SCRAP PROPERTY TAXES AND IMPLEMENT LAND VALUE TAXES

ARINZE MICHAEL OFOEME
Land Values Taxes
Introduction

Property tax is considered as one of the best tax systems and hence, many local authorities are being instructed to improve and increase their property taxes. Even though property tax is the main source of revenue for many governments, it continues to face intense political pressure. The amount governments raise from real property taxes has constantly declined for years. Local authorities once raised more than 65 percent of revenue from property taxes. While the amount collected vary extensively by state, property tax nowadays accounts for less than half of local government revenue. The prevailing cause of the above-mentioned trend has been the deep-seated aversion to the property tax by the citizenry. For decades, peoples’opinion polls have considered property tax as the “nastiest” tax. People hate property tax mainly because it is exceedingly visible. The public also hates this tax because of historical administrative problems. In addition, local authorities have had difficulties when trying to value properties for tax purposes. Land value taxes can solve some of these challenges.
The press and political leaders frequently describe property tax as the “most hated” and unfair tax. Such negative opinions affect the public’s perception of property tax. The public’s discontent with the property tax prompted a number ofproperty tax insurgencies in the 1970s. These revolts led to substantial limitations on the local authorities’ ability to nurture property tax revenue. In addition, property tax has constantly been shrinking tax base. Local authorities lose billions of money each in the form of charitable organizations exemptions from tax. Nonprofit organizations, encompassing churches, schools, hospitals, and schools, have received property-tax exemptions all through the tax history.
Property tax is economically incompetent and inefficient because it levies the value of improvements to land. Put differently, it is a levy on economic development done on a land. A tax is termed inefficient if another tax system that can raise the same amount of revenue and at the same time promote economic growth exist. An alternative to the traditional property tax, the land value tax provides certain reimbursements over the economically incompetent property tax. The land value tax will permit local authorities and states to maintain control over important sources of revenue while addressing efficiency issues. However, its political and legal challenges continue to make it an elusive option nowadays.
On the other hand, land value tax, also known as the two-rate tax or Split Rate Tax, can be defined as a charge or annual tax deducted on leasing value of the land property. Land value tax may apply either on the zoning of land basis or in flat rate fashion. Subsequently, land value tax is not based on the transaction, but it is levied depending on the value of the land. Land value tax is an economical device that can be adapted to support economic growth. Its role is significant to city and community planners as well as the central government. Advocates of land value tax claim that converting property tax into a land value tax can promote a more effectual use of the land as well as making tax system impartial. Another school of thought claims that land value tax rejects speculative actions in real estate market.
Land value tax has more advantages than traditional economic inducement programs, like abatements and tax increment financing. These benefits encompass being broader reaching and less targeted. Furthermore, land value tax can be used together with other tax programs if desired. Nonetheless, for it to be effective, land value tax requires an appropriate land use control and land zoning. The significances of land value tax, like its ability to encourage denser development, are diminished when it is applied without excellent land use controls and planning. Legally, land value tax requires the state to have legislation was written in the constitution that permits municipalities to implement it. However, some people believe this tax approach cannot be adopted in all areas and is damaging under some circumstances.
The land value tax is a modification of the property tax. Property tax is levied on buildings and land values at the same time. On the other hand,land value tax is levied on the basis of the assessed value of the land but spares improvementsandbuildings.Supporters of land value tax argue that property tax distorts economic activities by taxing, and thus chastising, improvements. Regardless of economic development advantage and efficiency associated withland value tax, the legislative and public perspective for land value tax largely depend on how the publicbelieve this tax would affect tax distribution burden. Would land value tax system be less or more progressive than the ordinary property tax? Who will be the winners and the losers?
Land value tax is a fair levy that has been progressive designed over time with an aim of reducing and possibly abolishing speculation on land. It is a revenue generation system that reduces and ultimately abolishes speculative undertakings in land markets, stimulate economic development, reduce discriminations in wealth distribution, stabilize the economy, promote land markets efficiency, reduces land prices, upsurges availability of productive land, and thepromotesproductive and optimal use of land. Once resolutely established, land value tax postures no uncertainties to new land buyers. Land assessments are founded on market values of property at its uppermost permitted use. It is transparent for new land procurers so that they can make an informeddecision about the price to pay for a particular land portion. This paper will discuss why land value tax may be a perfect substitute for property tax despite its few shortcomings.
