More “sports” subsidy

Of course it’s well known that professional “sports” businesses receive big subsidies for stadiums, but I’d not thought about sales tax.  In at least one case, the Super Bowl is exempt.

GAO on Funding Infrastructure

No great surprises in the new Gov’t Accountability Office report on: PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE  Challenges and Investment Options for the Nation’s Infrastructure.  (Summary, full report).  Roads, bridges, dams, railroads, airports etc are decaying and not keeping up with “demand,” and existing funding methods are proving inadequate.   Is there a cheaper way to meet the needs? The report does not say.  Is it worth spending what it costs to update the facilities? Not discussed. And perhaps most importantly, is there a way that the owners of land benefiting from infrastructure improvements could be made to pay for them?  Well, one sentence recognizes some approximation of the possibility:

A variety of taxes have been and could be used to fund the nation’s infrastructure, including excise, sales, property, and income taxes. (p. 15)

That’s all.

Update on Consumer Taxes

The Civic Federation has updated their compilation of Chicago consumer taxes, noted last year.  This includes the additional 1/4% RTA sales tax effective April 1, but not the Cook County sales tax increase going into effect later.

Racism and land value taxation

Prosper Australia exec Gavin Putland has written an insightful analysis (“Still on the Mountaintop”) of how a policy of taxing productive activity almost guarantees, under American conditions, that blacks will suffer economic discrimination and be overrepresented among the poor and unemployed.   The link is thru NAIRU, which requires a substantial level of unemployment in order to prevent ruinous inflation.

“full employment” means enough unemployment to cause enough wage restraint to give stable inflation. So we’re living in a system of enforced failure. A percentage of people have to be unemployed, and therefore, at the boundaries of unemployment, another percentage of people have to be underemployed or intermittently employed or precariously employed. In other words, the economy is being run in such a way that a certain percentage of people have to be losers.

He explains what seem logical reasons why Africian Americans, rather than other minorities or the entire labour force, bear this burden.  The solution is to tax “land-like assets”  instead of “house-like assets” and the work that goes to produce them, resulting in increased employment opportunities with less inflation, among other benefits.  The piece includes detailed explanation of why even landowners will be better off under this reform.

Even experienced Georgists will benefit from reading Putland’s accessible explanation.

NAHB report endorses Land Value Tax

A new report prepared by a consultant for the National Association of Homebuilders reviews dozens of strategies which have been proposed or used to promote affordable housing.  It points out that an increased tax rate on land values, balanced with decreased taxation of improvements, reduces real estate taxes for most homeowners, while encouraging owners of vacant or underused land to get their land developed, often increasing the supply of housing.

The report also notes that it costs virtually nothing to tax land at a higher rate than improvements.  Examples cited include Harrisburg and Allentown, PA.  Information is from Josh Vincent of the Center for the Study of Economics.

In  Illinois, the Cook County Board could pursue a similar strategy using existing authority to tax land and improvements as two different classes of real estate.  As previously discussed here, the Assessor could take a big step in this direction by just valuing vacant land as prescribed by existing laws and ordinances.

Ricardo’s Law: The Video

Fred Harrison now has a youtube video version of his Ricardo’s Law, which explains how a “progressive” income tax actually traps the poor and benefits the rich. Mairead Sullivan, Ben Kettlewell, Ross Ashcroft, Ben Holland, and Megan Campbell are also credited on the project.

If you only have 8 minutes to spend learning about this stuff, or as an introduction, the video is recommended.

update Feb 26: The youtube link is changed above.  Also there is an alternative link.

Transit funding will cost >80,000 jobs

That’s the estimate I came up with in the revised and quite enhanced version of HGS Research Note 5a. I’m using parameters estimated several years ago in a study of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Maybe the actual number here would be a lot more; I wish someone would do the analysis. This loss is expected to occur by 2014; further losses would follow.

If RTA really needs the funding, I estimate we could do it with a land tax that would cost the typical homeowner maybe $40/year, with renters essentially paying nothing. For $290/year, the homeowner could do away with all transit taxes, and fares too. No jobs would be lost; some would be gained.

By comparison, Chicago Metropolis 2020, in their surprisingly thoughtful study Time is Money, estimate that fully funding all the transit spending that RTA wants, plus some “smart growth” changes in land use arrangements, would add 22,307 jobs by 2020. They do not discuss how the funds would be obtained, although the study does note that a doubling of gasoline prices– which might be achieved thru taxation– would have great benefits for transit use.

We’ll pay $141,000/job you “create”

Or, to look at it differently, we’ll give you $353,000 per acre of land you use.  That’s what the City of Chicago is giving ” ML Realty Partners LLC” to build a “distribution center” at 401 N. Cicero.  Now, all I know about this is what I read in the papers, but according to the Jan 20 Tribune article, $10.6 million in TIF money is going to “create” 75 jobs on 30 acres.  This site is practically adjacent to the Green Line Cicero station.  Why did nobody want to develop it before? (My guess is that it’s because the landowner was holding out for TIF money.)  And how can we justify less than 3 jobs/acre on a transit-served site?  This sort of thing might be suitable for Will County, not the west side of Chicago.  Is there nothing more productive that can be done with this land?

Ending “a sea of indebtedness”

Thanks again to Dan Sullivan of Saving Communities for locating Henry George’s advice on preventing excessive debt (government, corporate, individual) without constraining economic growth. George’s straightforward solution: take government out of the business of collecting debts. People could still lend and borrow money, but you can be sure lenders would be careful, relying heavily on the reliability of the borrower. As for public debts, if the government needs money for a defensive war or public improvements, let it levy taxes to collect what’s needed. The logic of this becomes clear when one reflects that in wartime everyone should sacrifice, the rich no less in proportion to their assets than the rest, and that public improvements have the effect of increasing land values and therefore generate their own financing.

The article Sullivan quotes is from The Standard, Feb 11, 1888, and apparently isn’t posted in its entirety anywhere, so I reproduce Sullivan’s extensive extract below.

Vacant Land is still undertaxed

Many years ago, I wrote a memo called “Vacant Land is Undertaxed.” The title says it all, but it’s still true today.

A new Civic Federation report shows vacant land in Chicago assessed at just 4.81% of market value– it’s supposed to be assessed at 22%. On this basis, vacant land in Chicago is worth $5.3 billion, and to assess (and tax) it properly would bring in over $50 million/year. If the County Board were to revise its classification ordinance to assess vacant land at 40% of value (to go any higher would have other repercussions), another $40 million or more would be recovered.

In the suburbs, the underassessment is less severe, but vacant land there is estimated to be worth over $4.6 billion, so some additional revenue could be realized.

And or course, no matter how high the taxes on vacant land are raised, nobody’s going to move it away or decide not to use it because of the tax on it.

A letter to this effect was sent to the Tribune this afternoon. I am sure they will instantly recognize it as a perceptive and cogent statement, and will publish it under a prominent headline. Uh, right?

UPDATE Nov 6: The Tribune did publish the letter,  though not formatted quite as I wished.  Two days later they also included on their web page (but not in print) my suggestion (about halfway down here)  for transit funding from land value.