Land and Property Taxation in 25 Countries: A Comparative Review

Steuer, Eigentum, Boden, Grundsteuer, Vergleich, Welt, Tax, Property, Land, Real property tax, Comparison, World

Managing the coordination of service delivery in metropolitan cities : the role of metropolitan governance

This paper examines different models of governing structure found in metropolitan areas around the world. It evaluates how well these models achieve the coordination of service delivery over the entire metropolitan area as well as the extent to which they result in the equitable sharing of costs of services. Based on theory and case studies from numerous cities in developed and less developed countries, the paper concludes that there is no"one size fits all"model of metropolitan governance. Other observations from the case studies highlight the importance of the process of implementing a metropolitan structure, the need to match fiscal resources with expenditure responsibilities, the need to have a governance structure that covers the entire economic region, and the critical importance of having a strong regional structure that ensures that services are delivered in a coordinated fashion across municipal boundaries.Transport Economics Policy&Planning,Municipal Financial Management,National Governance,Public Sector Economics&Finance,Public Sector Corruption&Anticorruption Measures

Does Municipal Amalgamation Strengthen the Financial Viability of Local Government? A Canadian Example

Municipal amalgamation is often seen as one way to ensure that municipalities are large enough to be financially and technically capable of providing the extensive array of services with which they are charged. The idea is presumably that municipalities will be able not only to reap economies of scale, but also to coordinate service delivery over the enlarged territory as well as share costs equitably and reduce (even eliminate) spillovers of service delivery across local boundaries. This paper evaluates the extent to which municipal amalgamation in Toronto, Canada’s largest city, in 1998 achieved the provincially-stated objective of saving costs as well as its impact on taxes, financial viability, and local access and responsiveness. We conclude that the end result was the creation of a city that manages to be both too small and too big at the same time. The amalgamation probably increased the financial viability of at least the smaller and poorer municipalities in the newly created City of Toronto by increasing their access to the tax base of the amalgamated city as a whole and it also equalized local services so that everyone can enjoy a similar level of services. However, it had no significant effect on either the financial sustainability of Toronto or its capacity to deal with financial crises, nor did it achieve cost savings or solve any of the problems that the city and region faced in the last decade and continue to face in this one. The new city remains much too small to address the regional issues that plague the greater Toronto region (such as transportation and land use planning and economic development) while resulting in resulted in reduced access and participation by residents in local decision-making. On balance, it seems unlikely that anyone looking back with knowledge of the small and questionable gains that appear to have been realized would willingly have undertaken the complex, extended and painful process of metropolitan amalgamation

Ingresos propios de ciudades metropolitanas

Las ciudades son motores importantes de la productividad, la innovación y el crecimiento económico. Necesitan servicios "duros" (agua, alcantarillado y carreteras) y servicios "blandos" (instalaciones culturales, parques y bibliotecas) para atraer a trabajadores cualificados. Las ciudades que no ofrecen estos servicios van a perder su ventaja económica. Las ciudades necesitan ingresos suficientes para proporcionar los servicios y la infraestructura.Gobernanz

The Property Tax – in Theory and Practice

This paper is part of the IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance series. For a full list of papers, please visit http://bit.ly/2ylAa2D.The property tax is considered to be a good tax for local governments, mainly because of the connection between the types of services funded at the local level and the benefit to property values. Yet property tax revenues rarely account for more than 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in any country. This paper explains why the property tax is under-used by highlighting some of the problems with the tax, such as its unpopularity, its inelasticity, erosion of tax base, and poor administration. Reforming the property tax is difficult, however, because no matter how economically desirable the long-run outcome of reform may be, its transitional effects may be highly undesirable in political terms—there will inevitably be winners and losers. Even if the property tax is used more heavily, it will never be able to do the whole job, especially for local governments that are delivering more than property-related services.Institute on Municipal Finance and Governanc

How Much Local Fiscal Autonomy Do Cities Have? A Comparison of Eight Cities around the World

