FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 26 | 27 || 29 | 30 |   ...   | 34 |

«reNtal HousiNg Policy iN tHe uNited states Volume 13, Number 2 • 2011 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy ...»

-- [ Page 28 ] --

A fraction of eligible households receive a large subsidy. A larger fraction of eligible households receive no assistance. The distribution is capricious.

For example, Currie (2006) reported that under current rental subsidy policies, more than 70 percent of households below the poverty line are not served, and more than 40 percent of the households who are served are not in poverty. A couple of years ago, it was reported (Quigley,

2008) that less than one-third of renters with incomes below 30 percent of the local median received housing assistance, and less than one-fifth of renters earning between 31 and 50 percent of local median received housing assistance.

Could Anything Really Be Done?

Maybe nothing can be done to correct this imbalance, but something closer to equitable assistance for poor renters could be achieved if the eligibility rules for housing subsidy were made more realistic and if the program were financed using the successful models employed in other U.S.

housing subsidy programs.

First, eligibility rules for rental housing assistance would need to be tightened. Under current law, households with incomes below 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), adjusted for

–  –  –

household composition, are eligible for rental housing subsidies. In 2006, this average cutoff income was about $52,000 for a family of four (Quigley, 2008). At that time, eligibility for food stamps for four-person households was confined to those with incomes less than one-half as large ($25,000). Eligibility under the EITC program was limited to households (with one or more children) earning one-third less per year ($37,000). Eligibility for rental assistance would have to be tightened considerably to replace a national lottery program with a broader and more equitable program for housing assistance for very low-income renters.

Objections exist to the labor supply implications of adding another income-based entitlement program to the array of federal policies. Much of this concern seems misguided, or else simply rationalizes opposition to a more transparent and universal housing assistance program.1 Second, a broader program would require additional support outside the community of housing advocates and professionals, and the continuity of the program would be problematic. One way to increase political support, and to reduce administrative costs as well, would be to follow the politically successful programs of subsidies to homeowners and subsidies to builders for the construction of low-income housing. (New construction of low-income housing is discussed further in this article.) These programs use the relatively efficient systems of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to determine eligibility and to distribute the benefits.

Currently in the United States, the multibillion-dollar home ownership subsidies are distributed largely by the IRS. Individual taxpayers need not report the dividend (that is, the imputed rent) on owner-occupied housing. Interest and property tax payments are deductible as personal expenses, and capital gains on sale are accorded special treatment in the computation of tax liability. (Jaffee and Quigley [2007 and 2010] provide estimates of the costs of these provisions. The costs are large.) The distribution of these subsidies to qualifying households is relatively painless. The subsidy is paid as a credit against the other tax liability of a homeowner. But subsidies provided under these provisions of the tax law for owner occupants are not refundable to the taxpayer.

In contrast, EITC is fully refundable to the taxpayer. Eligibility for the credit can be established on line (using the “EITC assistant,” for example). Alternatively, the IRS will establish eligibility and will compute the credit due—and they will also send along a check—to any qualifying taxpayer.

A refundable credit is not hard to administer.

In fact, a housing program that the IRS already administers could serve as the template for a lowincome rental housing subsidy program of this kind. The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program authorized by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 entitles selected homeowners to claim a tax credit for some portion of the mortgage interest paid in any year, rather than the tax deduction afforded other homeowners. (See Greulich and Quigley [2009] for a detailed discussion.) A taxpayer in Evidence indicates weak effects of the EITC on the labor supply of recipients (Eissa and Hoynes, 2006), and stronger effects of welfare receipt upon labor market outcomes. (See Moffitt [2002] for a review.) Less is known about the work incentives of the food stamp program (Hoynes and Schanzenbach, 2010). Fischer (2000) found small effects of housing assistance on work incentives, and Shroder (2002) found essentially no effects of housing assistance upon the employment of recipient households. Clearly, it is to be expected that any labor market distortions under a universal housing assistance program would be smaller than these estimates, not larger (because an entitlement program would undoubtedly provide a lower level of benefit, but one enjoyed by many more households).

