Jump to content

Examine individual changes

This page allows you to examine the variables generated by the Edit Filter for an individual change.

Variables generated for this change

VariableValue
Name of the user account (user_name)
'96.234.194.138'
Page ID (page_id)
21888735
Page namespace (page_namespace)
0
Page title without namespace (page_title)
'Land value tax in the United States'
Full page title (page_prefixedtitle)
'Land value tax in the United States'
Action (action)
'edit'
Edit summary/reason (summary)
'/* Uniformity clauses */ correcting confusing sentence and dead link'
Whether or not the edit is marked as minor (no longer in use) (minor_edit)
false
Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext)
''''[[Land value tax]]ation in the [[United States]]''' has a long history dating back from [[Physiocrat]] influence on [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]], and continues to be used today, particularly in [[Pennsylvania]]. == Early history == [[Physiocrat]] influence in the [[United States]] came by [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] as Ambassadors to France,<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/gaffney_physiocrats.html|title=Notes on the Physiocrats|first=Mason|last=Gaffney|year=1998|publisher=School of Cooperative Individualism|author-link=Mason Gaffney|accessdate=2008-11-07}}</ref> and Jefferson brought his friend [[Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours|Pierre du Pont]] to the [[United States]] to promote the idea.<ref>{{cite web|last=Jefferson |first=Thomas |url=http://worldcat.org/wcpa/ow/4d6e2d7af981afc5.html |title=Jefferson correspondence with Du Pont de Nemours |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> A statement in the [[Federalist No. 36|36th Federalist Paper]] reflects that influence, "A small land tax will answer the purpose of the States, and will be their most simple and most fit resource."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_36.html |title=Federalist Paper #36 |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> == Henry George == [[Image:Henry George.jpg|thumb|upright|right|[[Henry George]] in 1865.]] [[Henry George]] (September 2, 1839 &ndash; October 29, 1897) was an [[United States|American]] [[political economist]] who advocated a "[[Single Tax]]" on [[land (economics)|land]]. In 1879 he authored ''[[Progress and Poverty]]'', which significantly influenced land taxation in the United States. == Legality == There are two legal obstacles unique to land value taxation in the United States: uniformity clauses and [[Dillon's Rule]]. At the federal level, land value taxation is legal so long as it is [[Apportionment|apportioned]] among the states.<ref name=hylton>[[Hylton v. United States]], [[Case citation|3 U.S. 171]](1796)</ref> ===Uniformity clauses=== The United States legal system includes "uniformity clauses" found in individual State Constitutions as well as the federal Constitution. Broadly speaking, these clauses require taxation to be applied evenly or uniformly within a jurisdiction. However, the exact wording and meaning of these clauses differs from constitution to constitution. Although the federal [[Uniformity Clause]] has never been an issue, the wording and interpretation of many [[state constitution]]s has created issues peculiar to each state. For example in 1898, prior to an amendment of the [[Maryland]] Declaration of Rights which now specifically allows for land value taxation, the [[Maryland Court of Appeals]] (the highest state appellate court) ruled that the use of land value taxation in Hyattsville was unconstitutional.<ref name="80attygen">80 Atty Gen Op 316 (1995)</ref> However, the uniformity clause in [[Pennsylvania]] has been broadly construed, and land value taxation has been used since 1913.<ref name="PAproj">{{cite web|url=http://www.pennsylvanialandvaluetax.org |title=Pennsylvania Land Value Tax Project |accessdate=2009-02-06}}</ref> Each state will have its own legal stance or lack of any stance on LVT; some uniformity clauses explicitly allow some types of classifications of property, some have no uniformity clause, and some do not specifically discuss land ''qua'' land at all. Except for the Maryland case of Hyattsville, no [[state courts]] have squarely ruled that land and improvements are actually "classes" of property such that uniformity clauses are applicable. As a general rule, as long as each type of property (land, improvements, personal) is taxed uniformly there is no constitutional obstacle. In addition, no court other than the 1898 case in Maryland has actually struck down an attempt to implement land value taxation on the basis of a state uniformity clause. Even in rather strict uniformity clause states, it is unclear whether the uniformity clause actually prohibits separate land value taxation. Some states have other constitutional provisions - for example in New Jersey, which gives localities maximum [[home rule]] authority and have not adopted Dillon's Rule. While the uniformity clauses might be interpreted to prohibit state-wide action, local action may be legitimate.