State‐Financed Property Tax Relief

1979 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred C. White
Keyword(s):  
1982 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 516 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Chicoine ◽  
Steven T. Sonka ◽  
Robert D. Doty

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae Ho Eom ◽  
Kieran M. Killeen

1978 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 569
Author(s):  
Roger S. Smith ◽  
R. M. Bird ◽  
N. E. Slack

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 446-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae Ho Eom ◽  
William Duncombe ◽  
Phuong Nguyen-Hoang ◽  
John Yinger

New York’s School Tax Relief Program, STAR, provides state-funded property tax relief for homeowners. Like a matching grant, STAR changes the price of education, thereby altering the incentives of voters and school officials and leading to unintended consequences. Using data for New York State school districts before and after STAR was implemented, we find that STAR increased student performance, school district inefficiency, and school spending by 2 to 4 percent in most districts, leading to an average school property tax rate increase of 14 percent. The STAR-induced tax rate increases offset about one third of the initial STAR tax savings and boosted property taxes for business property. STAR did little to offset the existing inequities in New York State’s education finance system, particularly compared to an equal-cost increase in state aid. This article should be of interest to policy makers involved in property taxes or other aspects of education finance.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron R. Cameron

This paper focuses on heritage conservation as it relates to, and intersects with, the realm of municipal finance. The thesis builds a case that municipal Heritage Property Tax Relief Programs (HPTRP’s) in Ontario, as they currently exist, do not work as they were designed. HPTRP’s are aimed at incentivizing heritage designation by offering a financial benefit to property owners, yet in their current configuration, result in additional costs that reduce their effectiveness. The ideal solution would be for the Province to review and redesign the program; however, this is unlikely. A practical solution, which is proposed in this paper, is for municipalities to create a Community Improvement Program (CIP) tool that off-sets some of the unforeseen costs associated with HPTRP’s. The two programs have a history of working synergistically at the local level – and together can accomplish what HPTRP’s were intended to achieve unilaterally.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1415-1441
Author(s):  
Alexa Eisenberg ◽  
Roshanak Mehdipanah ◽  
Margaret Dewar
Keyword(s):  

1981 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 259-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Fisher
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document