Literature Review
This is a literature review of the benefits and challenges associated with land value tax. The section will also examine the place of land value tax in some states. The study of land value tax has a long history. Generally, the land value tax is a variation of a property tax that levies a higher tax on land than on land improvements. A number ofneoclassical and classical economists supported heavy taxation on land values, including James Mill, Adam Smith, and Harold Hotelling. These economists supported the idea that land value tax, unlike traditional tax systems does not cause distortions in economic policy formulation process and thus does not adversely affect the efficiency of the market economy. Classical economists have recognized labour, capital and land as three production factors. Capital simplifies all means of production that havebeen developed through human effort while land represents natural resources that are not acquired through human effort. Land value refers to earning that accrues to land during production.
A land value taxis a structure where the levy depends exclusively upon the value allotted to land. Discounting the value of any construction or any other form of improvement connected to land but considering the current situation in the vicinity, in terms of urban infrastructure, general features like golf clubs, water parks, restaurants etc. The land value tax is a way of relieving the weight enforced upon capital development by the traditional property tax. Ideally, a pure land value tax structure is based on the intrinsic land value in its natural condition.
Even though the rationality of taxing land values in place of building values, profits and incomes is compelling, one might wonder whether this system of tax is realistic or not. The experience of some states in the US and some other countries like Jamaica and Australia demonstrate that land value tax system is not an impeccable approach. Nearly 100 years ago, the Pennsylvania legislature allowed Scranton and Pittsburgh to levy land values at a higher rate than construction values. In 2009, Steven Bourassa, a Pittsburgh scholar, concluded that land value tax was the victim of inaccurate and infrequent and inept rate-setting procedures. Despite these challenges, sixteen Pennsylvania local authorities continue to charge land value tax.
Australia is a perfect example of a country that has depended heavily on land value tax to finance both municipal and state budgets. New South Wales and South Australia were pioneering states, which adopted land value tax before the creation of Australian federation in 1901. South Australia was the first state in Australia to adopt land value tax on the undeveloped land, in 1884. In New South Wales, land tax was introduced in 1895. New South Wales is the only state that imposes a flat rate land tax, with others imposing a progressive land value tax. The advantages of flat land tax are it can be calculated easily, and it is not easy for the landowner to adjust their tax liability by altering their form of property ownership, like splitting the land. Shifting to a land value tax has a long and short run effects. Following, the adoption of new tax regime New South Wales has surpassed other states like Victoria in terms of population, economic activity and general prosperity.
In 1989, a Mexico City, Mexicali, adopted land value tax as a replacement of property tax. The tax reform in Mexicali coincided with the national government initiative to advance local finances using a cadastre modernization program led by national public development bank. The tax reform necessitated the creation of Municipal Valuation Commission that included are resentatives from professional, and real estate organizations, and citizens’ representatives. After the state legislature approval, the new tax regime was implemented with a flat rate on non-residential land and another flat rate on residential land. Some of the challenges to the introduction of land value tax regime included amplified complications of tax administration, technical gaps among land assessors, and out-of-date cadaster in which only 58 per cent of properties were listed. Despite the aforementioned challenges, noteworthy gains in revenue based on land were attained in the year following the tax reform.
This type of tax does not fall on capital and labour, economic undertaking in a community that opted for Land value tax would be more successful, than asociety that deter employment and investment through labour and capital taxation.Land value tax is a lump sum duty that has zero marginal tax rate on economic rent, which is an importanteconomic windfall. Furthermore, land value tax cannot be easily avoided. There are no means of using ingenious accounting techniques to avoid liability. Besides, they claim that land value tax cannot be moved – the landowner cannot shift the tax burden to his tenant. This is because it is assumed that tenants pay the highest affordable rents and appropriate for the land in question, therefore, cannot undertake landlord’s land value tax liability.