<ref>{{cite web|title=New Jersey Constitution, Article IV, Section VII (11) |url=http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> ===Local authorization=== Although uniformity clauses do not seem to be a major obstacle in most jurisdictions to land value taxation, control of local authority by the state [[legislature]] remains a real obstacle, requiring the need for local enabling authority or the abrogation of [[Dillon's Rule]]. The theory of state preeminence over local governments was expressed as Dillon's Rule in a 1868 case, where it was stated that "[m]unicipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control."<ref>''Clinton v Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad'',(24 Iowa 455; 1868).</ref> As opposed to Dillon's Rule, the [[Cooley Doctrine]] expressed the theory of an inherent right to local self determination. In a concurring opinion, Michigan Supreme Court Judge [[Thomas Cooley]] in 1871 stated: "[L]ocal government is a matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away."<ref>''People v Hurlbut'', (24 Mich 44, 95; 1871).</ref> In Maryland, for example, [[municipal corporations]] have the right to implement land value taxation, but the counties, including Baltimore City which is treated as a county in Maryland for certain purposes, do not.<ref name="80attygen"/> However, [[Dillon's Rule]] has been abandoned in some states, whether in whole by state constitution or state legislation or piecemeal by home rule legislation passed by the State Legislature. For example, the Virginia Legislature has granted land value tax authority to Fairfax and Roanoke. == Usage == Every single state in the [[United States]] has some form of property tax on real estate and hence, in part, a tax on land value. There are several cities that use LVT to varying degrees, but LVT in its purest form is not used on state or national levels. Land value taxation was tried in the [[Southern United States|South]] during [[Reconstruction era of the United States#Taxation during Reconstruction|Reconstruction]] as a way to promote [[land reform]]. There have also been several attempts throughout history to introduce land value taxation on a national level. In [[Hylton v. United States]], the Supreme Court directly acknowledged that a Land Tax was constitutional, so long as it was apportioned equally among the states. Two of the [[associate justice]]s explained in their summaries, stating: {{Quotation|[T]he Constitution declares, ... both in theory and practice, a tax on land is deemed to be a direct tax. ... I never entertained a doubt, that the principal, I will not say, the only, objects, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a [[capitation tax]] and a tax on land.<ref name=hylton/>|[[William Paterson (judge)|Justice William Paterson]]}} {{Quotation|I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on land.<ref name=hylton/>|[[Samuel Chase|Justice Samuel Chase]]}} There have also been attempts since then to introduce land value tax legislation, such as the Federal Property Tax Act of 1798,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalHistoryII/TaxII.html |title=The Federal Property Tax Act of 1798 |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> and HR 6026, a bill introduced to the [[United States House of Representatives]] on February 20, 1935 by [[Theodore L. Moritz]] of Pennsylvania. HR 6026 would have imposed a national 1% tax on the value of land in excess of $3,000. ====Single tax==== The first city in the United States to enact land value taxation was [[Hyattsville, Maryland]] in 1898, through the efforts of Judge Jackson H. Ralston. The Maryland Courts subsequently found it to be barred by the [[Maryland Constitution]]. Judge Ralston and his supporters commenced a campaign to amend the state Constitution which culminated in the Art. 15 of the [[Maryland Constitution#Declaration of Rights|Declaration of Rights]] (which remains today part of the Maryland State Constitution). In addition, he helped see that enabling legislation for towns be passed in 1916, which also remains in effect today.<ref name="80attygen"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/georgists_ralston_jackson.html |title=School of Cooperative Individualism / Jackson H. Ralston |publisher=Cooperativeindividualism.org |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> The towns of [[Fairhope, Alabama]] and [[Arden, Delaware]] were later founded as model Georgist communities or "single tax colonies". ====Two-rate taxation==== [[Image:Market Square in Harrisburg.jpg|thumb|right|Market Square in [[Downtown Harrisburg, Pennsylvania]]]] Nearly 20 Pennsylvania cities in the [[United States|USA]] employ a ''two-rate'' or ''split-rate'' property tax: taxing the value of land at a higher rate and the value of the buildings and improvements at a lower one. This can be seen as a compromise between pure LVT and an ordinary property tax falling on real estate (land value plus improvement value).<ref>Hughes, M. - ''Why So Little Georgism in America: Using the Pennsylvania Case Files to Understand the Slow, Uneven Progress of Land Value Taxation''. