New research co-written by a University of Illinois expert in urban economics indicates that tax benefits for housing, including the ever-popular mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction, are not as distortionary as previous research and some prominent critics suggest.
The existing system of tax benefits for housing caused the typical house to be 4 percent too large in 2007, creating a national economic waste of $7 billion per year – a figure that is substantially smaller than recent estimates by other economists, including some who have pegged the figure in the $16 billion to $36 billion range, says David Albouy, a professor of economics at Illinois.
Photo courtesy of David Albouy
Although popular with the public, reforming the existing system of tax benefits to housing, including the ever-popular deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes, would likely make the housing market more efficient, says research co-written by David Albouy, a professor of economics at Illinois.
“These deductions, especially for mortgage interest, have long been criticized for being expensive, regressive and not well targeted to their stated goal of subsidizing home ownership,” Albouy said. “Although these criticisms have some merit, I went into this project thinking it was much worse than it actually turned out to be.”
Although popular with the public, the mortgage interest deduction isn’t the best policy because it’s not very progressive, Albouy says. Getting rid of it would likely make the housing market more efficient.
“The people who are reaping the biggest benefits from the mortgage interest deduction and other housing tax benefits are the same people who have the biggest houses and the biggest incomes,” he said.
“That said, people in bigger houses do pay more in property taxes, without getting much more in local services. When we think about the size of a house, property taxes are like an excise tax. Property taxes encourage people to consume smaller houses while federal tax benefits do the opposite, and go somewhat overboard in doing so.”
According to the paper, which was co-written by Andrew Hanson of Marquette University, housing tax benefits affect not only the quantity of housing that people consume, but also where housing is located. The paper’s simulations show that 15 percent of the population is “inefficiently located” at a cost of $26 billion annually.
“It turns out that, because of the federal tax code, houses are not only slightly too big, but also rather badly located,” Albouy said. “In general, workers are discouraged from living in high-wage areas because they pay more in federal taxes without receiving more in federal benefits.”
Housing tax benefits offset this second “locational” distortion because high wage areas also tend to have high housing prices. For example, a worker in Illinois who moves from downstate Bloomington to Chicago will earn more and pay higher housing prices. They then pay higher federal and state taxes on their income, but can claim larger deductions from their bigger mortgages.
“It’s almost like their taxes are being lowered to account for their higher costs-of-living,” Albouy said. “And unlike owners, renters receive no such break.”
On the other hand, one of the consequences of housing tax policy that Albouy found “curious” is that it encourages too many people to buy houses in places with the highest quality of life – “places that are beautiful, sunny and coastal.”
“Take someone who owns a very expensive beach bungalow in Honolulu,” he said. “Chances are they’ve paid a lot for that bungalow, and so they are receiving a huge tax write-off. Workers also tend to earn lower incomes in Honolulu than in, say, Chicago. So they’re making less, and writing off more, meaning the federal tax code is implicitly subsidizing people to live by the beach. Employers will follow suit, as this implicit loophole is similar to an untaxed fringe benefit like a company car. The federal tax code may be one reason why Google just opened an office in the Los Angeles beach town of Venice.”
According to Albouy, there is “no apparent reason” for the government to subsidize living in these high quality-of-life areas.
“Economists believe it is efficient for buyers to bid competitively over desirable land,” he said. “But to encourage their bidding war by lowering their tax burden when they bid higher appears wasteful.”
Eliminating the favorable tax treatment of housing would produce few gains in location, as people tend to pay higher housing prices for jobs rather than for quality-of-life reasons. More efficient reforms might eliminate housing benefits altogether and deflate taxable income by local costs-of-living, Albouy said.
“Such an indexing could be further improved by adjusting for local quality of life, which would be equivalent to indexing taxes to local wage levels for different skill-levels of workers,” he said. “In either case, more would need to be done to tie property taxes to local services used, rather than to the size of a house.”
While lowering federal tax benefits to housing would likely be efficient, eliminating them completely would cause houses to be too small by about 2 percent, the paper says. Without any offsetting compensation for local cost-of-living, a complete elimination of federal tax benefits for housing would also cause workers to live further away from higher-paying jobs, causing an economic waste of roughly $20 billion per year.
In general, reforming the tax code for housing tends to be quite popular with economists, but not with the public, Albouy said. In a recent poll, 77 percent of tax economists favored repealing the mortgage interest deduction, while only 10 percent of the public favored repealing the popular tax break.
“There’s a big chasm of understanding between economists and the public over the mortgage interest deduction,” he said. “Hopefully, we can meet somewhere in the middle. “
Albouy’s next research project examines the rising cost of housing as a share of household income.
“As society gets richer, one would expect to spend less on housing – but that’s not the case,” he said. “Our economy has grown richer, but we spend a greater proportion of our income on housing. And the reason why is that housing has gotten more expensive relative to other goods.”
Albouy is a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a research associate of the Center for Business and Public Policy at Illinois.
The paper is an excerpted chapter from the forthcoming book “Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 28,” published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Editor's note: To contact David Albouy, call 217-300-2654; email email@example.com.
The paper, “Are Houses Too Big or In the Wrong Place? Tax Benefits to Housing and Inefficiencies in Location and Consumption,” is available online.
Phil Ciciora | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Mathematical confirmation: Rewiring financial networks reduces systemic risk
22.06.2017 | International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Frugal Innovations: when less is more
19.04.2017 | Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation IAO
University of Maryland researchers contribute to historic detection of gravitational waves and light created by event
On August 17, 2017, at 12:41:04 UTC, scientists made the first direct observation of a merger between two neutron stars--the dense, collapsed cores that remain...
Seven new papers describe the first-ever detection of light from a gravitational wave source. The event, caused by two neutron stars colliding and merging together, was dubbed GW170817 because it sent ripples through space-time that reached Earth on 2017 August 17. Around the world, hundreds of excited astronomers mobilized quickly and were able to observe the event using numerous telescopes, providing a wealth of new data.
Previous detections of gravitational waves have all involved the merger of two black holes, a feat that won the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics earlier this month....
Material defects in end products can quickly result in failures in many areas of industry, and have a massive impact on the safe use of their products. This is why, in the field of quality assurance, intelligent, nondestructive sensor systems play a key role. They allow testing components and parts in a rapid and cost-efficient manner without destroying the actual product or changing its surface. Experts from the Fraunhofer IZFP in Saarbrücken will be presenting two exhibits at the Blechexpo in Stuttgart from 7–10 November 2017 that allow fast, reliable, and automated characterization of materials and detection of defects (Hall 5, Booth 5306).
When quality testing uses time-consuming destructive test methods, it can result in enormous costs due to damaging or destroying the products. And given that...
Using a new cooling technique MPQ scientists succeed at observing collisions in a dense beam of cold and slow dipolar molecules.
How do chemical reactions proceed at extremely low temperatures? The answer requires the investigation of molecular samples that are cold, dense, and slow at...
Scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, using high precision laser spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen, confirm the surprisingly small value of the proton radius determined from muonic hydrogen.
It was one of the breakthroughs of the year 2010: Laser spectroscopy of muonic hydrogen resulted in a value for the proton charge radius that was significantly...
17.10.2017 | Event News
10.10.2017 | Event News
10.10.2017 | Event News
20.10.2017 | Information Technology
20.10.2017 | Materials Sciences
20.10.2017 | Interdisciplinary Research