K
West Oak Lane
Girard Estates
-$1,870K
-$2,000K
Tacony
-$2,199K
-$2,760K
Center City East
-$2,835K
Mayfair
-$3,000K
Oxford Circle
Sum of LVT $ Difference
LVT and AXI by Neighborhood
LVT Neighborhood Residential Shift Overview: Total $ Difference
Sum of LVT $ Difference
$1,046K
Figure 24: LVT Total Dollar Difference by Neighborhood
Page 28
-$551
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org -$32 -$37 -$25 -$45 -$30 -$22 -$15
East Germantown Logan Tioga Kensington Hunting Park Strawberry Mansion Point Breeze
-$14 -$25 -$17 -$37 -$51
Fairhill Mill Creek North Central Poplar Powelton
Hartranft
Fairmount
Chestnut Hill
Schuylkill
$150
$109
$48 $39
Belmont
$20
West Mount Airy Cedar Park
$21
$5
$11
East Falls
Brewerytown
West Kensington
$168
$286
$400
Pennypack Park
$1
$2
Germantown
$200
Wissahickon Park
$0
-$37 Cobbs Creek
University City
-$10
-$21
Allegheny West
Fishtown
-$18
Riverfront Haddington
-$46
-$45
Harrowgate
Grays Ferry
-$57
-$131
-$88
-$31
$0 $0 -$37
Ogontz
Bridesburg
East Oak Lane
Marconi Plaza
Kingsessing -$206
-$131
Manayunk
-$82
-$131
Fox Chase
Wynnefield
-$137
-$184
-$114
-$89
East Mount Airy
Cedarbrook
Rhawnhurst
Pennsport
-$180
-$107
Wharton Byberry
-$101
-$160 Overbrook
Holmesburg
West Torresdale
-$106
-$112
Elmwood -$222
-$119
South Philadelphia
Eastwick
-$128
Bustleton
-$113
Roxborough
-$145
-$126
Juniata Park
Pennypack
-$123
Lawncrest
-$166
-$118
Frankford Somerton
-$135
Olney
-$111 -$149
Richmond Center City West
-$116
-$183
Girard Estates
-$112 -$145
West Oak Lane
-$186
Tacony
-$246
-$551
-$600
Center City East
-$400
-$246
-$168
-$200
Mayfair
Oxford Circle
Avg. LVT $ Difference
$428
LVT Neighborhood Residential Shift Overview: Avg. $ Difference
Avg. LVT $ Difference
$428
Figure 25: LVT Average Dollar Difference by Neighborhood
Page 29
-$15M
-$10M
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org -$1,504,114 -$1,448,632 -$1,388,820 -$1,295,060 -$1,269,177 -$1,075,732 -$995,094 -$928,027 -$868,346 -$837,562 -$836,101
Strawberry Mansion Grays Ferry Fairhill Fox Chase East Mount Airy Schuylkill Marconi Plaza North Central Somerton Poplar Brewerytown
-$364,270 -$255,096 -$120,201
Hartranft University City
$3,228,977 $3,512,368
Center City West Chestnut Hill
$2,707,529
$1,038,272
$215,987
$16,581
$427
$5M
Center City East
West Mount Airy
Riverfront
Pennypack Park
Wissahickon Park
-$368,968
East Falls
$0M -$1M
West Kensington
-$373,959
-$1,511,339
Powelton
-$1,596,722
Mill Creek East Oak Lane
-$437,083
-$1,631,578
Hunting Park
Fairmount
-$1,653,036
Bridesburg
-$511,138
-$1,658,201
Byberry
Cedar Park
-$1,796,535
Cedarbrook
-$709,895
-$1,839,078
Harrowgate
-$762,739
-$1,891,631
Belmont
-$1,935,951
Manayunk Allegheny West
Bustleton
-$1,986,243
Roxborough
-$2,284,912
Rhawnhurst
-$2,052,438
-$2,308,626
Fishtown
Point Breeze
-$2,418,193
Eastwick
-$2,116,155
-$2,528,101
Pennypack
-$2,749,853
Ogontz Wynnefield
-$2,130,803
-$2,888,845
Tioga
Germantown
-$2,972,018
Haddington
-$2,140,417
-$2,980,928
Logan
-$2,156,636
-$3,026,494
Pennsport
Kensington
-$3,201,429
West Torresdale
-$2M -$2M
Holmesburg
-$3,473,314
-$4,008,229
East Germantown
Kingsessing
-$4,236,191
-$5M
Wharton
-$4,574,880
Overbrook
-$5,061,606
Elmwood
-$4,576,762
-$5,360,624
South Philadelphia
-$5,369,720
Cobbs Creek
-$5,962,120
Juniata Park
-$5M
Girard Estates
-$6,091,329
-$6,702,265
Olney
Frankford
-$6,731,661
Mayfair
-$6,369,368
-$6,907,977
Tacony
Lawncrest
-$6,963,255
Richmond
-$7,965,930
-$10,499,294
-$10M
West Oak Lane
Oxford Circle
Sumof AXI $ Difference
AXI Neighborhood Residential Shift Results: Total $ Difference Neighborhood
Sum of AXI $ Difference
$4M
Figure 26: AXI Total Dollar Difference by Neighborhood
Page 30
-$688
-$526 -$488
Overbrook Wharton
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org -$181
Chestnut Hill
Center City West
$389
$303
$576
$488
Center City East
$142
$285
$0
West Mount Airy
Riverfront
-$198
-$73
$500
Pennypack Park
Wissahickon Park
University City
Hartranft
-$125
West Kensington
-$63
-$139
-$370
-$285
-$78
East Falls
Powelton
Fairmount
Cedar Park
Bustleton
-$188
Belmont
-$109
-$190
-$393 Brewerytown
Poplar
-$157
-$345
-$154
Somerton
North Central
Marconi Plaza
-$298
-$249
East Mount Airy Schuylkill
-$244
-$154
-$361
-$415
Fox Chase
Fairhill
Grays Ferry
Strawberry Mansion
East Oak Lane
-$287
Mill Creek
-$365
-$251
-$678
-$438
-$330
-$276
-$473
Hunting Park
Bridesburg
Byberry
Cedarbrook
Harrowgate
Allegheny West
Manayunk
-$204 -$215
Roxborough
-$315 Point Breeze
Pennypack
-$464
-$405
Holmesburg Germantown
-$414
-$318
-$404
-$563
-$473
Kensington
Rhawnhurst
Fishtown
