Fiscal Effects of a One-Percent Property Tax Cap on Maine Municipalities and the State Government

Gabe, Todd and Rubin, Jonathan and Allen, Thomas and Reilly, Catherine (2004): Fiscal Effects of a One-Percent Property Tax Cap on Maine Municipalities and the State Government.

Abstract

On November 2, 2004, Maine residents will vote on whether to “limit property taxes to 1% of the assessed value of the property.” This report looks at the effects of the property tax cap if it had existed in 2003. Impacts shown in the report are based on the tax cap plan as written, which values property at what it was worth in 1996. We find that Maine towns would have had a shared budget deficit of $687.7 million if the tax cap had existed in 2003. Towns would have lost $50.9 million, or 31.9%, of the taxes paid by vacation homeowners. These impacts would have been lower if the School Finance and Tax Reform Act of 2003 (passed by the voters in June 2004) had been in effect. That Act requires the state to pay 55% of local education costs. In that case, the shared deficit of Maine towns under the tax cap would drop from $687.7 million to $535.2 million. If the tax cap had existed last year, the average tax rate for residential real estate would have dropped from 1.53% to 1.11%. This is more than 1% because the tax cap would allow towns to collect extra taxes for voter-approved debt. Across the state, the tax rate for homeowners would have gone down in 391 towns. It would have gone up in 81 towns because of changes in the way homes are valued for taxes. This means that some people in these towns, but not everyone, would have paid higher taxes if the tax cap had existed last year. People who bought homes in recent years would pay higher taxes, while people who have lived in their homes for several years would pay lower taxes.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Property tax cap, Maine
• Subjects: H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government ; Intergovernmental Relations > H71 - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue; H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government ; Intergovernmental Relations > H72 - State and Local Budget and Expenditures

References

K. Bradbury, C. Mayer, and K. Case. 2001. “Property Tax Limits, Local Fiscal Behavior, and Property Values: Evidence from Massachusetts under Proposition 2-½.” Journal of Public Economics. (80)2.

J. Chapman. 1998. “Proposition 13: Some Unintended Consequences.” Public Policy Institute of California Occasional Paper.

D. Gagnon. 2004. “Bangor Eyes Ways to Lessen Tax-Cap Impact.” Bangor Daily News, August 16, 2004.

J. D. Gerard. 2004. Acting Executive Director of Maine Revenue Services, interdepartmental memorandum, dated March 3, 2004 to Senator Stephen Stanley and Representative David Lemoine.

J. Kirlin and J. Chapman. 1979. “California State Finance and Proposition 13.” National Tax Journal (32)2.

Maine Municipal Association, 2004a. “Estimated 2003 Impact of 1% Tax Cap: Likely Impact,” updated July 20, 2004, http://www.memun.org/ resources/ Public/ news/ pp/ main.htm.

Maine Municipal Association, 2004b. “Estimated 2003 Impact of 1% Tax Cap: As Written Impact,” http://www.memun.org/resources/Public/news/pp/analysis/Worst.pdf

Maine Supreme Judicial Court, April 16, 2004, Opinion of the Justices to questions propounded by the Maine Senate and the Maine House of Representatives.

M. New. 2003. “Proposition 13 and State Budget Limitations: Past Successes and Future Option.” Cato Institute Briefing Paper No. 83.

K. Rosen. 1982. “The Impact of Proposition 13 on House Prices in Northern California: A Test of the Interjurisdictional Capitalization Hypothesis.” Journal of Political Economy (90)1.

J. Rothenberg and P. Smoke. 1982. “Early Impacts of Proposition 2-½ on the Massachusetts State-Local Public Sector.” Public Budgeting and Finance (2)4.

T. Sexton, S. Sheffrin, and A. O’Sullivan. 1999. “Proposition 13: Unintended Effects and Feasible Reforms.” National Tax Journal (52)1.