–  –  –

possession of a Mortgage Credit Certificate issued by a unit of state or local government merely checks a box on his or her tax return (on line 54 of Form 1040) and submits an additional form (Form 8396, only 11 lines long) to claim the nonrefundable credit.

To claim the low-income housing subsidy under this more equitable low-income renter assistance program, the taxpayer would need to submit a form issued by a local housing authority and check a box added to the current IRS form. The additional form would certify that the household was renting a dwelling that meets the minimum habitation standards imposed by HUD. That form, together with the income reported by the household, the number of dependents in the household, and the postal address of the household, would be sufficient to compute the low-income renter subsidy payable to any household.2 The computation could be made by any taxpayer (perhaps on line) or by the IRS, as is the case with the EITC. Of course, H&R Block or any other commercial tax preparer could also make the computations. The private sector would have an incentive to help administer the program.3 The appropriate credit could be mailed in monthly installments to the low-income household, to the local housing authority for distribution to the household, or to the landlord directly.

Financing the low-income renter assistance program through the IRS and administering the program through HUD may also facilitate long-overdue reforms to the tax code in the treatment of housing.

For example, a revenue-neutral way to finance a low-income renter assistance program of roughly the same size as all current HUD low-income subsidies would be to eliminate the capital gains exclusion currently afforded to owner occupants when they sell their dwellings (Jaffee and Quigley, 2007, 2010). Reducing the limits on the deductibility of interest payments for high-income homeowners could easily finance a more equitable universal program. Using the tax code to support low-income renters may thus further national goals of equity in the tax treatment of housing by the federal government.

What About Unit-Based Housing Subsidies?

Viewing rental housing subsidies as part of the modern welfare system is very different from conceptualizing these subsidies as part of an infrastructure investment program—the rationale for the program 70 years ago. Ensuring equal treatment of eligible households as a part of a national welfare program is quite different from a policy of using rental subsidy funds to design and build new dwellings to be rented at below-market rents—at any conceivable budget. And the reason is obvious.

The cost of providing decent-quality housing through new construction is much greater than the cost of providing it by using the existing depreciated stock of housing. This fact is well known to It would be simple to differentiate the payment by postal code (and hence metropolitan area) if it was considered desirable to vary subsidies by the local cost of living. Most economists would probably not support such differentiation (for example, Glaeser, 1998), but many politicians might.

The computations would be a bit more complicated than those under the EITC because incomes of potential recipients may vary within the year. Currently, no administrative mechanism exists in the IRS for recertifying incomes within the year (perhaps on a quarterly basis). But this duty could be assigned to local housing authorities, whose other burdens would be reduced under the proposed housing subsidy program.

Cityscape 151Quigley

builders and developers, who almost never target new construction of rental units to the bottom one-half of the income distribution. (This fact is also quite well known to slumlords, who offer small quantities of housing services to the poor, using the oldest and most obsolete portion of the housing stock.) These cost differences in shelter provision for low-income households were thoroughly documented in conjunction with the Experimental Housing Allowance Program a quarter of a century ago and, more recently, by the General Accounting Office (GAO, 2001, 2002), now the Government Accountability Office. The latter study concluded that the present-value lifecycle costs of new construction subsidies were from 19 to 38 percent more than were the costs of voucher programs for comparable housing.4 No conceivable budget that sought to cover all renters below some income cutoff level could make provisions for the expenditures that are required to provide newly constructed housing for assisted households.

Should programs that provide unit-based housing assistance (that is, housing subsidies tied to particular dwelling units) be discouraged? Currently, a little more than two-thirds of the low-income renter households subsidized through the Section 8 program (2.2 million recipients) receive vouchers that can be used locally and which often are portable regionally. These vouchers make up the difference between 30 percent of household income and the estimated costs of “just standard” housing. In contrast, about one-third of Section 8 recipients receive equivalent financial subsidies in designated dwelling units under long-term contract to HUD. The benefits provided to recipients under the latter arrangements (unit-based assistance) are not as valuable as those provided by unconstrained vouchers. The recipient of a voucher could always choose the designated dwelling unit if it most closely matched his tastes and preferences, but the recipient of an unconstrained voucher could also choose another unit. A voucher recipient can also change dwellings in response to job changes, schooling needs, or neighborhood conditions.

