Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution of Property Tax Payments: Evidence from Michigan

Abstract

We examine the change in the distribution of property tax payments resulting from Michigan's imposition of a property tax assessment growth cap in 1994. The cap restricts growth in property value for tax purposes to the infl ation rate, for those maintaining continuous ownership. Upon sale, however, the tax base is adjusted to refl ect market value. Using data from a survey conducted in 2008, we fi nd that long-time homeowners enjoy an average reduction in effective tax rates (relative to new homeowners) of 19 percent. The cap also appears to have reduced effec-tive property tax rates for older homeowners, and for those with higher incomes.

Full text

1 Such limitations have been referred to as “assessment growth caps,” “taxable value caps,” “assessment
growth limits,” and “property value assessment limits.” These terms are used interchangeably in this ar-
ticle. Maryland was the fi rst state to impose a limit on assessment increases, in 1957. California and Iowa
introduced assessment growth limits in 1978, and New Mexico, Arizona, and New York followed soon
after (United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1995).
2 For an extensive discussion of Proposal A, see Feldman, Drake, and Courant (2003).
National Tax Journal, September 2010, 63 (3), 509–538
PROPERTY VALUE ASSESSMENT GROWTH LIMITS AND
REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS:
EVIDENCE FROM MICHIGAN
Mark Skidmore, Charles L. Ballard and Timothy R. Hodge
We examine the change in the distribution of property tax payments resulting from
Michigan’s imposition of a property tax assessment growth cap in 1994. The cap
restricts growth in property value for tax purposes to the infl ation rate, for those
maintaining continuous ownership. Upon sale, however, the tax base is adjusted
to refl ect market value. Using data from a survey conducted in 2008, we fi nd that
long-time homeowners enjoy an average reduction in effective tax rates (relative
to new homeowners) of 19 percent. The cap also appears to have reduced effec-
tive property tax rates for older homeowners, and for those with higher incomes.
Keywords: property tax, incidence, assessment growth limit
JEL Codes: H71, H22
I. INTRODUCTION
According to Haveman and Sexton (2008), at least 20 states now have some sort of
limitation on the rate at which property tax assessments are allowed to grow over
time.1 Michigan’s assessment growth cap was part of Proposal A, a sweeping education
fi nance reform that was approved by referendum in 1994.2 Proposal A included major
Mark Skidmore: Department of Agriculture, Food, and Resource Economics and Department of
Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA (mskidmor@msu.edu)
Charles Ballard: Department of Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA (ballard@
msu.edu)
Timothy R. Hodge: Department of Agriculture, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, USA (hodgetim@msu.edu)

National Tax Journal
510
changes to many aspects of the public fi nances in Michigan. In this article, however,
we are primarily concerned with the assessment growth cap.
Prior to the passage of Proposal A, property taxes were based on the “state equalized
value” of a property (SEV).3 After 1994, the growth of residential property values for
tax purposes was limited to the lesser of the general rate of infl ation (as measured by
the national Consumer Price Index) or 5 percent, regardless of the actual increase in
SEV.4 Thus, over time, the taxable value (TV) of a property could fall well below the
SEV. However, Proposal A also specifi es that the taxable value of a property is returned
to the current market-based SEV when the property is sold.5 Therefore, in areas with
signifi cant increases in property values, the effective property tax rates facing long-time
property owners have decreased, relative to those of more recent purchasers of property.
Our objective is to determine the extent to which the taxable value cap has redistributed
tax payments across economic and demographic groups. We examine the distributional
consequences of the taxable value cap, using detailed data on property tax payments
and housing values, obtained through a survey taken in the winter of 2008.
In the next section, we briefl y describe property tax policy in Michigan. In Section
III, we review earlier research regarding property value assessment growth limits. The
empirical strategy for measuring the determinants of tax payments is described in Section
IV. In Section V, we describe the data and discuss some additional econometric issues.
The estimation results are presented in Section VI, and Section VII is a brief conclusion.
II. THE PROPERTY TAX IN MICHIGAN
Prior to 1994, property taxation in Michigan had two key characteristics. First, public
schools were fi nanced almost exclusively through local property taxes. Since there was
wide variation among school districts in the value of taxable property per student, this
decentralized fi scal system led to extreme differences among school districts in expen-
diture per student. Second, the overall level of property taxation was well above the
national average.6 These features were the source of considerable dissatisfaction among
3 The SEV is 50 percent of the assessed market value of the property. Each year, the assessor in each ju-
risdiction in Michigan determines the SEV of each property in the jurisdiction, as of December 31 of the
previous year.
4 The 5 percent limitation has not had any practical effect, since the general infl ation rate has been lower
than 5 percent throughout this entire period.
5 This “pop up” also occurs in the case of a property transfer that does not involve an explicit sale of the
property. For example, property ownership may be transferred from one family member to another, but
the tax benefi ts cannot be transferred to the new owner.
6 Data from the U.S. Census Bureau for state and local government fi nances are available online at http://
www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.html. Before Proposal A, property taxes typically accounted for
about 41 percent of state and local tax revenues in Michigan. This was well above the national average
of about 30 percent. After Proposal A, property taxes have accounted for about 38 percent of Michigan
revenues, which is closer to the national average, which remains around 30 percent. Michigan’s prop-
erty taxes remained above the national average when measured on a per-capita basis, but the difference
between Michigan and the U.S. average was reduced. However, it should also be noted that, throughout

