Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: LVT clarified

Expand Messages
  • steven cord
    ...     Affordable Housing Voucher (AHV)     Give taxpayers an Affordable Housing Voucher (AHV) which they could use to pay for 20% of the property tax on
    Message 1 of 34 , Dec 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate comments on this LVT proposal (it may be particularly adapted to U.S. conditions):
       

       

      Affordable Housing Voucher (AHV)

       

       

      Give taxpayers an Affordable Housing Voucher (AHV) which they could use to pay for 20% of the property tax on their building assessment; pay for these AHVs by increasing the property tax rate.  Here’s what will happen:   

       

      v    Most taxpayers will pay less property tax (especially the poor) because their 20% AHV building assessment reduction will exceed their extra payment due to the higher property-tax rate.  Note: all business & individual tenants will eventually pay less space rent.   

      v    Construction & renovation will increase since they’ll be less taxed.  

      v     The government will get the same revenue since the increased property tax rate will completely pay for the 20% AHVs.

          

           These changes are completely substantiated by literally hundreds of

      empirical studies - ask to see them (at no cost or obligation, now or ever).  We’ve not seen any refuting empirical studies.  Without these changes, economic suffering will ensue.

         

                  Specify that no rate change can raise a property-owner’s annual property tax by more than 3% plus the inflation rate above what that property paid in property tax in the previous year.  If land & buildings are assessed together as a unit (contrary to what assessment manuals recommend), then for tax purposes, the land assessment shall be considered to be 40% of the total assessment (or 100% for improvements assessed at less than $20,000).  Also tax-exempt all new construction & renovation for the first 5 years. 

                 To get empirical studies supporting these proposals, contact (free, no obligation, now or ever) Steven Cord, Professor-Emeritus (I.U.P.), currently Research Director at the Center for the Study of Economics, 10528 Cross Fox Lane, Columbia MD 21044 (Washington DC suburb), 410-997-1182 stevencord2000@..., www.economicboom.info

       

      There are 100s of empirical studies

      Supporting this proposal. 

      Do you have even one empirical study showing otherwise? 

       

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steven Cord

    • Walter Horn
      ... Again, such concepts as a higher improvement value fraction will be effectively meaningless in jurisdictions that don t have separate assessments for
      Message 34 of 34 , Dec 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Roy Langston <roy_langston1@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Steven Cord wrote:
        >
        > >Affordable Housing Voucher (AHV)
        >
        > >Give taxpayers an Affordable Housing Voucher (AHV) which
        > >they could use to pay for 20% of the property tax on
        > >their building assessment; pay for these AHVs by
        > >increasing the property tax rate.
        >
        > This idea has some merit because of its similarities to
        > the personal property tax or LVT exemption I have
        > advocated on many occasions, but it would be fairer to
        > make it a flat per capita amount rather than a fraction
        > of a taxpayer's building assessment. Giving bigger
        > exemptions to people in more expensive housing goes
        > against the grain of tax progressivity, to say nothing
        > of the dubious idea of giving the vouchers to owners
        > but not tenants.
        >
        > >Here¢s what will happen:
        >
        > >v Most taxpayers will pay less property tax
        > >(especially the poor) because their 20% AHV building
        > >assessment reduction will exceed their extra payment
        > >due to the higher property-tax rate. Note: all
        > >business & individual tenants will eventually pay
        > >less space rent.
        >
        > Actually, it is difficult to say if the poor would get
        > a bigger break from this scheme than the rich, as the
        > poor tend to be tenants rater than owners and the rich
        > tend to live in newer buildings with a higher improvement
        > value fraction.
        >

        Again, such concepts as "a higher improvement value fraction" will be
        effectively meaningless in jurisdictions that don't have separate
        assessments for land and improvements--and no change to this is being
        contemplated. Where that is the case (nearly everywhere in America,
        as I understand it) Steve's proposal (except for the parts about new
        construction) wouldn't change anybody's taxes, because both the total
        municipal levy and the arbitrary land-to-improvement ratio (whether
        60/40 or whatever) is proposed to be fixed across all property
        owners. Even if the tax on "the improvement portion" were reduced to
        by a 100% rather than a 20% discount, under that proposal, every
        homeowner would pay the same amount as at present.

        I think that for a two-rate tax system to make any sense, you have to
        have actual assessments of the two different portions being taxed.
        Across-the-board imputations won't work.


        W
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.