Economists, like Gregory Ingram, advocated for land value tax for its capacity to be an effective tax that produces several unintentional costs still raising revenue. To economists, land value tax is different to tax on other property like buildings and cars. By increasing the cost of leaving land idle, land value tax leads to a noteworthy reduction in economic return of idle land, making the choice to develop the land more attractive, Subsequently, land value tax stimulates more land improvement, in place of delays in land improvement by individuals who wish to benefit from increasing land market.Land value tax can be seen, in this case, as a natural way of encouraging the development of land for the most rewarding use. The over development that can be anticipated as a probable negative impact of this policy is not an issue, because the economic rent portrays potential for optimal, in place of maximum use.
Although it is possible to instantaneously assume the land value tax system, there are several protests raised regarding the introduction and adoption of this tax system. Put differently, there are some debatable hindrances that are affecting the introduction of land value tax in many countries. The protests include unfair land value taxesprimarily because it singles out property-owners for taxation, implementing land value tax system would have insignificant effects on economic growth. In addition, value tax will not provide enough revenue required to finance the government mainly because anumber of taxable lands might be too small.Land valuation is sometimes difficult and expensive; aborting existing traditional system could be disruptive and costly, and identifying landowners and configuring their tax liability can be extremely challenging.
Land value tax is also unpopular because it a tax on wealth rather than income. The Increase in land value raise tax on it, but the land owner does not get this benefit until the land is sold. In the meantime, he or she pays higher tax out of monthly income. Shifting from property tax to land value tax crafts “winner and loser” and subsequently raises concerns about fairness. This can contribute to apolitical confrontation between those who oppose and those who support land value taxation. Furthermore, land value taxation necessitates consistent rate setting and land value assessments, which can be problematic than total property assessments.
Historical Perspectives on the Land Value Tax
Real estate taxation is as old as civilization itself. Property taxes were charged in Babylonia, China, and Egypt and other areas of ancient of the world to sponsor the construction of temples and palaces and to maintain royal armies. Land value tax reform is not new. It has been implemented in some countries and cities around the world. The land value taxidea perhaps gained its utmost popularity in the late 1800s, when Henry George, an economist, examined the taxing land value and exempting capital and labor from tax in his book, Progress and Poverty. Various economists have expanded on George’s work, analyzing both the evidence and theory. These economists have come up with “Henry George Theorem” which provides proof that in a society with optimum population, the land rent is equal to the community’s public goods value. Modern economics, therefore, confirms George’s theory in a more widespread and rigorous form. The use of land rent or land value for public revenue hence has proponents in the modern world. Nonetheless, their vocal sounds have not been extensively heard in the tax reform debate. Besides, some people who oppose the theory.
Henry George wrote a few years after Karl Marx. George, like Marx, identified three factors of production capital, labour and land. Besides, both looked at the poverty problem and huge disparity between poor and the rich, however, they came todifferent conclusions pertaining the cause of poverty problem, and the various solutions that can be used to remedy the problem. Marx identified that the problem is caused by the capitalists who take a huge share – this leaves a small portion for the worker. For Marx, poverty solution is to have the government possess the factors of production thereby reducing capitalist power. On another hand, Henry George stated that the poverty problem is caused by private land ownership. The landowner did not participate in the land creation, he or she does not contribute to production but has the authority to force tenants to pay for a living or working on the land. Subsequently, this causes an increase in the gap in wealth between landowners and the tenants.
One of the probable remedies that can be used to bridge the wealth gap between the landowner and tenant would be for state to confiscate property and lease to tenants, with the leases going to the state and then the government uses the revenue for the benefit of all people, in place of an individual who claims ownership of the land. However, Henry George overruled this method as being extremely harsh and distressing. Instead, Henry George proposed holding the land in private possession but taxing the rental value of the land each year. He stated that taxing rental value of the land would be justified primarily because land is a natural gift and not a man’s creation. He stated that the enhancement of the value of landwas caused by peoples’ growth and public improvements like highways, railroads, canals, among many other public works. Therefore, the landowner did not develop the external factors that upsurge the rental value of the land, so why should he or she benefit from an increase in the rental value of land caused by external factors?