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
511
voters, and they led to a long series of reform measures. These policies are discussed
in detail in Feldman, Courant, and Drake (2003).
Along with the taxable value cap, Proposal A also introduced a distinction between
“homestead property” and “non-homestead property,” where the homestead is defi ned
as the homeowner’s principal residence. For homestead property, Proposal A imposed a
maximum on the statutory property tax millage rate7 that local school districts could use
for public school operating expenses. This is known as the “homestead exemption,” since
it does not apply to non-homestead property. As a result of the homestead exemption,
average statutory millage rates were reduced by about one-third.8 The state government
then added a 6-mill “state education tax,” and increased sales taxes and cigarette taxes
to provide for the fi nancing of elementary and secondary public education.9
In Table 1, we present statewide average statutory property tax millage rates from
1990 through 2008. Over this period, the only major shift in average statutory millages
occurred in 1994 with the passage of Proposal A. However, the averages reported in
Table 1 should not obscure the fact that there is substantial variation. As mentioned
above, statutory property tax rates vary a great deal from one jurisdiction to another
(both before and after Proposal A). Also, as a result of the taxable value cap, Proposal
A led to within-jurisdiction differences in effective property tax rates. These within-
jurisdiction differences did not exist before Proposal A.
this period, Michigan also provided an income-based circuit breaker. The circuit breaker, known as the
“Homestead Property Tax Credit,” operated as a refundable credit in the state’s income tax. Thus, if the
Homestead Property Tax Credit is netted out, the burden of the property tax in Michigan is reduced. In
fact, the Homestead Credit is more generous to senior citizens than to others, and if we combine this
with Michigan’s generous treatment of pension income which is generally not taxed, elderly Michigan
residents have a negative effective rate of income taxation. While the focus of this article is on property
taxes themselves, we conduct additional analysis to determine whether taking into account the Homestead
Property Tax Credit makes any difference to our core fi ndings. As described later, our fi ndings are robust
to this consideration.
7 One mill is defi ned as $1 per $1,000 of taxable value.
8 The homestead exemption effectively equalized the statutory property tax millage rates for local school
operating expenses on homestead properties across the state. This reduced the disparities in overall statutory
millage rates across jurisdictions, but it did not eliminate them. Substantial differences in overall millage
rates remain, as a result of differences in millage rates between homestead and non-homestead proper-
ties, and as a result of differences in the millage rates for school capital expenditures, and for municipal
governments, county governments, and special districts.
9 Proposal A also put severe restrictions on the ability of local units to increase property taxes on their own.
Thus, the fi nancing of operating expenses for K-12 public education became much more centralized than
it had previously been. Also, the funding formulas pushed in the direction of more equal per-student fund-
ing for operating expenses, although considerable gaps remain between the highest- and lowest-spending
districts. Per-pupil spending increased substantially in many of the poorest districts, as increased state aid
outweighed the reduction in property tax revenues. Spending increases were more modest, or even nega-
tive, for more affl uent districts. For further discussion of these changes, see Arsen and Plank (2003) and
Papke (2008). See Papke (2005, 2008) for an excellent analysis of the effects of school fi nance reform on
educational outcomes. In the area of school capital expenses, local school districts still must rely on their
own property taxes. As a result, funding disparities for school capital expenses are much larger than those
for operating expenses. For discussion, see Arsen, et al. (2005).

National Tax Journal
512
It is important to note that Proposal A was not the fi rst mechanism for restraining
property tax revenues in Michigan. Prior to Proposal A, property tax revenues were
already limited by the “Headlee Amendment,” which was passed in 1978.10 While
Proposal A limits statutory millage rates and imposes a limit on the growth in taxable
values, the Headlee Amendment puts a direct limitation on property tax revenues.
The Headlee Amendment restricts property tax revenue growth to the rate of infl ation
(with an adjustment for new construction). Any jurisdiction with potential revenue
increases exceeding the Headlee limit is required to reduce property tax rates, in order
to bring revenues into line with the revenue-growth restriction. This type of tax-rate
reduction is known as a “Headlee rollback.”11 Prior to the introduction of the taxable
value cap, rapidly rising property values resulted in numerous Headlee rollbacks.
Table 1
Statewide Average Property tax Millage Rates in Michigan, 1990–2008
Calendar Year Homestead Property Nonhomestead Property All Property
1990 57.17 57.17 57.17
1991 57.34 57.34 57.34
1992 58.09 58.09 58.09
1993 56.64 56.64 56.64
1994 30.22 48.17 38.19
1995 31.00 48.79 38.88
1996 31.36 49.54 39.32
1997 31.36 49.63 39.25
1998 31.43 49.68 39.27
1999 31.40 49.76 39.16
2000 31.54 50.10 39.32
2001 32.12 50.72 39.78
2002 32.60 51.00 40.17
2003 31.52 50.06 39.00
2004 32.70 51.20 40.00
2005 32.60 51.38 39.88
2006 32.65 50.96 39.96
2007 32.72 51.49 39.89
2008 n.a. n.a. 38.94
Sources: All millage rates from State Tax Commission except 1994; millage rates for 1994
from the Tax Analysis Division, Michigan Department of Treasury, http://www.michigan.gov/
taxes/0,1607,7-238-43551_44149---,00.html.
10 The Headlee Amendment is named for its author, Richard H. Headlee.
11 Local residents can choose to exceed the Headlee limitation by referendum, but this occurrence is relatively
uncommon. Note that the taxable value cap can interact with Headlee rollbacks. To the extent that the cap
puts a jurisdiction under the Headlee limit in a given year, the new Headlee limit is computed from the
lower base (Feldman, Courant, and Drake, 2003).

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
513
After Proposal A, however, rollbacks were greatly reduced, both in number and in
magnitude.
Thus, before Proposal A, the Headlee Amendment provided a mechanism for limiting
property tax rates, in a uniform manner across all properties in a jurisdiction. Proposal
A effectively instituted a new system for limiting effective property tax rates, but the
Proposal A mechanism did not treat all properties in a jurisdiction uniformly. Instead,
under Proposal A, the taxable value cap reduced effective tax rates for existing home-
owners, but not for new homebuyers.
The Michigan Department of Treasury (2010) provides annual estimates of tax
expenditures for all major sources of tax revenue. In the 2010 fi scal year, the estimated
revenue loss from the taxable value cap was $3.4 billion, which is second only to the
homestead exemption, which produced an estimated revenue loss of $3.52 billion. These
two property tax expenditures are estimated to make up more than two-thirds of the
total tax expenditures associated with the property tax. The tax expenditure associated
with the taxable value cap is suffi ciently large that, if it had been removed, holding total
property tax revenues constant, the statewide average statutory tax rate could have been
reduced by about 20 percent in 2008 (the year of the survey).12 In some counties, the
average statutory tax rate could have been reduced by more than 40 percent.13 Thus, tax
base erosion has occurred unevenly across the state and across individual properties,
and this has led to signifi cant horizontal inequities among property owners.
From 1994 through 2005, average housing values grew faster than the general price
level. Thus, for long-time homeowners, on average, taxable value fell further and further
below state equalized value until 2005. However, average housing prices in Michigan
increased at a rate below the rate of infl ation in 2005. Beginning in 2006, average housing
prices began to fall. Because of this reversal in the relationship between the change in
housing prices and the change in the overall price level, the gap between taxable value
and state equalized value has diminished in recent years.
III. THE LITERATURE ON PROPERTY TAX LIMITATIONS
Early empirical research on property tax limits, including property value assessment
growth constraints (such as Dye, McGuire, and McMillen (2005), Mullins and Joyce
(1996), and Skidmore (1999)), tended to focus on determining the degree to which
these emerging fi scal institutions constrained the growth of property tax revenue. More
recently, researchers have focused their attention on the distributional consequences of
12 This calculation is based on data for taxable value and state equalized value as of 2008. However, it should
be noted that falling home values have reduced the gap between taxable value and state equalized value
over the past two to three years. By 2009, if state equalized value had been taxed fully, the statewide aver-
age statutory rate could have been reduced by 15 percent.
13 Four counties (Antrim, Benzie, Cheboygan, and Keweenaw) had taxable values that were less than 60
percent of state equalized value, on average. Five counties (Bay, Dickinson, Kent, Midland, and Saginaw)
had taxable values that exceeded 85 percent of state equalized value, on average. For each of the remaining
74 counties in Michigan, the ratio of taxable value to state equalized value, on average, was between 0.61
and 0.85.

