Capitalization of federal taxes, the relative price of housing, and urban form: density and sorting effects
We investigate the impact of the tax treatment of owner-occupied housing on urban form in an economy in which high and low income households choose among city and suburban communities. Because housing tax policies differentially affect the relative, after-tax price of housing for high and low income households, and because the extent of capitalization of housing tax policies can differ across city and suburban communities, our analysis finds that housing tax policies can affect not only the density of the metropolitan area, but also can influence where rich and poor households choose to live. The impact of housing tax policies differs depending upon the extent to which the subsidy is capitalized into city land prices and whether a land use constraint such as suburban large lot zoning exists to make poorer households less mobile. If the rich and poor both are fully mobile, increasing a subsidy to home ownership that is positively correlated with the income of the owner leads to the decentralization of both rich and poor; the greater the extent of capitalization, the larger the decentralization impact. In the presence of binding large lot zoning in the suburbs, the rich have a greater incentive to decentralize while the poor are constrained to the city. Thus, it is only when the mobility of the poor is restricted that housing tax policy of the type we have in the U.S. could have helped exacerbate the intense residential sorting by income that we see in many parts of the country. Finally, it is noteworthy that our analysis of community choice is not driven by different preferences for city or suburb that may be associated with the income elasticity of housing demand. Rather, our conclusions arise from changes in relative after-tax housing prices faced by poor and rich households. Determining the empirical relevance of prices versus preferences in this matter should be an urgent task for future research.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Stephen G. Cecchetti & Peter Rupert, 1996. "Mortgage interest deductibility and housing prices," Economic Commentary, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, issue Feb.
- Peter Mieszkowski & Edwin S. Mills, 1993. "The Causes of Metropolitan Suburbanization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 135-147, Summer.
- 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.
- Blackley, Dixie & Follain, James R., 1983. "Inflation, tax advantages to homeownership and the locational choices of households," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 505-516, November.