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2006)</ref> Alternatively, two-rate taxation may be seen as a form that allows gradual transformation of the traditional real estate property tax into a pure land value tax. Nearly two dozen local Pennsylvania jurisdictions (such as [[Harrisburg, Pennsylvania|Harrisburg]])<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.progress.org/sprawl/shepstone.htm |title=Land Reform versus Sprawl |publisher=The Progress Report |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> use two-rate property taxation in which the tax on land value is higher and the tax on improvement value is lower. [[Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania|Pittsburgh]] used the two-rate system from 1913 to 2001<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.progress.org/cg/feet3.htm |title=Some States Already Have Two-Rate Site Value Tax Enabling Laws |publisher=The Progress Report |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> when a countywide property reassessment led to a drastic increase in assessed land values during 2001 after years of underassessment, and the system was abandoned in favor of the traditional single-rate property tax. The tax on land in Pittsburgh was about 5.77 times the tax on improvements. Notwithstanding the change in 2001, the Pittsburgh Improvement District still employs a pure land value taxation as a surcharge on the regular property tax. In 2000, [[Florenz Plassmann]] and [[Nicolaus Tideman]] wrote<ref name="markovchain">"A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of the Effect of Two-Rate Property Taxes on Construction", Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, vol. 47, issue 2, p. 216-247</ref> that when comparing [[Pennsylvania]] cities using a higher tax rate on land value and a lower rate on improvements with similar sized Pennsylvania cities using the same rate on land and improvements, the higher land value taxation leads to increased construction within the jurisdiction.<ref>Oates, W. & Schwab, R. “The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience.” National Tax Journal L (March) 1-21. (1997)</ref><ref>Cord, S. “Taxing Land More Than Buildings: The Record In Pennsylvania.” In C. Lowell Harriss, ed. 1983. The Property Tax and Local Finance. New York: The Academy of Political Science 172-179.</ref> Connecticut introduced an enabling bill in 2009.<ref>{{cite journal | title = Connecticut: lvt enabling bills and pilot scheme | journal = [[Land&Liberty]] | volume = 116 | issue = 1224 | publisher = Henry George Foundation | location = London | date = 2009-07-26 | url = http://www.landandliberty.net/uploads/landl1224.pdf | issn = 0023-7574 | doi = | id = | page = 6 | accessdate = 2009-08-20}}</ref> == Notes == <!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags--> {{reflist|2}} [[Category:Land value taxation]] [[Category:Taxation in the United States]]'
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext)
''''[[Land value tax]]ation in the [[United States]]''' has a long history dating back from [[Physiocrat]] influence on [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]], and continues to be used today, particularly in [[Pennsylvania]]. == Early history == [[Physiocrat]] influence in the [[United States]] came by [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] as Ambassadors to France,<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/gaffney_physiocrats.html|title=Notes on the Physiocrats|first=Mason|last=Gaffney|year=1998|publisher=School of Cooperative Individualism|author-link=Mason Gaffney|accessdate=2008-11-07}}</ref> and Jefferson brought his friend [[Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours|Pierre du Pont]] to the [[United States]] to promote the idea.<ref>{{cite web|last=Jefferson |first=Thomas |url=http://worldcat.org/wcpa/ow/4d6e2d7af981afc5.html |title=Jefferson correspondence with Du Pont de Nemours |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> A statement in the [[Federalist No. 36|36th Federalist Paper]] reflects that influence, "A small land tax will answer the purpose of the States, and will be their most simple and most fit resource."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_36.html |title=Federalist Paper #36 |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> == Henry George == [[Image:Henry George.jpg|thumb|upright|right|[[Henry George]] in 1865.]] [[Henry George]] (September 2, 1839 &ndash; October 29, 1897) was an [[United States|American]] [[political economist]] who advocated a "[[Single Tax]]" on [[land (economics)|land]]. In 1879 he authored ''[[Progress and Poverty]]'', which significantly influenced land taxation in the United States. == Legality == There are two legal obstacles unique to land value taxation in the United States: uniformity clauses and [[Dillon's Rule]]. At the federal level, land value taxation is legal so long as it is [[Apportionment|apportioned]] among the states.