National Tax Journal
514
assessment growth caps, and we focus on this research here. Dye, McMillen, and Mer-
riman (2006) consider the assessment growth cap introduced in Cook County, Illinois,
in 2004. They demonstrate that a taxable value cap for residential owners (as in Cook
County) will necessarily lead to increased taxes for industrial and commercial property
owners, if property tax revenues are to be maintained. Generally, whenever an effective
tax rate reduction is given to one type of property, if a revenue goal is to be achieved,
either other types of property must have an increased rate, or there must be an increase
in some other revenue source.
The Minnesota Department of Revenue (2007) reports that, as a result of a taxable
value cap, 84 percent of residential homesteads in Minnesota had to pay a higher tax
in 2006 than they would have had if taxable values had remained unrestricted, all else
equal. Muhammad (2007) discusses the substantial horizontal inequities that have
resulted from the taxable value cap in the District of Columbia.
Mikesell and Mullins (2008) examine the determinants of residential tax payments, using
household-level data from the Public Use Micro Samples of the 2000 Census of Popula-
tion and Housing, along with subsequent Annual Community Surveys from the Bureau of
the Census, from 2000 through 2006. They fi nd that a range of policies, institutions, and
household characteristics are correlated with household tax payments. From the perspec-
tive of the present study, it is most important to note that Mikesell and Mullins fi nd that
tenure in a home is negatively correlated with tax payments as a proportion of income.
In addition to reducing tax revenues and creating horizontal inequities, the taxable
value cap could create a “lock-in effect.” In the words of Dye, McMillen, and Merriman
(2006), the tax cap “may discourage mobility, since the expanded exemption is lost
when real estate is sold, and, thus, may decrease the effi ciency of the residential real
estate market.” Several studies examine the effect of property tax caps on household
mobility. Wasi and White (2005) examine the potential lock-in effect for housing choice
from California’s Proposition 13 (enacted in 1978), using data from 1970 to 2000. They
fi nd a signifi cant effect: the average tenure length of California homeowners increased
by 0.66 years, or 6 percent, relative to homeowners in Texas and Florida, which were
chosen as comparison states. The increase was as high as two or three years in places
like San Francisco and San Jose, where long-time homeowners received the largest tax
reductions from the assessment growth limit.
Ferreira (2004) also examines residential mobility in California after Proposition
13, but he focuses on the two amendments that allow for transferability of the implicit
tax benefi ts to a new home for heads of household aged 55 or older. Ferreira fi nds that
mobility for the 55-year-old group is about 25 percent higher than mobility for the
54-year-old group.14
To our knowledge, previous studies have not explicitly examined the degree to which
assessment growth caps have altered tax payments across economic and demographic
14 Nagy (1997) also examines the change in household mobility after California’s Proposition 13, using the
Annual Housing Surveys from 1975, 1978, and 1982. He fi nds evidence of a decline in mobility, but the
decline is not signifi cantly different from similar declines in other parts of the country. For other recent
work on the consequences of property value assessment growth limits, see Anderson and McGuire (2007),
Bowman (2006), Giertz (2006), Ihlanfeldt (forthcoming) and Youngman (2007).

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
515
groups. Since length of tenure in a home depends on income, age, and other demographic
characteristics, an assessment growth cap may redistribute property tax payments across
economic and demographic groups. The primary motivation for this article is to increase
our understanding of this redistribution of property tax payments.
A potentially confounding issue for our analysis is that assessment growth caps may
have an effect on property values. In other words, the differences in tax payments
associated with the taxable value cap may be capitalized into home values, thus altering
effective property tax rates. Indeed, Guilfoyle (1998) fi nds that a portion of the initial
tax benefi ts of Michigan’s Proposal A was capitalized into home values.15 However, it
should be noted that Guilfoyle’s analysis deals with the period immediately before and
after enactment of Proposal A, during which virtually all Michigan homeowners saw
substantial decreases in property taxes.16
The effect of the taxable value cap on property values is indeterminate, because (all
else equal) it leads to higher property taxes for some, and lower taxes for others. For
homebuyers who expect to remain in their homes for many years to come, and who
expect home values to rise more rapidly than the Consumer Price Index, the taxable
value cap may represent a potential long-run benefi t.17 For homeowners in this situ-
ation, lower future tax payments for the duration of tenure in the home may lead to
higher willingness to pay. However, for those who expect to move from one home to a
different home in the state in the near future, the taxable value growth cap can impose
higher effective property tax rates. These homebuyers may have reduced willingness
to pay for a home, as a result of the taxable value growth cap. In addition, if mobility is
reduced because of the taxable value growth cap, fewer homes may be available on the
market, and this may lead to higher housing prices, all else equal.18 Further, because of
the Headlee Amendment (the property tax revenue growth limit), average tax burdens
15 In addition to Guilfoyle (1998), see Oates (1969), Wales and Wiens (1974), King (1977), Reinhard (1981),
Richardson and Thalheimer (1981), Rosen (1982), and Palmon and Smith (1998) for excellent discussions
of the property tax capitalization issue.
16 Guilfoyle identifi es the parameters of his model using the large variation in the relative size of the tax
reductions brought about by Proposal A.
17 Home values have fallen recently. As long as taxable value is less than state equalized value, taxable
value is allowed by law to increase by the rate of infl ation, even when state equalized value is declining.
Thus, in the last few years, many Michigan homeowners have experienced the odd combination of falling
home values and rising property tax bills. However, for properties where state equalized value no longer
exceeds taxable value, the taxable value will fall with state equalized value. This can occur for long-time
homeowners if the drop in value is suffi ciently large (as in the case of one of the authors of this article). It
can also occur for homeowners who bought a home at or after the peak of prices in the middle of the fi rst
decade of the 21st century (as in the case of another of the authors of this article). In the public discussion
leading up to Proposal A, little or no attention was focused on the possibility that home values could ever
see a widespread decline. Recently, the combination of falling property values and rising tax payments has
been the cause of much public outcry. In response, state legislators have considered proposals to prevent
increases in property tax payments in an environment of falling home values. In the recent public debate,
relatively little attention has been given to the fact that many of the affected homeowners have received
substantial tax reductions from the taxable value cap over the years.
18 It is also possible that the reduced number of homes on the market could be offset by a reduction in the
number of buyers.

