In 1994, a limit on the growth of property values for tax purposes was imposed in Michigan. One consequence of the newly imposed assessment growth cap was an emerging differential in tax prices between potential new property owners and long-time property owners. The purpose this article is to examine the impact of this growing tax price differential on migration patterns. Using county level data on migration activity over the 1994-2006 period, the authors present evidence that differential tax prices resulting from the assessment growth cap have reduced in-migration.
Anderson, Nathan B. and Therese J. McGuire.2007. The Illinois property tax: history and structure. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy working paper , Cambridge, MA.
2.
Bertrand, Marianne, Esther Duflo, and Sendhil Mullainathan .2004. How much should we trust difference-in-difference estimators? Quarterly Journal of Economics119:249-75.
3.
Bowman, John H.2006. Property tax policy responses to rapidly rising home values: District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. National Tax Journal59:717-33.
4.
Cebula, Richard J.1990. A brief empirical note on the Tiebout hypothesis and state income tax policies. Public Choice67:87-9.
5.
Cebula, Richard J., and Gigi M. Alexander .2006. Determinants of net interstate migration, 2000-2004. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy36:116-23.
6.
Citizens Research Council.2001. CRC Memorandum Number 1058: ‘‘The Growing Difference between State Equalized Value and Taxable Value in Michigan.’’Livonia, MI: Citizens Research Council.
7.
Clark, David E., Thomas A. Knapp, and Nancy E. White .1996. Personal and location-specific characteristics and elderly interstate migration. Growth and Change27:327-51.
8.
Conway, Karen S., and Andrew J. Houtenville .1998. Do the elderly vote with their feet?Public Choice97:63-85.
9.
Conway, Karen S., and Andrew J. Houtenville .2001. Elderly migration and state fiscal policy: Evidence from the 1990 census migration flows. National Tax Journal54:103-23.
10.
Conway, Karen S., and Jonathon Rork.2006. State ‘‘death’’ taxes and elderly migration-the chicken or the egg?National Tax Journal59:97-128.
11.
Dye, Richard F., and Daniel P. McMillen .2007. The algebra of tax burden shifts from assessment limitations. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy working paper, Cambridge, MA.
12.
Dye, Richard F., Daniel P. McMillen, and David F. Merriman .2006. Illinois’ response to rising residential property values: An assessment growth cap in Cook County . National Tax Journal59:707-16.
13.
Dye, Richard F., Therese McGuire and Daniel McMillen.2005. Are property tax limitations more binding over time?National Tax Journal58:215-225.
14.
Farnham, Martin, and Purvi Sevak.2002. Local fiscal policy and retiree migration: Evidence from the health and retirement study. Hunter CollegeDepartment of Economics working papers02/7, Hunter College, Department of Economics, New York, NY.
15.
Feldman, Naomi E., Paul N. Courant, and Douglas Drake.2003. The property tax in Michigan. In Michigan at the millennium, ed. Charles L. Ballard, Paul N. Courant, Douglas C. Drake, Ronald C. Fisher, and Elisabeth R. Gerber, 577-602. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
16.
Ferreira, Fernando.2004. You can take it with you: Transferability of Proposition 13 tax benefits, residential mobility, and willingness to pay for housing amenities. Working paper 72, Center for Labor Economics, University of California , Berkeley, CA.
17.
Giertz, J. Fred.2006. The property tax bound. National Tax Journal59:695-705.
18.
Haveman, Mark, and Terri Sexton.2008. Property tax assessment limits: Lessons from thirty years of experience. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy working paper, Cambridge, MA.
Muhammad, Daniel.2007. Horizontal inequity, vertical inequity and the District of Columbia’s property assessment limitation. Working paper.
21.
Mullins, Daniel R., and Philip G. Joyce .1996. Tax and expenditure limitations and state fiscal structure: An empirical assessment. Public Budgeting and Finance16:75-101.
22.
Nagy, John.1997. Did proposition 13 affect the mobility of California homeowners ? Public Finance Review25:102-16.
23.
O’Sullivan, Arthur, Terri A. Sexton, and Steven M. Sheffrin .1995. Property taxes, mobility and home ownership. Journal of Urban Economics37:107-29.
24.
Skidmore, Mark.1999. Tax and expenditure limitations and the fiscal relationships between state and local governments. Public Choice99:77-102.
25.
Wasi, Nada, and Michelle J. White .2005. Property tax limitations and mobility: Lock-in effect of California’s Proposition 13. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs2005:59-97.
26.
Youngman, Joan.2007. The variety of property tax limits: Goals, consequences, and alternatives. State Tax Notes November:541-57.
27.
Yu, Eunice, and Jianguo Liu .2007. Environment impacts of divorce . PNAS. 104:20629-34.
