IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Who supports portable assessment caps: The role of lock-in, mobility and tax share

  • Cheung, Ron
  • Cunningham, Chris

Popular support for property assessment caps has been explained as attempts to protect long-time home owners and to constrain local public expenditures. However, in the absence of a binding cap on millage rates, an assessment limit simply lowers the tax share of low-mobility homeowners at the expense of high-mobility homeowners. A recent amendment in Florida made existing exemptions portable, lowering the tax share of high mobility households and raising the tax share of low mobility households. Examining vote share by precinct, we find that more mobile households support portability but that precincts with larger exemptions do not. We also find evidence that voters understood how the amendment impacts their tax share. Support for portability is higher when a city has many out-of-state and thus "exemption-less" immigrants and support is lower when mobility in the rest of the tax jurisdiction is high. These findings suggest that voters alter assessment rules to minimize their own tax share.

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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V89-51YBTBK-1/2/ca33dd372da56c20f57cf77fcd871328
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Regional Science and Urban Economics.

Volume (Year): 41 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (May)
Pages: 173-186

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:regeco:v:41:y:2011:i:3:p:173-186
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/regec

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.:

as in new window
  1. Robert W. Wassmer, 2008. "Causes of Urban Sprawl in the United States: Auto reliance as compared to natural evolution, flight from blight, and local revenue reliance," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 536-555.
  2. Ferreira, Fernando, 2010. "You can take it with you: Proposition 13 tax benefits, residential mobility, and willingness to pay for housing amenities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 661-673, October.
  3. Alberto Alesina & Reza Baqir & Caroline Hoxby, 2002. "Political Jurisdictions in Heterogeneous Communities," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1949, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  4. John Nagy, 1997. "Did Proposition 13 Affect the Mobility of California Homeowners ?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 25(1), pages 102-116, January.
  5. Cutler, David M. & Elmendorf, Douglas W. & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1999. "Restraining the Leviathan: property tax limitation in Massachusetts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 313-334, March.
  6. Sandra Newman & James Reschovsky, 1987. "An Evaluation of the One-Time Capital Gains Exclusion for Older Homeowners," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 15(1), pages 704-724.
  7. Dye, Richard F. & McMillen, Daniel P. & Merriman, David F., 2006. "Illinois' Response to Rising Residential Property Values: An Assessment Growth Cap in Cook County," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 59(3), pages 707-16, September.
  8. Downes, Thomas A., 1992. "Evaluating the Impact of School Finance Reform on the Provision of Public Education: The California Case," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 45(4), pages 405-19, December.
  9. Nada Wasi & Michelle J. White, 2005. "Property Tax Limitations and Mobility: The Lock-in Effect of California's Proposition 13," NBER Working Papers 11108, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. O'Sullivan Arthur & Sexton Terri A. & Sheffrin Steven M., 1995. "Property Taxes, Mobility, and Home Ownership," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 107-129, January.
  11. repec:hrv:faseco:4553034 is not listed on IDEAS
  12. Figlio, David N. & Rueben, Kim S., 2001. "Tax limits and the qualifications of new teachers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 49-71, April.
  13. Mark Hoven Stohs & Paul Childs & Simon Stevenson, 2001. "Tax Policies and Residential Mobility," International Real Estate Review, Asian Real Estate Society, vol. 4(1), pages 95-117.
  14. Katharine L. Bradbury, 1988. "Shifting property tax burdens in Massachusetts," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Sep, pages 36-48.
  15. Cunningham, Christopher R. & Engelhardt, Gary V., 2008. "Housing capital-gains taxation and homeowner mobility: Evidence from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 803-815, May.
  16. Calabrese, Stephen & Epple, Dennis & Romer, Thomas & Sieg, Holger, 2006. "Local public good provision: Voting, peer effects, and mobility," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 959-981, August.
  17. Vigdor, Jacob L, 2004. "Other People's Taxes: Nonresident Voters and Statewide Limitation of Local Government," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(2), pages 453-76, October.
  18. Christian A. L. Hilber & Christopher J. Mayer, 2004. "Why Do Households Without Children Support Local Public Schools?," NBER Working Papers 10804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Ronald J. Shadbegian, 1998. "Do Tax and Expenditure Limitations Affect Local Government Budgets? Evidence From Panel Data," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 118-136, March.
  20. William Hoyt & Paul A. Coomes & Amelia M. Biehl, 2009. "Tax Limits, Houses, and Schools: Seemingly Unrelated and Offsetting Effects," Working Papers 2009-03, University of Kentucky, Institute for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:regeco:v:41:y:2011:i:3:p:173-186. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.