National Tax Journal
516
in any given community might not have been substantially different than they currently
are, even if the taxable value cap had never been imposed.19
A general framework for evaluating the effects of property taxes on property values
was set out by Yinger (1982) and Yinger, et al. (1988). Based on this earlier work, we
defi ne a capitalization equation, which is derived from a utility maximization model:
(1)
V
R
TP
n
N
n
n
N
=
=
∑∑
R
n
−
()
()
i
+
n
∑
n
)
i
+
i
+
(
11
n
=
n
()
i
n
=
n
)
i
+
i
+
β
T
Equation (1) shows that the value of a home, V, is equal to the net present value of
the stream of rental services it generates, R, minus the net present value of the stream
of tax payments, TP, where i is the real discount rate and N is the useful life of the
home. The annual rental price of a property, R, is a function of the characteristics of the
property and community; we assume that these characteristics are constant over time.
Finally,
β
is a parameter ranging between 0–1, which defi nes the degree to which the
stream of tax payments is capitalized into the value of a property.
Evaluation of the taxable value cap requires a modifi cation of (1), because TP depends
on the general rate of increase (or decrease) in property values, the date of purchase,
and the length of time the owner plans to own the property. With these modifi cations,
we have calculated the present value of a home (V) in the Headlee environment and in
the Proposal A environment. We assume that the life of a home (N) is 40 years, and the
discount rate (i) is 0.05. The tax payment under the Headlee regime is assumed to be a
constant proportion of the rental value.20 We further assume that under Proposal A, when
the property is sold or transferred, the tax payments increase by 1.43 percent times the
number of years of ownership (as per our estimates), and we assume that the average
length of tenure in the home is 16 years (as per our survey data). Finally, we assume that
the capitalization rate (
β
) is 1, so that our calculations should be seen as an upper bound.
Our calculations (the details of which are available on request) suggest that property
values are not very sensitive to these assumptions, and that property values are very
similar under the two scenarios. Generally, the effect of the changing property tax
environment on property values is ambiguous: It depends on expectations about future
home prices, the rate of infl ation, and home tenure length. Given the data from the
survey and the Michigan experience, these initial explorations suggest that the taxable
value cap probably has not altered home values in a substantial way.
19 The Headlee revenue growth limitation requires rate rollbacks whenever revenue growth exceeds the
rate of infl ation plus new construction. In the absence of the taxable value cap, Michigan communities
would have experienced more rate rollbacks, which would have been uniform across all homeowners in a
jurisdiction. With the taxable value cap, long-time owners emerge with lower effective property tax rates,
at the expense of higher effective rates for newer homeowners.
20 We also considered a scenario in which millages increase over time due to referenda. Specifi cally, voters
may approve a Headlee override (as previously discussed) or they may approve a millage increase for
other purposes. As of 2008, these extra voted millages were 37 percent of standard millages, on average.
This alternative scenario yielded very similar capitalization rates.

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
517
IV. EFFECTIVE TAX RATES AND TAX PAYMENTS
As previously discussed, prior to the passage of Michigan’s assessment growth limit
in 1994, the taxable value for each property was its state equalized value (SEV), where
the SEV is equal to one-half of the assessed market value.21 From 1995 on, the growth of
taxable value for any property that is not sold during the period cannot exceed the rate
of infl ation, as measured by the national Consumer Price Index. If a property is sold,
the taxable value returns to SEV. Thus, the effective property tax rate for homestead
i (EFFECTIVE RATEi) is given by
(2) EFFECTIVE RATEi = (TPi
/Vi) = f (Ti, Ci).
Equation (2) indicates that the effective property tax rate for homestead i depends
on the tax payment (TPi) and the market value of the home (Vi), which in turn depend
on community characteristics (Ci)22 and the homeowner’s length of tenure in the home
(Ti).23 As long as housing values rise at a rate faster than infl ation, long-time homeown-
ers will enjoy a tax benefi t over new homeowners, and the magnitude of the benefi t
will increase over time.
This discussion illustrates the way in which differences in property tax payments and
effective tax rates can emerge as a result of the interaction between changing home
prices and the taxable value cap. In the next two sections, we present our empirical
analysis of the property tax differentials that have emerged as a result of the taxable value
cap.
21 If the assessment is correct, then the SEV is equal to one-half of the true market value. Of course, assess-
ments are not necessarily completely accurate. If a taxpayer believes that his/her property has been over-
assessed, the taxpayer can appeal, and these appeals are sometimes successful in reducing the assessment.
On the other hand, some taxpayers may not be able to detect an inaccurate assessment, because of lack
of information about market conditions, or they may be deterred by the transactions costs associated with
the appeals process. In addition, taxpayers who believe their properties have been under-assessed do not
typically appeal.
22 There may be variations in community characteristics within a given jurisdiction. Because of data limita-
tions, we abstract from these variations, and assume that everyone within a given jurisdiction has the same
community characteristics.
23 The tax payment portion of (2) for homestead i (TPi) is found by multiplying the taxable value of the
property by the statutory tax rate. The taxable value of a property depends on (a) the value of that
property at the time the property was last purchased, (b) the rate of infl ation (as measured by the na-
tional CPI) over the period of ownership, and (c) the length of time the property has been owned since
passage of Proposal A (Ti). The statutory tax rate depends on the specifi c economic and demographic
characteristics of the community in which the respondent lives. Therefore, the tax payment for home-
stead i depends on (a) the value of the home at the time of last purchase, (b) the rate of infl ation over
the period of ownership, (c) the length of time the homeowner has owned the home since Proposal A
(Ti), and (d) the set of community-specifi c characteristics (Ci) that determine statutory tax rates. In our
analysis, the variable Ti is truncated to a maximum, given by the number of years since the enactment of
Proposal A. Since Proposal A was enacted in 1994 and our data are from 2007, the maximum value for
Ti is 13.

National Tax Journal
518
V. DATA AND ECONOMETRIC ISSUES
In order to conduct this analysis, we must match information on homeowner economic
and demographic characteristics with the characteristics of the communities in which
they live. To accomplish this, we added several questions about property tax payments
and home values to the State of the State Survey for winter 2008.24 The questions regard-
ing 2007 property tax payments and home values were modeled after similar questions
in the 2000 Census of Population and Housing.
This survey resulted in completed interviews with 1012 Michigan adults. However,
230 of the survey respondents were not homeowners. An additional 291 respondents
failed to answer some of the questions needed for our regression analysis, including
one or more of the questions on property taxes, home values, years of ownership, or
other important variables. Finally, an additional 37 respondents were excluded from the
analysis because they provided inconsistent information about age and homeownership.25
Summary statistics for the variables used in this analysis are presented in Table 2, and
detailed defi nitions of all variables used in the analysis are shown in Appendix A. Table
2 includes summary statistics for the entire sample, as well as for three sub-groups,
based on the rates of population growth for the counties in which the respondents reside.
These categories split the full sample roughly into thirds.26 We expect respondents who
live in areas with higher population growth to experience the largest effective tax-rate
differentials between long-time homeowners and new homeowners.
From Table 2, the average effective property tax rate is 27 mills, but there are dif-
ferences across sub-samples.27 Respondents in slow-growth areas have an average
effective tax rate of about 30 mills, whereas the mean effective tax rate for respondents
in high-growth areas is about 25 mills. Note also that slow-growth areas have substan-
tially lower per-capita property values (measured by the WEALTH variable), and that
jurisdictions with higher populations are likely to be located in slow-growth counties.
24 The State of the State Survey (SOSS) is a quarterly telephone interview survey of Michigan adults, conducted
by the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, in the College of Social Science at Michigan State
University. More information on SOSS is available at http://www.ippsr.msu.edu/SOSS. The winter 2008
survey, which is the 47th round of SOSS, contains information from a stratifi ed random sample of Michi-
gan adults. The weighted sample is representative of the Michigan adult population. All of the statistical
analyses reported in this article use the appropriate survey weights. The codebook and methodological
report from the winter 2008 SOSS are available at http://www.ippsr.msu/SOSS/SOSSdata.htm.
25 For example, if a respondent says that he/she is 30 years old, and that he/she has owned the home for 20
years, this person would have been only 10 years of age at the time of becoming a homeowner. However,
we also check for robustness with respect to the decision to exclude these 37 observations. We note that
the inclusion of these observations results in similar estimates. In fact, the absolute magnitude of the
coeffi cient on years of ownership increases slightly when these 37 observations are included. Thus, the
regressions we present are the more conservative estimates.
26 Appendix A provides the detailed defi nitions of counties with slow, medium, and high rates of population
growth. Another Appendix (available upon request) lists the counties that fall into these three categories.
27 As expected, the average effective property tax rate (shown in Table 2) is somewhat smaller than the aver-
age statutory tax rate (shown in Table 1). This is consistent with the erosion of the property tax base as a
result of the taxable value cap.

