TY - JOUR AU - Sinai,Todd AU - Gyourko,Joseph TI - The (Un)changing Geographical Distribution of Housing Tax Benefits: 1980 to 2000 JF - National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series VL - No. 10322 PY - 2004 Y2 - February 2004 UR - http://www.nber.org/papers/w10322 L1 - http://www.nber.org/papers/w10322.pdf N1 - Author contact info: Todd M. Sinai University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School 1465 Steinberg Hall - Dietrich Hall 3620 Locust Walk Philadelphia, PA 19104-6302 Tel: 215/898-5390 Fax: 215/573-2220 E-Mail: sinai@wharton.upenn.edu Joseph Gyourko University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business 3620 Locust Walk 1480 Steinberg-Dietrich Hall Philadelphia, PA 19104-6302 Tel: 215/898-3003 Fax: 215/573-2220 E-Mail: gyourko@wharton.upenn.edu AB - Even though the top marginal income tax rate has fallen substantially and the tax code has become less progressive since 1979, the tax benefit to homeowners was virtually unchanged between 1979-1989, and then rose substantially between 1989-1999. Using tract-level data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses, we estimate how the income tax-related benefits to owner-occupiers are distributed spatially across the United States. Geographically, gross program benefits have been and remain very spatially targeted. At the metropolitan area level, tax benefits are spatially targeted, with a spatial skewness that is increasing over time. In 1979, owners in the top 20 highest subsidy areas received from 2.7 to 8.0 times the subsidy reaped by owners in the bottom 20 areas. By 1999, owners in the top 20 areas received from 3.4 to 17.1 times more benefits than owners in any of the 20 lowest recipient areas. Despite the increasing skewness, the top subsidy recipient areas tend to persist over time. In particular, the very high benefit per owner areas are heavily concentrated in California and the New York City to Boston corridor, with California owners alone receiving between 19 and 22 percent of the national aggregate gross benefits. While tax rates are somewhat higher in these places, it is high and rising house prices which appear most responsible for the large and increasing skewness in the spatial distribution of benefits. ER -