<ref name=hylton>[[Hylton v. United States]], [[Case citation|3 U.S. 171]](1796)</ref> ===Uniformity clauses=== The United States legal system includes "uniformity clauses" found in individual State Constitutions as well as the federal Constitution. Broadly speaking, these clauses require taxation to be applied evenly or uniformly within a jurisdiction. However, the exact wording and meaning of these clauses differs from constitution to constitution. Although the federal [[Uniformity Clause]] has never been an issue, the wording and interpretation of many [[state constitution]]s has created issues peculiar to each state. For example in 1898, the [[Maryland Court of Appeals]] (the highest state appellate court) ruled that the use of land value taxation in Hyattsville was unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, an amendment to the [[Maryland]] Declaration of Rights specifically allowed for land value taxation where authorized by the State Legislature. <ref name="80attygen">80 Atty Gen Op 316 (1995)</ref> However, the uniformity clause in [[Pennsylvania]] has been broadly construed, and land value taxation has been used since 1913. Each state will have its own legal stance or lack of any stance on LVT; some uniformity clauses explicitly allow some types of classifications of property, some have no uniformity clause, and some do not specifically discuss land ''qua'' land at all. Except for the Maryland case of Hyattsville, no [[state courts]] have squarely ruled that land and improvements are actually "classes" of property such that uniformity clauses are applicable. As a general rule, as long as each type of property (land, improvements, personal) is taxed uniformly there is no constitutional obstacle. In addition, no court other than the 1898 case in Maryland has actually struck down an attempt to implement land value taxation on the basis of a state uniformity clause. Even in rather strict uniformity clause states, it is unclear whether the uniformity clause actually prohibits separate land value taxation. Some states have other constitutional provisions - for example in New Jersey, which gives localities maximum [[home rule]] authority and have not adopted Dillon's Rule. While the uniformity clauses might be interpreted to prohibit state-wide action, local action may be legitimate.<ref>{{cite web|title=New Jersey Constitution, Article IV, Section VII (11) |url=http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> ===Local authorization=== Although uniformity clauses do not seem to be a major obstacle in most jurisdictions to land value taxation, control of local authority by the state [[legislature]] remains a real obstacle, requiring the need for local enabling authority or the abrogation of [[Dillon's Rule]]. The theory of state preeminence over local governments was expressed as Dillon's Rule in a 1868 case, where it was stated that "[m]unicipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control."<ref>''Clinton v Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad'',(24 Iowa 455; 1868).</ref> As opposed to Dillon's Rule, the [[Cooley Doctrine]] expressed the theory of an inherent right to local self determination. In a concurring opinion, Michigan Supreme Court Judge [[Thomas Cooley]] in 1871 stated: "[L]ocal government is a matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away."<ref>''People v Hurlbut'', (24 Mich 44, 95; 1871).</ref> In Maryland, for example, [[municipal corporations]] have the right to implement land value taxation, but the counties, including Baltimore City which is treated as a county in Maryland for certain purposes, do not.<ref name="80attygen"/> However, [[Dillon's Rule]] has been abandoned in some states, whether in whole by state constitution or state legislation or piecemeal by home rule legislation passed by the State Legislature. For example, the Virginia Legislature has granted land value tax authority to Fairfax and Roanoke. == Usage == Every single state in the [[United States]] has some form of property tax on real estate and hence, in part, a tax on land value. There are several cities that use LVT to varying degrees, but LVT in its purest form is not used on state or national levels. Land value taxation was tried in the [[Southern United States|South]] during [[Reconstruction era of the United States#Taxation during Reconstruction|Reconstruction]] as a way to promote [[land reform]]. There have also been several attempts throughout history to introduce land value taxation on a national level. In [[Hylton v. United States]], the Supreme Court directly acknowledged that a Land Tax was constitutional, so long as it was apportioned equally among the states. Two of the [[associate justice]]s explained in their summaries, stating: {{Quotation|[T]he Constitution declares, ... both in theory and practice, a tax on land is deemed to be a direct tax. ... I never entertained a doubt, that the principal, I will not say, the only, objects, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a [[capitation tax]] and a tax on land.<ref name=hylton/>|[[William Paterson (judge)|Justice William Paterson]]}} {{Quotation|I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on land.