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
519
Table 2
Summary Statistics
Full Sample Slow Growth Medium Growth High Growth
Variable Mean Std Dev. Mean Std Dev. Mean Std Dev. Mean Std Dev.
EFFECTIVE RATE 27.24 0.718 30.04 1.297 25.86 1.123 24.92 1.199
POPULATION (City or Township) 92,491 12,543 189,418 29,733 32,207 4,328 26,490 4,315
WEALTH 41,946 1,212 32,259 1,585 48,760 2,546 47,659 1,832
MOBILE HOME 0.031 0.009 0.031 0.015 0.023 0.012 0.040 0.018
DETROIT 0.070 0.014 0.177 0.035
URBAN CITY 0.398 0.031 0.589 0.047 0.275 0.052 0.274 0.050
URBAN TOWNSHIP 0.082 0.019 0.033 0.016 0.150 0.043 0.074 0.036
RURAL CITY 0.131 0.018 0.120 0.029 0.171 0.038 0.116 0.026
CONSECUTIVE YEARS 15.89 0.716 16.57 1.197 17.50 1.380 13.15 1.037
CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A 10.46 0.244 10.303 0.413 11.26 0.381 9.776 0.449
BLACK 0.088 0.017 0.201 0.039 0.003 0.003 0.030 0.019
EDUCATION 14.59 0.131 14.62 0.224 14.56 0.236 14.58 0.217
INCOME 50,279 1,185 49,304 1,924 51,354 2,190 50,418 2,042
AGE 53.71 0.870 52.37 1.194 55.11 1.708 53.98 1.693
MARRIED 0.707 0.027 0.673 0.043 0.698 0.051 0.763 0.049
Number of Observations 443 176 125 142

National Tax Journal
520
One possible strategy would be to estimate property tax outcomes as a function of
individual and community characteristics, using ordinary least squares for the sample
of homeowners who answered all of the relevant survey questions. The basic ordinary
least squares regressions are represented by (3) and (4) below. Consider (3)
(3) EFFECTIVE RATEi = Ciα + δTi + εi
,
where EFFECTIVE RATEi is the effective property tax rate, Ci is a vector of community
and individual characteristics, Ti is the length of time that the homeowner i has owned
his or her property since the passage of Proposal A, and εi is the error term. Below,
we will refer to the total length of homeownership as CONSECUTIVE YEARS, and
we will refer to the number of years of ownership since the passage of Proposal A as
CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A.
In (3), the length of homeownership since Proposal A (CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE
A) enters the regression directly. However, the length of homeownership is determined,
in part, by the economic and demographic characteristics of the homeowner. In a further
attempt to analyze the underlying determinants of effective property tax rates, we replace
Ti (on the right-hand side of (3)) with a vector of respondent economic and demographic
characteristics. Equation (4) represents our second set of property tax regressions:
(4) EFFECTIVE RATEi = Ciη + Ziλ+
γ
i ,
where Ci is a vector of community and individual characteristics, Zi is a vector of
economic and demographic characteristics of the respondent, and
γ
i is the error term.
In all of the results reported below, these OLS estimates are reported fi rst. However,
since so many homeowners failed to answer questions about property taxes and home
values, there is potential for sample-selection bias. To correct for possible selection bias,
we use the procedure proposed by Heckman (1979).28 In this context, before estimating
(3) and (4), it is necessary to estimate a fi rst-stage selection regression. The selection
equation is represented by:
(5)
Y
if
C
if
C
i
Y
Y
ii
C
i
ii
C
i
=
⎧
⎨
⎪
⎧
⎧
⎨
⎨
⎩
⎪
⎨
⎨
⎩
⎩
0
u
i
+
≥
1
if
C
C
0
u
i
+
<
0
if
C
C
β
ii
β
X
i
X
X
i
X
β
ii
β
X
i
X
X
i
X
where Yi indicates whether the respondent provided information on all of the relevant
questions, Ci is a vector of community and individual characteristics, and Xi is a vector
of variable(s) that are excluded from the second-stage outcome equations ((3) or (4)).
The variable(s) in X are used to predict whether respondents report all of the relevant
information. Specifi cally, in the estimates presented, we use educational attainment
(EDUCATION) as an instrument.29 Appendix B reports the selection equation estimates,
28 See Achen (1986) and Sigelman and Zeng (1999) for good theoretical and intuitive discussions regarding
the Heckman procedure.
29 EDUCATION is the number of years of schooling. In regressions not reported, BLACK is also included in
the X vector, but those results are not notably different than those reported here.