Henry George claimed that the land value tax would be necessary because it would eliminate all possible speculation in land. In addition, it would encourage landowners to use land in the most efficient manner possible. His primary assumption was land value tax would eliminate unwarranted privilege and bring about economic equality. Henry George held that land value tax would raise sufficient revenue to an extent of causing other taxes to be eliminated. Therefore, the government will not burden capital and labor with taxation. This will allow individuals to retain the full income from their labour, and allow capital and capital returns to be allocated promoting economic development. It is one of Henry George’s followers, lawyer Thomas Shearmen, who termed land value tax ‘single tax, Shearman was concerned with tax reduction and tax reform more than he was with wealth disparity or land reform, but the term single tax stuck and Henry George used it in later writings and speeches.
George primarily encouraged a single tax system upon land intended to replace all historical systems. The single tax system would be the sole source of government revenue. Followers of George claimed that because land is a fixed asset, the economic charge is a result of the economy and not personal effort. Therefore,thecommunity would be right in recovering it to support the government. They acknowledged the views of David Ricardo that a levy on economic rent should not be shifted forward. A second assertion was that implementation of single tax would make another tax system unnecessary, and rejecting taxes on buildings would encourage construction and economic development.
The liberal theory, founded on the works of Henry George and John Locke, offers strong support for a number of neoclassical economist expectations. In essence, the liberal theory asserts that all individual have comparable claims to the natural opportunities value, and that rent of land collected from the public is required to back these claims. Henry advocated for land value tax claiming that single tax is a way of alleviating injustice created by private land possession. According to Henry George, the rental fee of land is a meager surplus, not a result of any land improvement by landowners. He claimed that the potential or actual capacity of generating rent is what provides value to land.
The Henry George’s argument seems to have delivered much of the foundation for the introduction of land value tax in a number of countries, like New Zealand, Australia, United States, and most probably Canada. Moreover, other significant contributing factor to the tax reform in countries includes the claims about economic efficiency and social fairness of the land value tax. For instance, the Japanese government used land value tax as one of the ways used to stabilize land prices in the country.
Personal Analysis of Land Value Tax

In the history property tax, restructurings have sometimes led to ugly and bad consequence despite the rhetoric and the lofty intentions of their supporters and sponsors. Is there an enhanced route to proper tax reform? The argument by William Vickrey (1999), an economist and a receiver of Nobel Prize in 1996, that property tax is a mixture of the vilest taxes – and tax on site or land value is one of the best taxes. Vickrey’s statement stresses that the property tax is essentially two distinct levies hustled into one annual levy. One part is a tax on the land, and the second is a tax on the assessed value of the land improvement. Although the property levy applies the same tax rate to both constituents, this ration can be changed.
The table below demonstrates that one can unbundle the two constituents of a property tax, apply dissimilar tax rates to the value of land from one applied to its improvements, and still nurture the same amount of revenue. Imposing a higher duty rate to the land values than to land improvements values transforms the traditional property tax into a split-rate tax.
Different Property Tax Rates may Give Same Result
Table 1Table
Land Tax Payment
(land Value = $100,000) Improvements Tax payment (improvements value = $ 300,000) Total Tax Payment
Traditional property Tax (1% on both values)
$1,000 $3,000 $4,000
Two-rate Property Tax (2.5% on land, 0.5% on improvements) $2.500 $1.500 $4,000
Pure Land Value Tax
(4% on the land value only) $4,000 0 $4,000
Alternative Property Tax Rates Can Yield the Same Result
Most cities, except a few like Philadelphia, depend to a great extent on property tax, as the central source of revenue. Indeed, property tax is predictable, stable and easy to administer. However, property tax has some problems just like other taxes on capital and labor. Economists have shown that property tax has corrosive impacts on construction, investment and rehabilitation of prevailing structures. Land value tax is a form of property tax with slight differences. Its principal significance is that it does not depress economic activity in a manner that taxes on consumption and incomes do. Like council tax and business rate, land value tax is charged annually. Land value tax is based on the assessed value of the land. Therefore, poor land use in cities has a huge cost.
