Hint -- it's probably not for the reason you might think, namely, that Texas has generally freer markets than other states.
I have just finished Murray Rothbard's behemoth Man, Economy and State.
It was a very difficult but rewarding book -- it took me six months to
finish -- and I'll have plenty to say about it in the near future, but
for now I thought I'd just share one little insight it has given me.
In the section on taxation in Power and Markets,
he discusses the different effects of taxation on market behavior,
especially as it relates to the actual incidence of taxation. This is a
subject that one commonly sees butchered in financial and political
news, as politicians and commentators opine that increasing
such-and-such a tax by some amount will increase revenues by so much and
reduce deficits by this percent, or that the implementation of some tax
will be a burden this or that group. They are almost always basing
their analysis on a static picture of the economy -- one that will be
basically the same tomorrow as it is today, except with a new tax.
Anybody
with two brain cells to rub together knows that a tax will change
behavior within the economy, but even most people who realize this will
have a difficult time working out in their minds just exactly how it all
will play out in the end. Rothbard attempts to do just this with a
number of different types of taxes, and though I disagree with him on
some of them (which you'll hear about in the future) nonetheless, I
think he got them mostly right.
Of particular note were
property taxes and a sort of 'net-worth' tax. While income and sales
taxes take a slice out of incomes in both cases (at least by his
analysis), property and especially net-worth taxes are positively
devastating to the economy. The reason is that they tax the capital
base in such a way as to radically change market valuations and
discourage capital accumulation, which radically alters behavior and the
potential for growth.
He provides a good example of a
rent house. Suppose a house is worth $100,000. Further suppose that
the natural rate of interest is 5%, which I take to be a fairly accurate
estimate.
Now,
the key to this analysis, as with practically the entire study of the
free-market, is to recognize the tendency of competition to push every
valuation towards equilibrium. The natural rate of interest happens to
be the return to capital which will theoretically be uniform throughout the economy because of the effects of competition.
Any investment opportunity which will afford a return above the natural
rate will tend to attract investment by entrepreneurs, either pushing
up its price, or introducing competition with it, such that the rate
returns to the natural rate. Likewise, any investment which affords a
return below the natural rate will fall in price until the return comes
to the natural rate. This is most easily observed in the bond market. A
rise in interest rates will cause bond prices to fall, while a fall in
rates will cause prices to rise, so that all rates throughout the market
are roughly uniform (and neglecting dates of redemption and risk
premiums/discounts).
Back to the example of the house.
After maintenance and insurance costs, the house is expected to return
$5000 in income to its owner per year. This is considered interest income on a capital investment,
such that it is in competition with, say, a $100,000 bond, which would
yield exactly the same income to the holder of the bond. Now, suppose a
local government slaps a 1% property tax on the house. That $1000 must
now be paid out of the $5000 income, such that the return from the
house is now only $4000.
The house can no longer
compete for investment dollars with the bond. Its price falls. How
much? To about $83,300. This corresponds to a property tax of $833 per
year and yields an income of $4165, or about 5%. A 1% property tax knocked a whopping 17% off the market valuation of the house!
What
is the rate here in Texas? Where I live, it varies between about 2.7%
and 2.9%! Anyone still interested in Texas real estate?
I
had always known that a property tax would tend to depress the value of
a house, but I had no idea how much because I had no idea how to
calculate it. This operation had not occurred to me. On the other
hand, it is also true that the fall in the value of the house only
occurs at the time the tax is levied, or if it is later raised. Once it
is in place, of course, existing houses become cheap, so if you are a
buyer, you can get a 'good deal,' so long as one doesn't mind paying out
that discount over time to the government. (Think about it -- $833
corresponds to the interest on the value that the house fell, as if
you'd taken out a permanent loan for the remainder of the original price
of the house...) So, it is the holder of the house at the time the tax is levied who absorbs the entirety of the loss. Later owners are only paying the discounted value of the difference in valuation.
But there is another sort of loser in this game -- new homebuilders. These people will have to be careful to keep the cost of building the house well below
the free-market valuation of the house, because upon completion
government will implicitly be seizing a sizable portion of this value
for tax purposes. If you are someone who would like to build a rather
unusual house of higher quality than normal, such that costs are a bit
more than normal, you must be prepared to eat a rather enormous loss
well above and beyond your expenditures on materials. As you can see,
as time goes on, the tendency will be to produce ever cheaper -- and
presumably lower quality -- housing due to the overwhelming pressure
imposed by the tax.
Thus, if you buy a house in Texas,
you can probably get one cheap. But you'll probably be getting a cheap
house. Lots of people say that Texas is a great place for business,
especially because of the absence of an income tax, but to the degree
that the tax is shifted towards property, I'm not sure that this is
necessarily a good trade-off. Especially if 'property' includes
commercial property, a.k.a. business capital, a.k.a. one of the more
important sources of economic growth.
6 comments:
Those taxes sound almost as bad as Nassau County.
And I learned the other day that just down the road is another suburb with a 4% property tax. Now I feel lucky to live where I live!
No wonder houses are so cheap there...
Nassau County is the county New York City is in, isn't it? I suppose at least we don't have local and state income tax to pay on top of our property taxes! Or have to deal with that crazy mayor you've got...
Nassau County is out on Lawn Guyland, beyond the boundaries of NYC.
For comparison, my little section of Oklahoma has an effective property-tax rate of a hair over 1.2 percent. Then again, we have an income tax that tops out above 5 percent.
Texas prop taxes put the lie to the 'low tax state' canard. And the lege's propensity to nickel and dime us with ever increasing 'fees' and 'things called other than taxes' doesn't change from a D majority to an R.
We don't ever 'buy' property, we buy the right to pay govt rent in perpetuity.
I dream of, one day, finishing "Man, Economy, and State."
Maybe after the kids are out of the house...
I read that text,
couldn't possibly
articulate as
fluently as what you
just did, the central
insight i derived
from reading it . . .
which was what you
just wrote.
As for the rest of the
text, excluding what
you can acquire more
proficiently from von
Mises, Rothbard ends
up as a deep
gold-bug, inline with
the most proto-
elements of human
civilization; i.e., a
bust.
Post a Comment