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
521
showing that educational attainment is a good predictor of whether a respondent reports
his or her tax payment and home value.
Selection bias is potentially present, although the direction of bias that might be
introduced in the context of this analysis is not clear. Generally, we fi nd little evidence
of selection bias in the regressions for effective property tax rates. As a result, the
OLS coeffi cients are very similar to the coeffi cients that control for selection bias.
For thoroughness, we present results for the OLS regressions and for the regressions
that address sample-selection bias. In the regressions that correct for sample-selection
bias, we estimate the selection and outcome equations jointly by maximum likelihood.
In estimating (3) and (4), whether by OLS or the sample-selection procedure, we
control for a range of individual and community characteristics. These include the
population of the community (POPULATION), the wealth of the community, measured
as per-capita state equalized value (WEALTH), whether the participant lives in the larg-
est city in the state (DETROIT),30 and whether the participant lives in an urban city,
urban township, rural city, or rural township (URBAN CITY, URBAN TOWNSHIP, and
RURAL CITY, respectively, with the excluded category being those who live in a rural
township).31 We expect that those living in urban areas and in cities may face higher
statutory rates, all else equal, because these jurisdictions have greater taxing authority
and may offer a wider range of public services, including services directed at low-income
populations. It is interesting to note that 8.2 percent of the residents in our sample live in
urban townships, and 13.1 percent live in rural cities (see Table 2). Because properties
located in mobile-home parks are exempt from the property tax in Michigan, we also
include an indicator variable (MOBILE HOME) to control for whether the respondent
lives in a mobile-home park.
Before discussing the regression results, there is one remaining estimation issue that
requires our attention. The estimation of (3) may potentially be further complicated by
interdependence between years of ownership and the effective tax rate. Recall the work
of Wasi and White (2005), which indicated that assessment growth caps in California
increased length of tenure in a home, relative to homeowners in states with no assess-
ment growth cap. Thus, causality may run both ways. On the one hand, as long as home
values are rising faster than the rate of infl ation, effective tax rates fall every year a
homeowner lives in the same home. On the other hand, the taxable value cap provides
an incentive for homeowners to remain in their current home. This could potentially
lead to a bias in the coeffi cient estimate on the years of homeownership.
30 Detroit’s population is less than half as large as it was in the 1950s, but the city still has a large infrastructure
to maintain. Because of these and other factors, statutory tax rates in Detroit are exceptionally high. Ac-
cording to the Michigan State Tax Commission, in 2008 the average statutory property tax rate in Detroit
was 68.18 mills, whereas the statewide average rate was 38.94 mills.
31 URBAN was defi ned by identifying the community of residence for each survey respondent, and then
using the Census Bureau’s defi nition of an urbanized area to classify each community. (The precise
defi nition is provided in Appendix A.) In Michigan, cities have greater taxing authority and provide a
greater array of public services than do townships. It is important to note that, as defi ned by the Census
Bureau, a community that is characterized as a city is not necessarily a part of an urbanized area. Thus, a
city can be located in either an urbanized area or a rural area. Similarly, townships can be either urban or
rural.

National Tax Journal
522
To examine the possible endogeneity of years of ownership, we conduct a test of
endogeneity, based on the techniques developed by Hausman (1978, 1983). The Haus-
man test requires that we identify at least one variable that determines length of hom-
eownership, but does not directly determine effective tax rates. We identifi ed BLACK
and EDUCATION as potential instruments. In column (2) of Appendix C, we report
a regression in which the variable CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A is regressed on
homeowner economic and demographic characteristics. Recall that CONSECUTIVE
YEARS SINCE A is capped at 13 years, because the assessment growth cap was imple-
mented in 1994; thus, in 2007, there was no additional gain from having owned a home
for more than 13 years. While BLACK is a signifi cant determinant of CONSECUTIVE
YEARS (column (1) of Appendix C), unfortunately neither BLACK nor EDUCATION
is close to statistical signifi cance in the regression for CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE
A. Therefore, BLACK and EDUCATION are not good instruments, and we are not
able to examine the endogeneity issue formally. Nevertheless, we believe that our
examination of the relationship between CONSECUTIVE YEARS and effective tax
rates is useful, in the sense that we use it to link effective tax rates with the economic
and demographic characteristics of homeowners. In a further attempt to explore the
endogeneity issue, we replaced CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A with the non-capped
variable CONSECUTIVE YEARS, and then conducted a Hausman test of endogeneity.
We did not fi nd evidence of an endogenous relationship between effective tax rates and
CONSECUTIVE YEARS. This lends some credibility to the notion that we are measur-
ing a causal relationship between CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A and effective tax
rates.32 We now turn our attention to the regression results.
VI. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
The fi rst set of estimation results is presented in Table 3. In this table, columns (1)
and (2) contain the OLS estimates, and columns (3) and (4) contain the second-stage
outcome estimates, corrected for selection bias. The results presented in columns (1) and
(3) are from equations that do not distinguish between communities on the basis of their
population growth rates. However, communities in Michigan had substantial variation in
their rates of population growth during the period under study. These differences could
be expected to be associated with different degrees of appreciation in property values.
Therefore, in columns (2) and (4) of Table 3, we present results in which the variable
for years of ownership is interacted with indicator variables for low, medium, and high
rates of population growth. We focus our discussion on the OLS estimates, since the
estimates based on the Heckman correction for sample selection are very similar to the
OLS estimates in most cases.
32 Even if we are only capturing correlations, our analysis succeeds in achieving a more modest objective,
in that we measure the differences in effective tax rates for (1) homeowners who have lived in the same
home for varying lengths of time, and (2) homeowners with different demographic characteristics. These
results are interesting, even if they are simply viewed as correlations. We thank an anonymous referee for
pointing out the value of this analysis of whether the relationships examined are viewed as causal.

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
523
Notes: All regression results are corrected for selection bias and heteroskedasticity. Asterisks denote
signifi cance at the 1% (***), 5% (**), and 10% (*) levels.
Table 3
OLS and Heckman E ective Tax Rate Regression Results
(t-statistics or z-statistics in parentheses)
Dependent Variable: EFFECTIVE RATE
Independent Variable
OLS
(1) (2)
Heckman
(3) (4)
Ln (POPULATION)1.049*
(1.83)
1.027*
(1.80)
1.010*
(1.74)
0.994*
(1.72)
Ln (WEALTH)0.738
(0.57)
1.243
(0.96)
0.864
(0.67)
1.373
(1.06)
MOBILE HOME –28.94***
(–20.95)
–28.83***
(–20.90)
–28.95***
(–20.70)
–28.83***
(–20.70)
DETROIT 1.784
(0.42)
1.346
(0.31)
2.078
(0.48)
1.581
(0.36)
URBAN CITY 6.670***
(3.42)
6.404***
(3.37)
6.906***
(3.49)
6.594***
(3.43)
URBAN TOWNSHIP 2.181
(0.86)
2.445
(0.95)
2.451
(0.95)
2.700
(1.03)
RURAL CITY 3.935**
(2.08)
3.996**
(2.11)
4.095**
(2.12)
4.144**
(2.14)
CONSECUTIVE YEARS
SINCE A
–0.394**
(–2.31)
–0.414**
(–2.39)
CONSECUTIVE YEARS
SINCE A x SLOW GROWTH
–0.293
(–1.56)
–0.306
(–1.61)
CONSECUTIVE YEARS
SINCE A x MEDIUM GROWTH
–0.478***
(–2.75)
–0.499***
(–2.82)
CONSECUTIVE YEARS
SINCE A x HIGH GROWTH
–0.478**
(–2.31)
–0.496**
(–2.36)
R-squared 0.287 0.292
Rho –0.106 –0.092
Number of Observations
Censored
Uncensored
443 443 628
185
443
628
185
443