<ref name=hylton/>|[[Samuel Chase|Justice Samuel Chase]]}} There have also been attempts since then to introduce land value tax legislation, such as the Federal Property Tax Act of 1798,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalHistoryII/TaxII.html |title=The Federal Property Tax Act of 1798 |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> and HR 6026, a bill introduced to the [[United States House of Representatives]] on February 20, 1935 by [[Theodore L. Moritz]] of Pennsylvania. HR 6026 would have imposed a national 1% tax on the value of land in excess of $3,000. ====Single tax==== The first city in the United States to enact land value taxation was [[Hyattsville, Maryland]] in 1898, through the efforts of Judge Jackson H. Ralston. The Maryland Courts subsequently found it to be barred by the [[Maryland Constitution]]. Judge Ralston and his supporters commenced a campaign to amend the state Constitution which culminated in the Art. 15 of the [[Maryland Constitution#Declaration of Rights|Declaration of Rights]] (which remains today part of the Maryland State Constitution). In addition, he helped see that enabling legislation for towns be passed in 1916, which also remains in effect today.<ref name="80attygen"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/georgists_ralston_jackson.html |title=School of Cooperative Individualism / Jackson H. Ralston |publisher=Cooperativeindividualism.org |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> The towns of [[Fairhope, Alabama]] and [[Arden, Delaware]] were later founded as model Georgist communities or "single tax colonies". ====Two-rate taxation==== [[Image:Market Square in Harrisburg.jpg|thumb|right|Market Square in [[Downtown Harrisburg, Pennsylvania]]]] Nearly 20 Pennsylvania cities in the [[United States|USA]] employ a ''two-rate'' or ''split-rate'' property tax: taxing the value of land at a higher rate and the value of the buildings and improvements at a lower one. This can be seen as a compromise between pure LVT and an ordinary property tax falling on real estate (land value plus improvement value).<ref>Hughes, M. - ''Why So Little Georgism in America: Using the Pennsylvania Case Files to Understand the Slow, Uneven Progress of Land Value Taxation''. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2006)</ref> Alternatively, two-rate taxation may be seen as a form that allows gradual transformation of the traditional real estate property tax into a pure land value tax. Nearly two dozen local Pennsylvania jurisdictions (such as [[Harrisburg, Pennsylvania|Harrisburg]])<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.progress.org/sprawl/shepstone.htm |title=Land Reform versus Sprawl |publisher=The Progress Report |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> use two-rate property taxation in which the tax on land value is higher and the tax on improvement value is lower. [[Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania|Pittsburgh]] used the two-rate system from 1913 to 2001<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.progress.org/cg/feet3.htm |title=Some States Already Have Two-Rate Site Value Tax Enabling Laws |publisher=The Progress Report |accessdate=2009-02-13}}</ref> when a countywide property reassessment led to a drastic increase in assessed land values during 2001 after years of underassessment, and the system was abandoned in favor of the traditional single-rate property tax. The tax on land in Pittsburgh was about 5.77 times the tax on improvements. Notwithstanding the change in 2001, the Pittsburgh Improvement District still employs a pure land value taxation as a surcharge on the regular property tax. In 2000, [[Florenz Plassmann]] and [[Nicolaus Tideman]] wrote<ref name="markovchain">"A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of the Effect of Two-Rate Property Taxes on Construction", Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, vol. 47, issue 2, p. 216-247</ref> that when comparing [[Pennsylvania]] cities using a higher tax rate on land value and a lower rate on improvements with similar sized Pennsylvania cities using the same rate on land and improvements, the higher land value taxation leads to increased construction within the jurisdiction.<ref>Oates, W. & Schwab, R. “The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience.” National Tax Journal L (March) 1-21. (1997)</ref><ref>Cord, S. “Taxing Land More Than Buildings: The Record In Pennsylvania.” In C. Lowell Harriss, ed. 1983. The Property Tax and Local Finance. New York: The Academy of Political Science 172-179.</ref> Connecticut introduced an enabling bill in 2009.<ref>{{cite journal | title = Connecticut: lvt enabling bills and pilot scheme | journal = [[Land&Liberty]] | volume = 116 | issue = 1224 | publisher = Henry George Foundation | location = London | date = 2009-07-26 | url = http://www.landandliberty.net/uploads/landl1224.pdf | issn = 0023-7574 | doi = | id = | page = 6 | accessdate = 2009-08-20}}</ref> == Notes == <!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags--> {{reflist|2}} [[Category:Land value taxation]] [[Category:Taxation in the United States]]'
Whether or not the change was made through a Tor exit node (tor_exit_node)
0
Unix timestamp of change (timestamp)
1253288648