From the available literature about the experience encountered by different states and local authorities that have adopted land value tax system, one can argue that land value tax is more than an attractive and intriguing idea. Arguably, this taxation method has really worked since the 19th century at the state, local and national level. It is purported that the land value tax has promoted efficient use of resources in the community, encouraged development, and perhaps depressed urban sprawl. Nevertheless, local government officials and legislators considering a shift to land value taxes from traditional property taxes need more that hypothetical argument before committing capital to this form of tax. The real-world experience in Pennsylvania cities and other countries around the globe provide evidence that can be used to examine the arguments of land value proponents.
Several studies have tried to make statistical comparisons of areas with and without land value tax system. In other words, analysis of data gathered after and before the introduction of land value tax in order to examine its effect on economic growth. Nevertheless, economists do not have the capacity to conduct experiments within in a laboratory setting. Rather, economist need to examine the effects of tax reforms in an economy through different measurements of evolving and complex economy, while acknowledging that may other social, and economic factors may affect the economy as well.
Property and land should be perceived as distinct taxation bases, although in a good number of countries taxes are charged on the joint values of possessions and the land on which it is situated. There are good reasons why the government should tax land on which a building stands. A tax on land does not result in a deadweight loss. Any tax on a commodity that has elastic supply generates a deadweight loss, since the levy causes higher market charges, which diminishes the consumption of the commodity, and stimulates sales of its substitute. This leads to high production and in reduced consumption. Due to the fact the land supply is fixed, Land value tax may be a faultless tax, from an efficiency perspective. No landowner’s action can change the tax, and probably substitution effect does not exist, there is no probable loss.
Land value tax, as an alternative to the traditional property law, provides some paybacks over the frugally inefficient property tax. According to a number ofpolls, the most hated form of tax is the property tax. Economists Caroline Hoxby and Marika Cabral argue that peoples in America oppose the property tax primarily because it is the most visible primary tax. Furthermore, economists argue that property tax is inefficient economically because it levies the value of land improvement, this implies that property tax is a levy on economic development. A tax is considered profligate if another tax system can be used to raise the same amount of revenue while encouraging economic development. Subsequently, land value taxis a perfect substitute for property tax. The property tax would allow local government and state to maintain control over a significant source of revenue while addressing efficiency issues at the same time.
Even though land value taxis not extensively used, it is more than a theoretical concept. Local governments in Pennsylvania, New York and Hawaii have implemented land value tax system. Besides, twenty-five countries employ some form of land value tax. Land tax in this local government and municipal are levied based on the evaluated value of the private land. Public properties, for example in Denmark, like embassies and preserved properties, are not taxed. The land value tax has been adopted in two forms; split-rate tax system and pure land value tax system. The split-rate tax system involves taxing land value at a higher rate than land improvements. For instance, in Harrisburg, the ratio of tax on land value to tax on land improvement was 6:1. The pure land value tax system is adopted by taxing the value of land only. In other words, land improvements are not subjected to taxation.
Property tax is not an effective tax. It discriminates between diverse categories of business. For instance, agriculture is regularly exempted from property tax. On the other hand, land value tax is not designed to raise or reduce tax but to maintain neutral tax mechanism. Putting differently, land value tax moves the tax burden; it does not increase nor decrease the tax base for the government or municipality. Conservatively, property tax involves single rate that is applied uniformly to the entire value of the property, including both capital improvements and land. On another hand, under land value tax levy will remain constant after capital development, no matter the extent of the land use.