National Tax Journal
524
First, we consider the results for the control variables. The coeffi cients on POPULA-
TION are positive and statistically signifi cant: All else equal, communities with larger
populations have higher effective property tax rates. Also, the variable indicating whether
a participant lives in a mobile-home park is highly signifi cant and negative. This is to
be expected, since Michigan residents who live in a mobile-home park pay no property
taxes on their mobile home.
The coeffi cients on the URBAN CITY indicator variable are also signifi cant, indicating
that those living in urban-area cities pay higher effective rates of property tax, all else
equal, when compared with the excluded category of rural townships. The coeffi cient
estimates indicate that urban city dwellers pay approximately 6.7 mills more than
those who reside in rural townships, all else equal. Residents of rural cities pay about
3.9 mills more than those living in rural townships, all else equal, and this relationship
is also statistically signifi cant. However, residents of urban townships only pay about
2.2 mills more than those living in rural townships, and this difference is not statisti-
cally signifi cant. These results are not unexpected, since cities often provide more
services and have greater taxing authority than do townships. Further, many cities in
Michigan have experienced population decline. Thus, the costs of maintaining infra-
structure and providing services over the same geographic area is spread over fewer
households, and this has exerted upward pressure on tax rates in a number of Michigan
cities.33
We have noted that the property tax rates in the city of Detroit are exceptionally
high. However, after controlling for other factors (such as POPULATION and the trio
of indicator variables, URBAN CITY, URBAN TOWNSHIP, AND RURAL CITY), the
coeffi cients on the DETROIT indicator variable are insignifi cant.
The coeffi cient on WEALTH falls well short of statistical signifi cance. On the one
hand, all else equal, we might expect individuals who live in communities with greater
per-capita wealth to have lower property tax rates, because a larger tax base can generate
a given amount of tax revenue with a lower tax rate. On the other hand, the residents
of affl uent communities may have strong preferences for some of the public goods that
are fi nanced with property taxes. The insignifi cant coeffi cient for WEALTH suggests
that these two infl uences may roughly offset each other.
Next, we turn to the effect of CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A on effective tax
rates, the estimates for which are shown in columns (1) and (3) of Table 3. All else
equal, effective property tax rates are reduced signifi cantly as the number of years of
ownership increases. This result is consistent with the result of Mikesell and Mullins
(2008), who fi nd that tenure in the home is negatively correlated with the percentage
of income that goes to property tax payments.
33 Michigan has 275 cities and 1242 townships. From 1990 to 2000, population in Michigan townships grew
by 16.9 percent, whereas the population in cities actually declined by 1.2 percent. A number of larger
Michigan cities experienced signifi cant declines in population. These include Bay City (with a decrease of
5.4 percent), Detroit (7.5 percent), East Lansing (8.3 percent), Flint (11.2 percent), Lansing (6.8 percent),
Saginaw (11.1 percent), Southgate (2.1 percent), and Traverse City (4.8 percent).

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
525
Specifi cally, the estimates in column (1) of Table 3 show that homeowners’ effective
property tax rates are reduced by about 0.39 mills for every year of ownership, relative
to a new homeowner, all else equal. (This is a reduction of approximately 1.43 percent
per year.) Thus, homeowners who have lived in their home since 1994 (or earlier) face
an effective property tax rate that is about 19 percent less than the effective rate faced
by new homebuyers, all else equal.
The tax benefi ts for long-time homeowners in communities with different growth
rates can be seen in columns (2) and (4) of Table 3. These results indicate that long-time
homeowners in areas with slow population growth experience a much smaller reduc-
tion in effective property tax rates than do those in areas with more rapid population
growth. The tax rate reductions for long-time homeowners in slow-growth areas are
relatively small, and the coeffi cients are less precisely estimated. However, the tax rate
reductions in areas with medium and high rates of population growth are statistically
signifi cant. For areas with medium and high rates of population growth, the estimates
indicate that homeowners’ effective tax rates are reduced by about 0.48 mills for every
year of ownership. This is a reduction of about 1.8 percent per year, accruing to annual
savings of 23 percent for long-time homeowners relative to new homeowners.
In Table 3, we have seen that the length of homeownership plays an important role
in determining effective property tax rates. Beyond that, however, we would also like
to know which variables have an infl uence on the length of homeownership. Appendix
C contains the results of regressions examining the relationship between the length of
tenure in a home and the specifi c socioeconomic characteristics of homeowners. In
column (1) of Appendix C, the dependent variable is CONSECUTIVE YEARS (years
not capped at 13 years), while the dependent variable in column (2) is CONSECUTIVE
YEARS SINCE A (years capped at 13 years).34 In both columns, we see that the number of
years of ownership is not systematically related to living in urban cities, urban townships,
rural cities, or rural townships, all else equal. Both columns also reveal that those who
live in mobile homes have signifi cantly shorter tenure. However, the results in the two
columns differ in some respects. The coeffi cient on BLACK is signifi cant in column (1)
of Appendix C, but insignifi cant in column (2).35 The coeffi cient on AGE is statistically
signifi cant in each of the columns, but its magnitude is much smaller in column (2).
The fi ndings in Appendix C provide the basis for our next set of regressions, reported
in Table 4. In these regressions, we replace CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A with
socioeconomic characteristics, to map the relationship between effective property tax
rates and homeowner characteristics. Thus, Table 4 is similar to Table 3; the difference
is that the number of years of homeownership is not used as an explanatory variable
34 Approximately half of the homeowners in the survey have owned their home at least since the passage of
Proposal A in 1994.
35 In our sample, the average number of years of homeownership for African Americans is signifi cantly less
than for the general population (although homeownership rates for African Americans have increased in
recent years). The insignifi cance of BLACK in the CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A regression may be
the result of the reduction in differences in homeownership rates across demographic groups in recent
years, combined with capping the length of homeownership at 13 years.

National Tax Journal
526
Notes: All regression results are corrected for selection bias and heteroskedasticity. Asterisks denote
signifi cance at the 1% (***), 5% (**), and 10% (*) levels.
Table 4
OLS and Heckman E ective Tax Rate Regression Results
(t-statistics and z-statistics in parentheses)
Dependent Variable: EFFECTIVE RATE
Independent Variable
OLS
(1) (2)
Heckman
(3) (4)
Ln (POPULATION)1.102*
(1.93)
1.095*
(1.93)
1.078*
(1.86)
1.068*
(1.86)
Ln (WEALTH)0.627
(0.50)
0.672
(0.53)
0.799
(0.64)
0.890
(0.69)
MOBILE HOME –28.27***
(–18.70)
–27.99***
(–21.24)
–28.37***
(–18.35)
–28.08***
(–20.75)
DETROIT 1.857
(0.44)
2.216
(0.53)
2.156
(0.51)
2.567
(0.61)
URBAN CITY 6.299***
(3.27)
6.159***
(3.22)
6.517***
(3.34)
6.423***
(3.30)
URBAN TOWNSHIP 1.469
(0.61)
1.442
(0.59)
1.699
(0.70)
1.716
(0.69)
RURAL CITY 3.807**
(2.12)
3.652**
(1.97)
3.961**
(2.16)
3.850**
(2.03)
20k < INCOME < 40k –7.146**
(–2.27)
–6.918**
(–2.25)
40k < INCOME < 70k –3.530
(–1.12)
–3.565
(–1.13)
INCOME > 70k –6.471**
(–1.98)
–6.658**
(–2.00)
AGE –0.035
(–0.61)
0.028
(0.49)
–0.046
(–0.76)
0.017
(0.28)
AGE x (20k < INCOME < 40k) –0.103**
(–2.39)
–0.100**
(–2.34)
AGE x (40k < INCOME < 70k) –0.041
(–0.94)
–0.043
(–0.97)
AGE x ( INCOME > 70k) –0.098**
(–2.04)
–0.101**
(–2.09)
R-squared 0.298 0.294
Rho –0.099 –0.119
Number of Observations
Censored
Uncensored
443 443 628
185
443
628
185
443