Beyond these advantages to the individual recipient, the system of unconstrained vouchers provides an additional incentive for the deconcentration of low-income households in urban areas. Those who are willing to incur search costs (and perhaps other nonmonetary costs associated with integrating neighborhoods by income and race) make it easier for those searching subsequently in the housing market. None of these spatial incentives are present in unit-based Section 8 housing.

Indeed, some concern exists that unit-based assistance concentrates disadvantaged renters.5 The imposition of geographically determined unit-based housing assistance under Section 8, instead of portable and flexible vouchers available under the same program, might be understandable— This additional cost is apparently well known, if not extensively documented. For example, the analysis of the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiments by Kling et al. (2007) concluded that the MTO treatments pass the cost-benefit criterion because “the MTO intervention[s] produced large mental health improvements and because other research suggests that it is cheaper to provide a unit of subsidized housing with vouchers than in a public housing project” (2007: 108).

Little evidence supports the theory that supply-side housing assistance helps to disperse low-income households across neighborhoods. For example, Freeman (2004) reported that newly subsidized units created under the tax credit program are located in neighborhoods that contain a disproportionate share of Black residents. These neighborhoods also have considerably higher poverty rates, lower median incomes, and lower house values than typical metropolitan neighborhoods.

It should also be noted, however, that little evidence indicates that voucher recipients use vouchers to purchase housing in better neighborhoods. Under the MTO experiment, for example, recipients of MTO vouchers were required to move to neighborhoods with much lower concentrations of low-income households. After about a year, however, a large fraction of MTO recipients moved again––to neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poor households. (See Quigley and Raphael [2008] for a discussion.) 152 Rental Housing Policy in the United States Rental Housing Assistance if the former was cheap enough relative to unrestricted vouchers. But no evidence suggests that this is the case.6 Absent a compelling rationale based on comparative costs, it would be administratively simple to unwind unit-based housing assistance over time, as contracts with landlords expire, and replace them with more flexible vouchers.

Of course, there may be circumstances in which just standard, but depreciated, units are, in fact, cheap enough to make federal leases of these units competitive with demand-side assistance— especially if these leases also reduce negative external effects. Under current market conditions, in regions with high vacancy rates and abandoned properties, federal assistance to private or nonprofit owners in return for shelter provided to low-income renters may well pass a strict welfare test. If acquisitions can be made cheaply enough, if external effects (for example, from abandoned or foreclosed properties) are large enough, a place-based subsidy program might be quite sensible, at least in the short term.

What About Newly Constructed Low-Income Housing?

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 26 | 27 || 29 | 30 |   ...   | 34 |

Similar works:

«JANUARY 2016 GENDER INTEGRATION INTO CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE Tools for data collection and analysis for policy and research Gender integration into climate-smart agriculture Tools for data collection and analysis for policy and research Solomon Asfaw and Giuseppe Maggio Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2016 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the...»

«A. l oiicyniaKer s Guide to Accrual Funding of Military Retirement RAND William M. Hix William W. Taylor DISTRIBUTION STÄTEMEWfX Approval for public release; Arroyo Center Distribution Unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army under Contract No. DASW0196-C-0004. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Hix, William M. (William Michael), 1940A policymaker's guide to accrual funding of military retirement / William M. Hix, William W....»

«SYMPOSIUM PUBLIC ETHICS The Policy Maker: On Ethics and Public Policy BY ELVIO BACCARINI © 2014 – Philosophy and Public Issues (New Series), Vol. 4, No. 3 (2014): 83-96 Luiss University Press E-ISSN 2240-7987 | P-ISSN 1591-0660 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Public Ethics The Policy Maker On Ethics and Public Policy Elvio Baccarini A ccording to one of the interpretations of The Prince, Machiavelli’s intention was to write a handbook for the statesman, to teach him how to realize the...»