Various studies within the last 15 years have projected that introducing land value tax in Britain can raise more than £200 billion a year. This is more than the combined of income tax, capital gains tax, stamp duties, property tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax, council tax, and insurance premium tax. Moreover, because land value tax stimulates economic activity and investment, which raises land demand and land values, the revenue collected through land value tax tends to increase with time. Land value tax is a fair tax because the value of theland upon which the charge would be based is not determined by the land occupier nor the owner, but it is determined by nature and economic and social activities of the entire society. Unlike property tax, land value tax does levy anything from what landowners have earned from the land. In fact, land value tax offers automatic compensation for lands that are underprivileged in some way in terms of proximity to roads, urban centers, electricity, and other.
Sometimes property taxes become exceptionally burdensome for thelandowner. These forms of taxes rise progressively over time. Nonetheless, it is easy to avoid property taxes. The landowners know that structural changes in a land increase tax bill. Subsequently, they avoid making any physical land improvement until after tax assessment. Conventional property tax fuels individuals to hide land improvements by secretly remodeling without filing construction permits. Land value tax is fairer to the government and local authorities because it cannot be avoided. Furthermore, it benefits people because they do not end up paying a high tax to compensate for the lost revenue. Another intrinsic importance of land value tax is the fact that it has an inbuilt counter-cyclical mechanism. Economic downturn causes adecrease in land value. Consequently, lowering land value tax.
Nowadays, most taxes are charged on income flows and expenditure. However, property and land have been taxed for ages – definitely for longer than revenue – and they continue to be an essential portion of the tax base in many advanced economies. It can be recommended that a land tax, first pronounced by Henry George, can be used to supplement, modify or replace property tax. There are good economic reasons many countries are considering land value tax instead of traditional property tax. First,land is not responsive to changes in its price, which implies it can be levied without remarkable distortion of people behaviour. Secondly, the ownership of the land is usually visible and simply established, which makes it easy to identify who should pay tax. Thirdly, the land has unchangeable and identifiable geographic location, making it a natural tax base.
If land value tax is a noble idea, why have some government and local authorities face challenges when implementing it. For example, in Pittsburgh, where studies suggest positive impacts of land value tax on economic development, the tax was withdrawn for what could have instituted poor practice of any property tax. The lack of proper land assessment procedures made it challenging for the public to welcome the new tax system. The public held the perception that land values were overvalued for residential property and undervalued for downtown Pittsburgh business special interests. This shows the importance of transparent, open, and frequently updated land assessment system. Land value tax lowers the property tax on buildings, leading to lower monthly mortgage charges. For example, Centre for the Study of Economics conducted a study on the impacts of land tax in Titusville City, Pennsylvania, which introduced land value tax in 1990. The study pointed out that the with land value tax individuals have small tax bills than the time they were exposed to traditional tax.
The property tax system is very unpopular while the land value tax system is a little-employed property tax alternative. There are changes for those recommending a shift to a form of property tax, land value tax. Put differently, it is hard to advocate for land value tax to evade it being perceived by the public as a traditional property tax enclosed in a different package. Furthermore, it is harder for the public to review the objectiveness of assessments when land and improvements on it are valued disjointedly. Land value tax system is a convincing, not utopia, suggestion that shifts all or some of the property levies from improvements to land, and it can provide crucial benefits, like reducing and removing disincentives to improve the land. On the same time, there are several legal, political, and administrative barriers to this tax reform. Policy makers should not underestimate the benefits of adopting a tax system that will not have damaging impacts or impede economic growth.
Conclusion
Land value tax is a special kind of real property taxation. It is a method of obtaining revenue by a way of taxing property depending on their rental value. Whereas the traditional property tax levies both land and the land improvements at the same rate, land value tax levies land at a higher rate while concurrently reducing, or even eliminating, the tax levied on land improvements. If land value tax replaces property tax, it will be the significant change in the manner property and land are taxed. A well-applied land value tax would supplement a wide range economic and social initiative including transport housing and infrastructure. Land value tax is an elementary fiscal intervention that would makea great step towards sewing social and economic ills. Land value tax will require the land in the country to be frequently assessed,and the tax levied as a percentage of the total value of the land.