Eastwick
Wynnefield
-$583
-$334
Tioga Ogontz
-$334
Haddington
-$507
-$333
Pennsport Logan
-$350
-$473
West Torresdale
East Germantown
-$371
-$564
South Philadelphia
-$298 -$404
Kingsessing
-$588
Elmwood
-$434 -$573
-$656
Girard Estates
Cobbs Creek
Juniata Park
-$551
-$657
Lawncrest Frankford
-$674
-$599
-$688
Olney
Mayfair
Tacony
-$521
-$621
West Oak Lane
-$500 -$551
Richmond
-$624
-$1,000
Oxford Circle
Avg. AXI $ Difference
$1,528
AXI Neighborhood Residential Shift Results: Avg. $ Difference Neighborhood
$1,500
$1,000
Avg. AXI $ Difference
$1,528
Figure 27: AXI Average Dollar Difference by Neighborhood
Page 31
Conclusions and Recommendations 1. A healthy city or jurisdiction relies on property tax. It is the last redoubt of tax revenue in a recession. It is the most stable tax. Move the city towards real property tax. Philadelphia’s current menu of taxes that hurt the city makes the case that taxes on wages and business should be replaceable by a real property tax. The “three-legged stool “proviso of good tax policy has never been found more wanting than at present.3 2. To make the real property tax responsive to city revenue needs and fulfill the canons of taxation: a. It should bear as lightly as possible on production -- least impeding the growth of the general fund, from which taxes must be paid and the community maintained. b. It should be certain -- offering the least opportunity for abuse and corruption, and the least temptation for evasion. c. It should bear equally -- giving no one an advantage, nor putting another at a disadvantage. 3. To accomplish that, we recommend that AVI be implemented as soon as possible. 4. Before the AVI comes into effect, the current property tax should be turned into a land value tax (LVT), or an assessment exemption for improvements (AXI) as soon as possible as a way to improve the distribution of burden of the current property tax. AXI may require city or state enabling legislation. 5. The Task Force should include the reform of the property tax into its final report, requesting a more intensive study of both alternatives presented to the task force today. 6. Our alternative programs allow for greater reliance on the property tax without hurting low and fixed income property owners. Our alternative is an attempt to introduce ability-to-pay and vertical equity into Philadelphia’s chaotic tax system. Final Definitions: 1. Land Value Tax (LVT) is a shifting of the current flat millage rate into a higher tax rate on assessed taxable land and assessed taxable buildings. 2. Assessment Exemption for Improvements (AXI) is a permanent across the board dollar-amount abatement for all taxable buildings. The effect on lower valued buildings is of a greater percentage drop in tax liability on the building. The abatement for a much higher valued building would be correspondingly less. As higher-end construction has enjoyed extant abatements and other tax forgiveness programs, and brings greater rental and market price returns, it is our position that the AXI program directs tax relief for the most at-risk neighborhoods and citizens.
3
“Tax students, especially at the state level, ply their trade by invoking one metaphor above all others: the three-legged stool. It rests on the claim that a sound and successful tax regime for any government needs to rely on a three tax bases: income, property and sales. This is repeated so often that it passes today without much examination.”State Tax Notes, Vol.35, No.6, 2 February 2005, pp.377-381 Dr.H. William Batt
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 32
Supplemental Material See the following supplements submitted to the task force for more background information: 1. David Brunori: To Preserve Local Government, It's Time to Save the Property Tax, 1998 2. Bill Batt and Joshua Vincent 2007: Use and desirability of standard property tax relief measures. Testimony before Pennsylvania General Assembly: Tools to Make the Pennsylvania Property Tax More Progressive 3. Wallace Oates and Robert Schwab: The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience, 1996 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 4. Letter from Mayor Stephen Reed, Harrisburg, PA to Mayor James Ruberto of Pittsfield Mass, October, 2006 5. "Final Report: Valuation of Land and Improvements in Philadelphia" By Roger A. McCain, Paul Jensen, and Stephen Meyer, Drexel University, 2002
Land Value Taxation Presentation for the 2009 Philadelphia Tax Reform Task Force Center for the Study of Economics | www.urbantools.org
Page 33