This article evaluates the effect of tax and expenditure limitations (TELs) on municipal general own-source revenue in the United States. Using an instrumental variable approach, this study addresses the endogeneity problem of TELs that has been largely overlooked in previous research. Data are collected on 724 US cities with populations of at least 25,000 from 1970 to 2006. Results indicate that when the endogeneity of TELs is taken into account, TELs lead to considerable reductions in property taxes but substantial increases in sales taxes, income taxes, and user charges per capita. The increases in the latter forms of revenue not only offset the loss in property taxes but also generate a supplemental revenue effect, resulting in a net gain of total municipal general own-source revenue per capita. The study provides important policy implications and suggests that TELs may have unintended consequences and lead to bigger government.
ACIR (US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations). 1977. State Limitations on Local Taxes and Expenditures. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
2.
ACIR (US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations). 1986. Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1985-1986 Edition. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
3.
ACIR (US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations). 1995. Tax and Expenditure Limits on Local Governments. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
BrunoriDavid. 2003. Local Tax Policy: A Federalist Perspective. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
6.
CutlerDavid M.ElmendorfDouglas W.ZeckhauserRichard. 1999. “Restraining the Leviathan: Property Tax Limitation in Massachusetts.”Journal of Public Economics71:313–34.
7.
DyeRichard F.McGuireTherese J.. 1997. “The Effect of Property Tax Limitation Measures on Local Government Fiscal Behavior.”Journal of Public Economics66:469–87.
8.
DyeRichard F.McGuireTherese J.McMillenDaniel P.. 2005. “Are Property Tax Limitations More Binding over Time?”National Tax Journal58:215–25.
9.
Federation of Tax Administrators. 2006. State-Local General Sales Tax Rates, Select Cities. Accessed September 5, 2008. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate.
10.
FisherRonald C.GadeMary N.. 1991. “Local Property Tax and Expenditure Limits.” In State and Local Finance for the 1990s: A Case Study of Arizona, edited by McGuireTherese J.NaimarkDana Wolfe, 449–64. Tempe: School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University.
11.
FrugGerald E.1980. “The City as a Legal Concept.”Harvard Law Review93:1059.
12.
HoeneChristopher. 2004. “Fiscal Structure and the Post-Proposition 13 Fiscal Regime in California's Cities.”Public Budgeting & Finance24:51–72.
13.
InmanRobert P.1979. “Subsidies, Regulations, and the Taxation of Property in Large U.S. Cities.”National Tax Journal32:159–68.
14.
IRI (Initiative and Referendum Institute). 2008. IRI Initiatives Historical Database 2008. Accessed September 20, 2008. http://www.iandrinstitute.org.
15.
JohnstonJocelyn M.PaganoMichael A.RussoPhilip A.Jr. 2000. “State Limits and State Aid: An Exploratory Analysis of County Revenue Structure.”State and Local Government Review32:86–97.
16.
JoycePhilip G.MullinsDaniel R.. 1991. “The Changing Fiscal Structure of the State and Local Public.”Public Administration Review51:240.
17.
LoweryDavid. 1983. “Limitations on Taxing and Spending Powers: An Assessment of Their Effectiveness.”Social Science Quarterly64:247–63.
18.
MullinsDaniel R.2004. “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and the Fiscal Response of Local Government: Asymmetric Intra-Local Fiscal Effects.”Public Budgeting & Finance24:111–47.
19.
MullinsDaniel R.JoycePhilip G.. 1996. “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and State and Local Fiscal Structure: An Empirical Assessment.”Public Budgeting & Finance16:75.
20.
MullinsDaniel R.WallinBruce A.. 2004. “Tax and Expenditure Limitations: Introduction and Overview.”Public Budgeting & Finance24:2–15.
PoterbaJames M.RuebenKim S.. 1995. “The Effect of Property-Tax Limits on Wages and Employment in the Local Public Sector.”American Economic Review85:384–89.
23.
PrestonAnne E.IchniowskiCasey. 1991. “A National Perspective on the Nature and Effects of the Local Property Tax Revolt, 1976-1986.”National Tax Journal44:123–45.
24.
RuebenKim S.1996. “Tax Limitations and Government Growth: The Effect of State Tax and Expenditure Limits on State and Local Government.”mimeo, Public Policy Institute of California.
25.
ShadbegianRonald J.1998. “Do Tax and Expenditure Limitations Affect Local Government Budgets? Evidence from Panel Data.”Public Finance Review26:118–36.
26.
ShadbegianRonald J.1999. “The Effect of Tax and Expenditure Limitations on the Revenue Structure of Local Government, 1962-87.”National Tax Journal52:221–37.
27.
SkidmoreMark. 1999. “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and the Fiscal Relationships between State and Local Governments.”Public Choice99:77–102.
28.
SokolowAlvin D.2000. “The Changing Property Tax in the West: State Centralization of Local Finances.”Public Budgeting & Finance20:85–104.
29.
StockJames H.WatsonMark W.. 2003. Introduction to Econometrics. Boston: Addison Wesley.
30.
Tax Foundation. 2008. County and City Income Taxes Clustered in States with Poor Tax Climates. Washington, DC: Tax Foundation.
31.
US Census Bureau. 1972. 1972 Census of Governments, Volume 1, Number 1, Governmental Organization. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32.
US Census Bureau. 1972, 1977, 1983, 1994, 2000. County and City Data Book. Charlottesville, VA: Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, University of Virginia. Accessed July 26, 2007. http://fisher.lib.Virginia.EDU/ccdb.
33.
US Census Bureau. 2006. Government Finance and Employment Classification Manual Covering the Activities of Federal, State, and Local Governments. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census.
34.
WooldridgeJeffrey M.2009. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 4th ed. Mason, OH: South Western, Cengage Learning.
