Does the federal tax treatment of housing affect the pattern of metropolitan development?
AbstractThe U.S. tax code allows home owners to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes on their federal income tax forms. It also gives special treatment to the capital gains realized from the sale of owner-occupied housing. These advantages encourage investment in owner-occupied housing. But do these tax breaks have other, more far-reaching consequences? In this article, Dick Voith looks at how the tax code's special treatment of owner-occupied housing may affect metropolitan development
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia in its journal Business Review.
Volume (Year): (1999)
Issue (Month): Mar ()
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Joseph Gyourko & Richard Voith, . "The Price Elasticity of the Demand for Residential Land," Zell/Lurie Center Working Papers 329, Wharton School Samuel Zell and Robert Lurie Real Estate Center, University of Pennsylvania.
- Richare Voith, 1999. "Does the tax treatment of housing create an incentive for exclusionary zoning and increased decentralization?," Working Papers 99-22, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
- Joseph Gyourko & Richard Voith, 1997. "Does the U.S. tax treatment of housing promote suburbanization and central city decline?," Working Papers 97-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
- Edwin S. Mills, 1987. "Dividing up the investment pie: have we overinvested in housing?," Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, issue Mar, pages 13-23.
- Haydar Kurban, 2006. "Federal spending and segregation in Chicago suburbs," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 49-61, March.
- Quigley, John M. & Raphael, Steven, 2004.
"Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn't It More Affordable?,"
Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy, Working Paper Series
qt1vp9j3k0, Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy.
- John M. Quigley & Steven Raphael, 2004. "Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn't It More Affordable?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(1), pages 191-214, Winter.
- Edward L. Glaeser & Matthew E. Kahn, 2003.
"Sprawl and Urban Growth,"
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
2004, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Dietz, Robert D. & Haurin, Donald R., 2003. "The social and private micro-level consequences of homeownership," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 401-450, November.
- Marsha J. Courchane & Judith A. Giles, 2002. "A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Residential Mortgage Markets," Econometrics Working Papers 0201, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
- Jordan Rappaport, 2005. "The shared fortunes of cities and suburbs," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Q III, pages 33-60.
- Judith Yates, 2003.
"'The more things change?' An overview of Australia's recent home ownership policies,"
European Journal of Housing Policy,
Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1-33, January.
- Judith Yates, 2003. "'The more things change?' An overview of Australia's recent home ownership policies," International Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1-33.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Beth Paul).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.