“Land” implies the site only, not including improvements on the land, the value of crops, buildings, drainage or any other improvement on the land. On the other hand, land value tax ignores all the work that people have carried out on the land. Assuming other factors are constant, a vacant land will be taxed the same as an adjacent land occupied by a building. The land valuation would be founded on market evidence, in accord with the best use of the land. Unlike property tax, a backbone of local governments in many countries, land value tax is not assessed on the real estate value, which include both the property and the land it is standing on, in its place, land value tax is imposed on the land value only.This means that owner of a landis not penalized for improving the land. Rather, the owner sees the value of the increase when valuable infrastructures, like roads, schools, hospital, are constructed nearby.
Land value tax encourages economic development. Taxing labour, machinery, and building, discourage people from participating in beneficial and constructive activities and penalize efficiency and enterprise. Land value tax provides asolution to the aforementioned problem. Land value tax is payable irrespective of the whether the land is inuse or not. The complexities of property tax, income tax, capital gains, value added tax, and inheritance tax are well recognized. To the contrary, land value tax is simple and straightforward. Furthermore, unlike property tax, land value tax cannot be avoided mainly because land cannot be concealed or hidden. The economic successes in countries that have introduced land value taxhave made more and more countries to embrace this tax system. Because of the above reasons, among many others, and value tax should be adopted as a property tax replacement.
Adopting a land value tax system to replace the existing property tax is a forthright proceeding. It does not require additional expenses or staff. Since the land assessor mechanically subdivided the assessment into improvement and land value, this can be done through a software update. Nonetheless, because it has the ability to make significant changes for some land owners, a land value taxintroduction process should be phased over time, typically five to ten years are recommended. Furthermore, for practical and political reasons, government and municipalities can maintain a partial tax rate on the property with a higher tax levied on the land; this is referred to as split tax rate.
Bibliography
Arnott, Richard. “Neutral property taxation.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 7, no. 1 (2005): 27-50.
Andelson, R. V. Land-Value Taxation around the World. Third Edition. Blackwell Publishers, Inc., Oxford, United Kingdom. 2000.
Bird, Richard M., and Enid Slack. “Land and property taxation: A review.” In Workshop on Land Issues in Latin American and the Caribbean. May, vol. 19. 2002.
Besley, Timothy, and Torsten Persson. The origins of state capacity: Property rights, taxation, and politics. No. w13028. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2007.
Brown-Luthango, Mercy. “Capturing unearned value/leakages to assist markets to work for the poor.” Development Action Group. Position Paper prepared for Urban LandMark (2006).
Cabral, Marika, and Caroline Hoxby. The hated property tax: salience, tax rates, and tax revolts. No. w18514. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012.
Dye, Richard F., and Richard W. England. Assessing the theory and practice of land value taxation. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2010.
De Cesare, Claudia M., L. C. P. Silva Filho, Maurício Yoshinori Une, and Sheila Cristina Wendt. “Analyzing the Feasibility of Moving to a Land Value-based Property Tax System: A Case Study from Brazil.” 2003.
Foldvary, Fred E. “The ultimate tax reform: Public revenue from land rent.” Available at SSRN 1103586, 2006.
Gurdgiev, Constantin. “Land Value Taxation and other Measures for Raising Public Investment Revenue: A Comparative Study.” 2009.
McCluskey, William J., and R. C. D. Franzsen. Land Value Taxation: An Applied Analysis. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
Miller Josh, Land Value Tax: An Alternative to the Property Tax, 2013. Retrieved from http://eyeonhousing.org/2013/11/land-value-taxation-an-alternative-to-the-property-tax/ on 18thOctober, 2015.
Peters, Alan, and Peter Fisher. “The failures of economic development incentives.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70, no. 1 (2004): 27-37.
Plummer, Elizabeth. “Evidence on the distributional effects of a land value tax on residential households.” National Tax Journal 63, no. 1 2010.
Speirs, Mark. “Land Value Taxation: An Underutilized Complement to Smart Growth Policies.” A project Submitted to The Chair, Department of Community and Regional Planning. In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Community and Regional Planning, 2010.
The Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors. The Danish Way, Vol. 6. 2002

TO HAVE YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE, PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US NOW.