Who supports portable assessment caps: The role of lock-in, mobility and tax share
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.
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 Calabrese & Dennis Epple & Thomas Romer & Holger Sieg, "undated".
"Local Public Good Provision: Voting, Peer Effects, and Mobility,"
GSIA Working Papers
2005-E54, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
- 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.
- Calabrese, Stephen & Epple, Dennis & Romer, Thomas & Sieg, Holger, 2005. "Local Public Good Provision: Voting, Peer Effects, and Mobility," Papers 10-04-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
- Stephen Calabrese & Dennis Epple & Thomas Romer & Holger Sieg, 2005. "Local Public Good Provision: Voting, Peer Effects, and Mobility," NBER Working Papers 11720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- repec:hrv:faseco:4553034 is not listed on IDEAS
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 707-716, September.
- Katharine L. Bradbury, 1988. "Shifting property tax burdens in Massachusetts," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Sep, pages 36-48.
- Hoxby, Caroline & Baqir, Reza & Alesina, Alberto, 2004.
"Political Jurisdictions in Heterogeneous Communities,"
4552532, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Alberto Alesina & Reza Baqir & Caroline Hoxby, 2004. "Political Jurisdictions in Heterogeneous Communities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(2), pages 348-396, April.
- Alberto Alesina & Reza Baqir & Caroline Hoxby, 2000. "Political Jurisdictions in Heterogeneous Communities," NBER Working Papers 7859, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- 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.
- David M. Cutler & Douglas W. Elmendorf & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 1997. "Restraining the Leviathan: Property Tax Limitation in Massachusetts," NBER Working Papers 6196, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- David M. Cutler & Douglas W. Elmendorf & Richard Zeckhauser, 1997. "Restraining the Leviathan: property tax limitations in Massachusetts," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 1997-47, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- Ronald J. Shadbegian, 1998. "Do Tax and Expenditure Limitations Affect Local Government Budgets? Evidence From Panel Data," Public Finance Review, SAGE Publishing, vol. 26(2), pages 118-136, March.
- 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.
- Fernando Ferreira, 2008. "You Can Take it With You: Proposition 13 Tax Benefits, Residential Mobility, and Willingness to Pay for Housing Amenities," Working Papers 08-15, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
- John Nagy, 1997. "Did Proposition 13 Affect the Mobility of California Homeowners ?," Public Finance Review, SAGE Publishing, vol. 25(1), pages 102-116, January.
- O'Sullivan, A. & Sexton, T.A. & Sheffrin, S.M., 1993.
"Property Taxes, Mobility, And Home Ownership,"
93-04, California Davis - Institute of Governmental Affairs.
- 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.
- 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 453-476, October.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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: (Shamier, Wendy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.