«THE CAMPAIGN FOR BOSTON UNIVERSITY GIFT POLICY and CREDITING MANUAL May 2012 The Campaign For Boston University Gift Policy Manual Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION Definitions of Support 3 II. MAKING A GIFT TO BOSTON UNIVERSITY Gift Types 4 Methods of Giving 5-6 Fund Types 7 III. SOLICITING GIFTS ON BEHALF OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY General Policies 8 Policies Specific to Annual Giving 8 Raising Funds from Events 9 IV. GIFT ACCEPTANCE POLICES General Principles 9 When a Gift Should Not Be...»

«Seattle’s Renting Crisis: Report & Policy Recommendations Table of Contents INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND: RENTING IN THE UNITED STATES SURVEY: RESEARCH METHODS & RESULTS CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS STORIES Seattle’s Renting Crisis Introduction Washington Community Action Network, the state’s largest grassroots organization, organizes to address the issues that most impact marginalized communities, as identified by our grassroots members. Washington CAN!’s Seattle membership raised...»

«International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) Vol.4, No.2, March 2012 DYNAMIC POLICY MANAGEMENT IN MOBILE GRID ENVIRONMENTS Tariq Alwada’n1, Hamza Aldabbas1, Helge Janicke1,Thair Khdour2, Omer Aldabbas3, Faculty of Technology, De Montfort University, UK {tariq,heljanic,hamza}@dmu.ac.uk Department of Information Technology, AlBalqa Applied University, Jordan khdour@bau.edu.jo Department of Engineering, AlBalqa Applied University, Jordan omer_aldabbas@yahoo.com ABSTRACT...»

«Los Angeles Convening on Youth Homelessness Addressing Youth Homelessness: Progress, Gaps, Opportunities and Challenges Convened by The National Alliance to End Homelessness The California Homeless Youth Project February 8, 2012 Report by André C. Wade, Program and Policy Analyst National Alliance to End Homelessness Editing contribution by Shahera Hyatt, Director California Homeless Youth Project Los Angeles Convening on Youth Homelessness Preface On February 8, 2012, individuals representing...»

«Number 21 October 2008 Policy Making in the Bush White House James P. Pfiffner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T he White House Office is Recent Issues in Governance Studies so large and complex that “Change” or Plus Ça Change.? a systematic process of Pondering Presidential Politics policy evaluation is essential in and Policy After Bush” (September 2008) order to provide the president with a range of options on all “The Climate of Opinion: State important policy decisions. Views on Climate Change...»

«The Song Remains the Same: Converging views on a Rising China Introduction A key problem that has been identified as being central to the deliberations of this book is that of “excessive bipartisanship” in foreign policy-making in modern, and largely western, liberal democracies. Why is it that the so-called “marketplace of ideas” inherent in mature democracies provides for a seemingly limited set of foreign policy options? Why do incumbent governments and their oppositions often...»

«Taxi and Private Hire Car Market and Local Licensing Regimes TAXI AND PRIVATE HIRE CAR MARKET AND LOCAL LICENSING REGIMES James M Cooper, Taxi Research, Edinburgh Napier University Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Approach 2 Primary findings 2 2 BACKGROUND 5 3 QUANTITATIVE RESPONSES 7 Driver and vehicle licence policies 7 Accessibility and vehicle type policies 8 Training policies 11 Taxi Tariffs 11 4 POLICY DETAIL 12 Qualitative responses – licence restriction 12 Qualitative responses...»

«THE DEMOCRATIC QUALITIES OF COURTS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THREE ARGUMENTS Richard Bellamy The democratic critique of judicial review by constitutional courts has prompted its defenders to counter that courts have democratic qualities as good as, and in certain respects even stronger than, conventional democratic politics. This article offers a critical analysis of three arguments favouring this approach. The first argues that constitutional courts operate as exemplars of democratic...»

«Land Tenure Working Paper 14 LAND POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN AN AFRICAN CONTEXT LESSONS LEARNED FROM SELECTED EXPERIENCES Paul De Wit Christopher Tanner Simon Norfolk with the supervision of Paul Mathieu and Paolo Groppo Land Tenure and Management Unit (NRLA) October 2009 FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS LAND POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN AN AFRICAN CONTEXT LESSONS LEARNED FROM SELECTED EXPERIENCES Paul De Wit Christopher Tanner Simon Norfolk with the supervision of Paul Mathieu and...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.theses.xlibx.info - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.