This paper is part of the IMFG Perspectives Papers series. For a full list of papers, please visit http://bit.ly/2ylAa2D.Local fiscal autonomy is the extent to which local governments rely on locally raised revenues for funding (rather than receiving transfers from federal or provincial governments) and on their ability to set their own tax rates. A comparison of Toronto, London, Paris, Berlin, Frankfurt, Madrid, Tokyo, and New York reveals that municipal expenditure responsibilities differ among the eight cities; municipal taxes (including local taxes and shared taxes) per capita differ; and, not surprisingly, the extent of local fiscal autonomy also differs. Benefits of tax autonomy include greater efficiency and accountability in the public sector. Tax autonomy gives voters some ability to decide on tax levels and, in that way, taxpayers are more aware of public-service outcomes. Moreover, for these eight cities, there appears to be a relationship between dependence on own-source revenues and the size of the metropolitan economy, with a couple of exceptions. Toronto is less dependent on intergovernmental transfers than many other major cities but, with the exception of London, it has fewer tax options than the other cities. New York is less reliant on state transfers and can levy many different taxes, although the City still needs state permission to implement some new taxes. Tokyo and Paris rely heavily on own–source revenues, but may not have much control over their tax sources. Frankfurt and Berlin have access to more tax sources than many of the other cities, but a portion of these are shared taxes over which they have no tax rate–setting ability. Madrid relies relatively heavily on property taxes but also shares in revenues from the personal income tax, value-added tax, and selected excise taxes. Canadian cities rely largely on the property tax and, although it is a good tax for local governments, it does not grow as the economy grows; it is also highly visible and politically contentious. Moreover, it is not the most appropriate tax to pay for social services or social housing. A mix of taxes would give large Canadian cities more fiscal autonomy, the flexibility to be internationally competitive, and the ability to respond to changing economic and political conditions.Institute on Municipal Finance and Governanc

Financing Large Cities and Metropolitan Areas

This paper is part of the IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance series. For a full list of papers, please visit http://bit.ly/2ylAa2D.Large cities and metropolitan areas differ from smaller urban or rural municipalities—they have much larger populations, higher concentrations of population, and populations that are more heterogeneous in terms of social and economic circumstances. Large cities are important generators of employment, wealth, and productivity growth, and serve as regional hubs for people from adjacent communities who come to work, shop, and use public services that are not available in their own communities. These characteristics have implications for the magnitude and complexity of the expenditures on municipal services that local governments in metropolitan areas are required to make, as well as their ability to pay for services. This paper explores the financing of services and infrastructure in large cities and metropolitan areas. Do large cities spend more than smaller cities? Do larger cities have greater fiscal capacity? Are large cities treated differently from other cities? What are the appropriate revenue sources for large cities?Institute on Municipal Finance and Governanc

Easing the Fiscal Restraints: New Revenue Tools in the City of Toronto Act

This paper show that there is a mismatch between the expenditure responsibilities that the City of Toronto is required to undertake and the revenue tools available to it. Toronto relies mainly on property taxes, user fees, and intergovernmental transfers to finance a wide range of services. In the absence of a realignment of service responsibilities (in particular, uploading social services and social housing to the provincial level), the paper makes the case for a mix of taxes at the local level. A mix of taxes, particularly taxes that grow with the economy, would give the city more flexibility to respond to local conditions such as changes in the economy, evolving demographics, and expenditure needs. A mix of taxes would be more effective than the property at linking the costs and benefits of services when people commute to work from one jurisdiction to another. Although the city should piggyback onto existing provincial taxes to minimize administrative costs, it is argued that it should set its own tax rates to ensure autonomy, accountability, and predictability of revenues.urban finance, local taxation

Cities in Canadian Federalism

We consider the place of cities, particularly large cities, in Canadian federalism from several perspectives. Although by most measures the current fiscal condition of Canadian cities seems fairly good, we argue that beneath this happy picture lies a less happy reality. Owing to the limited and relatively inelastic revenue base to which even the largest cities have access, the underlying basis of Canada’s urban prosperity is being eroded, with potentially damaging implications for national well-being over the long run. In an important sense, the roots of this problem lie in the fact that cities do not have any real role or voice in Canada’s federal structure. Since neither role nor voice is likely to be bestowed on them in the near future, however, we conclude by laying out a series of less fundamental actions that all levels of government have to undertake if they wish to maintain not only the present reputation of Canada’s big cities as ‘a nice place to live’ but also, more fundamentally, the urban dynamic that evidence around the world suggests increasingly underpins economic growth.cities, local fiscal conditions, intergovernmental fiscal relations, Canada