Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

A $450,000,000 Disagreement: Evidence against Full Value Equalization Rates

Kristina Ford and Daniel Baumol
Public Administration Review
Vol. 42, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1982), pp. 106-113
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
DOI: 10.2307/975531
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975531
Page Count: 8
  • Download ($25.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
A $450,000,000 Disagreement: Evidence against Full Value Equalization Rates
Preview not available

Abstract

Most states use the equalized full value of local jurisdictions in order to apportion state aid and to limit locally imposed tax burdens. New York State determined the equalized full value for New York City, and based on this figure imposed the 1982 taxing limit on the city. This essay describes the limit and the methods New York City used to provide evidence that it was too severe. While this evidence argues for a more liberal tax limit, it argues more forcefully that a tax limit based on direct measurement of full value is a poor administrative device. Since full value is only a vaguely definable concept and the relevant data is sparse, it does not lend itself to accurate measurement. In fact, it mandates both expensive oversights of the tax limitation by states and displays of brinksmanship and unnecessary contingency planning by local jurisdictions.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
106
    106
  • Thumbnail: Page 
107
    107
  • Thumbnail: Page 
108
    108
  • Thumbnail: Page 
109
    109
  • Thumbnail: Page 
110
    110
  • Thumbnail: Page 
111
    111
  • Thumbnail: Page 
112
    112
  • Thumbnail: Page 
113
    113