Abstract
A method for measuring the relative impacts of an agricultural use value tax program on local tax bases is developed and applied to the case of Hawaii. A simulation model is used to reconstruct local tax bases without the program. The model design takes into account the cumulative growth effects of foregone tax bases over time. The rationale for proper accounting of these foregone growth effects is strengthened by the tendency of tax capitalization effects to lessen the impacts and ultimate transfer effects. The relative impacts of the program on SMSA and rural tax bases are measured by comparing effective tax rates with vs. without the program. The relative impacts have been minor over the first decade of the programless than 0.10% for the SMSA and up to about 1.3% for the rural counties. For the future, even with a recently expanded program, the ultimate transfer effects will tend to be moderated by economic growth and capitalization effects. This moderating tendency is stronger for the SMSA, where there may be greater justification for use value taxation, than for rural counties.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bevins, Robert J. “Real Property Taxes and Farm Real Estate Values: Incidence and Implications: Comment,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 57 (1975):725.
Ching, C. T. K. and G. E. Frick. “Effect of Use-Value Assessment on Property Tax Rates,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 52 (November 1970):603–06.
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V.Resource Conservation, Economics and Policies, Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Third Edition, 1968, 395 p.
Deaton, Brady J. and S. Darrell Mundy. “Real Property Taxes and Farm Real Estate Values: Incidence and Implications: Comment,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 56 (1975):125–26.
Gloudemans, Robert J.Use-Value Farmland Assessments Theory, Practice and Impact. Studies in Property Taxation, International Association of Assessing Officers Research and Technical Services Department, 1974, 73 p.
Gustafson, Gregory C. and L. T. Wallace. “Differential Assessment as Land Use Policy: The California Case,”American Institute of Planners Journal, Vol. 51 (1975):379–89.
Hansen, David E. and S. I. Schwartz. “Income Distributional Effects of the California Land Conservation Act,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 59 (1977):294–301.
House, Peter W. “Differential Assessment of Farmland Near Cities: Experience in Maryland Through 1965,” ERS-358, USDA, Washington, D. C., 1967.
Jensen, Peter Jens.Property Taxation in the United States, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1931, pp. 63–75.
Pasour, E. G., Jr. “Real Property Taxes and Farm Real Estate Values: Incidence and Implications,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 55 (1973): 549–556.
—. “The Capitalization of Real Property Taxes Levied on Farm Real Estate,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 57 (1975): 539–548.
Hoy, C. Carman and J. G. Polson. “Tax Shifts Occurring as a Result of Differential Assessment of Farmland: California, 1968–69,”National Tax Journal, Vol. 24 (December 1971): 449–57.
Schwartz, S. I., David E. Hansen, and T. C. Foin, “Land Owner Benefits from Use-Value Assessment Under the California, Land Conservation Act,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 58 (1976): 170–78.
U. S. Council of Environmental Quality.Untaxing Open Space: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Open Space, April 1976, 401 p.
Yamauchi, Hiroshi. “Measuring Foregone Taxes and Distributional Impacts of Use Value Taxation Over Time,” Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Department Paper 62, May 1968, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yamauchi, H. Differential impacts of use value taxation on local property tax bases over time. Ann Reg Sci 13, 11–22 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01284074
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01284074