This article examines the incidence of the largest housing-related subsidy in the federal budget, the home mortgage interest deduction (MID). The author uses the difference in interest rates for loans made around the MID limit to identify the incidence of the subsidy. Using data on individual mortgages originated in 2004, the author estimates that for every $1,000 borrowed without the MID, the interest rate on the entire loan decreases by between 3.3 and 4.4 percent. Results suggest that lenders capture between 9 and 17 percent of the subsidy created by the home MID through higher mortgage interest rates.
AndersonJohnClemensJeffreyHansonAndrew. 2007. “Capping the Mortgage Interest Deduction.”National Tax Journal60:769–85.
2.
BergerTommyEnglundPeterHendershottPatricTurnerBengt. 2000. “Another Look at the Capitalization of Interest Subsidies: Evidence from Sweden.”Journal of Money, Credit and Banking32:199–217.
3.
CapozzaDennisGreenRichardHendershottPatric. 1999. “Tax Reform and House Prices: Large or Small Effect?”Proceedings of the 91st Annual National Tax Association Conference:19–24.
4.
CardDavidLeeDavidPeiAhuan. 2009. “Quasi-Experimental Identification and Estimation in the Regression Kink Design.”Working Paper 553, Princeton University Industrial Relations Section, Princeton, NJ.
5.
DevereuxMichaelLanotGauthier. 2003. “Measuring Tax Incidence: An Application to Mortgage Provision in the U.K.”Journal of Public Economics87:1747–78.
6.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. 2010. Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2011. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
7.
GibbonsStephenManningAlan. 2003. “The Incidence of UK Housing Benefit: Evidence from the 1990s Reforms.”Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper 597, London School of Economics, London, UK.
8.
GibbonsStephenManningAlan. 2006. “The Incidence of UK Housing Benefit: Evidence from the 1990s Reforms.”Journal of Public Economics90:799–822.
9.
GlaeserEdwardShapiroJesse. 2003. “The Benefits of the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction.”Tax Policy and the Economy17:37–82.
10.
GreenRichardVandellKerry. 1999. “Giving Households Credit: How Changes in the U.S. Tax Code Could Promote Homeownership.”Regional Science and Urban Economics29:419–44.
11.
HendershottPatricShillingJames. 1989. “The Impact of the Agencies on Conventional Fixed-Rate Mortgage Yields.”Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics2:101–15.
12.
HendershottPatricWhiteMichael. 2000. “Taxing and Subsidizing Housing Investment: The Rise and Fall of Housing’s Favored Status.”NBER Working Paper No. 7928, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
13.
HimmelbergCharlesMayerChristopherSinaiTodd. 2005. “Assessing High House Prices: Bubbles, Fundamentals, and Misperceptions.”Journal of Economic Perspectives19:67–92.
14.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ.2006. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables Using Stata. 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
15.
PoterbaJames. 1984. “Tax Subsidies to Owner-Occupied Housing: An Asset Market Approach.”Quarterly Journal of Economics99:729–52.
16.
PoterbaJames. 1992. “Taxation and Housing: Old Questions, New Answers.”American Economic Review82:237–42.
17.
RosenHarvey. 1985. “Housing Subsidies: Effects on Housing Decisions, Efficiency, and Equity.”In Handbook of Public Economics, vol. 1, edited by FeldsteinM.AuerbachA.. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
18.
RosenHarvey. 1979a. “Housing Decisions and the U.S. Income Tax: An Econometric Analysis.”Journal of Public Economics11:1–23.
19.
RosenHarvey. 1979b. “Owner Occupied Housing and the Federal Income Tax: Estimates and Simulations.”Journal of Urban Economics6:247–66.
20.
SusinScott. 2002. “Rent Vouchers and the Price of Low-Income Housing.”Journal of Public Economics83:109–52.
21.
WheatonWilliam. 1990. “Vacancy, Search, and Prices in a Housing Market Matching Model.”Journal of Political Economy98:1270–92.