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
527
in Table 4.36 In Table 4, we also introduce several categories of household income as
explanatory variables. (The excluded category consists of homeowners with annual
incomes below $20,000.)
The coeffi cients on the income indicator variables are negative, and are statistically
signifi cant for the $20,000–$40,000 and the over-$70,000 income categories. These
negative coeffi cients indicate that, holding other factors constant, effective property tax
rates are lower for these income classes, when compared to those with incomes below
$20,000. These results indicate that, all else equal, those with higher incomes have lower
effective tax rates, although the relationship is nonlinear. Although we cannot be sure
that the taxable value cap is the cause of the negative coeffi cient on income, these results
are consistent with the idea that the taxable value cap may have caused the property tax
to be more regressive, or less progressive, than it otherwise would have been.
In light of the estimates presented in Appendix C, we had expected a strong rela-
tionship between AGE and effective tax rates. However, columns (1) and (3) of Table
4 indicate that, although the coeffi cients on AGE are of the expected negative sign,
they are not statistically signifi cant. To explore age-income effects further, we report
additional estimates in columns (2) and (4) of Table 4. In these columns, we report on
regressions in which the three income categories are replaced by variables in which
the three income-indicator variables are interacted with AGE. In these regressions, the
coeffi cients on AGEx(20k<INCOME<40k) and AGEx(INCOME>70k) are negative and
statistically signifi cant. This indicates that, all else equal, older homeowners in these
income categories have lower effective tax rates, relative to younger homeowners in
these income categories. Within these two income groups, the estimates indicate that a
63-year-old homeowner enjoys a reduction of about 11 percent in the effective property
tax rate, compared with a 23-year-old homeowner.37 These results reveal that within
at least two income classes, AGE is a signifi cant determinant of effective tax rates.
Taken together, these results provide evidence that older and middle- to high-income
homeowners appear to have benefi ted most from the taxable value cap, at the expense
of younger and low-income homeowners.38
We also estimated a number of other alternative specifi cations, to examine the robust-
ness of our fi ndings. As noted earlier, Michigan has a Homestead Property Tax Credit
36 Note that the regressions shown in Tables 3 and 4 do not include BLACK or EDUCATION as regressors.
We explicitly excluded EDUCATION from the reported effective-tax-rate regressions, because we use this
variable as an instrument in the selection equation. In other regressions (not reported here), we included
BLACK, EDUCATION, and other demographic characteristics, but none of these other variables was a
statistically signifi cant determinant of home tenure. These estimates are available upon request from the
authors. Also note that using additional variables (such as BLACK) as instruments in the selection regres-
sion yields similar results.
37 To calculate this result, we add the coeffi cients on AGE and AGEx(20k<INCOME<40k) or AGEx(INCOME
> 70k), multiply by (63 – 23) = 40 years, and then divide by the average effective tax rate (27.24).
38 These fi ndings are consistent with U.S. Census Bureau data on migration patterns, which show that mobil-
ity peaks between the ages of 18 and 30 and then generally decreases until very late in life (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2003).

National Tax Journal
528
embedded in its income tax code, and this serves to reduce the burden of property taxes
for lower income households. To determine whether our core results are robust to an
alternative defi nition of property tax burden that nets out this credit, we used survey data
on household income, age, and the size of the property tax payment, along with detailed
information from the Michigan Department of Treasury regarding the credit, to estimate
the size of the credit for all those who qualifi ed.39 We then created an “Adjusted Effec-
tive Property Tax Rate” by subtracting the property tax credit from the overall property
tax payment, and then dividing by state equalized value. We then used this measure of
tax burden to study the implications of the taxable value cap. These estimates (which
are available from the authors upon request) are similar to those presented in this study.
Recall that 37 respondents were excluded from the analysis because they provided
inconsistent information about age and homeownership. For example, a respondent
may have indicated that he/she is 30 years of age, and that he/she had owned the home
for 20 years. This person would therefore have become a homeowner at the age of 10,
which seems highly unrealistic. However, it is conceivable that person has lived in the
home for 20 years, and is now a joint title holder with an older parent of the property.
In this case, the survey respondent may very well be receiving a tax benefi t, and omit-
ting these observations might bias our results. To examine this issue, we ran a series
of regressions in which these observations were included in the sample; the results are
again consistent with our core estimates, but the size of the coeffi cient on CONSECU-
TIVE YEARS SINCE A is roughly 30 percent larger. The regressions we present are thus
the more conservative of the estimates.
In Michigan, 21 cities have an income tax, and this may affect the property tax
burden for the residents of those cities. We therefore estimated regressions in which
we included either (1) a variable that indicates whether city uses an income tax, or (2)
a variable that measures actual income tax rates.40 These regressions are again very
similar to those presented, and the coeffi cients on the income tax variables are never
statistically signifi cant.
We also estimated regressions in which the actual tax payment (instead of the EFFEC-
TIVE TAX RATE variable) is used as the dependent variable.41 These results indicate some-
what larger effects of CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A and the age-income interaction
variables than those presented in this article. Finally, we estimated a linear (as opposed
to log-linear) specifi cation, and again those estimates are very similar to those presented.
39 In our sample, we estimate that 272 of 443 respondents qualify for the tax credit. The average value of the
credit was $669. We subtracted this value from the reported property tax payment, and then divided this
adjusted tax payment by state equalized value, to obtain the “Adjusted Effective Property Tax Rate.” We
recommend some caution in interpreting these results, however, since we are unable to verify whether a
respondent actually claimed the Homestead Property Tax Credit.
40 Income taxes are levied in the following Michigan cities: Albion, Battle Creek, Big Rapids, Detroit, Flint,
Grand Rapids, Grayling, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Hudson, Ionia, Jackson, Lansing, Lapeer, Muske-
gon, Muskegon Heights, Pontiac, Port Huron, Portland, Saginaw, Springfi eld, and Walker. However, no
residents of Albion, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Hudson, Lapeer, Muskegon Heights, Pontiac, Portland,
or Springfi eld are represented in our sample.
41 The value of the home is included as an explanatory variable on the right-hand side in these regressions.

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
529
VII. CONCLUSIONS
In this article, we evaluate the distributional consequences of the taxable value cap in
the property tax in Michigan. We demonstrate the link between the taxable value cap and
a substantial redistribution of property tax payments. We fi nd that the length of tenure
in a home is negatively correlated with the homeowner’s effective rate of property tax.
Specifi cally, our estimates indicate that homeowners who have lived in their home since
1994 (or earlier) face an effective property tax rate that is about 19 percent less than
the effective rate faced by new homebuyers, all else equal, and the effect increases to
23 percent in high growth areas. Thus, the taxable value cap leads to a redistribution of
effective property tax payments, with lower tax payments for long-time residents, and
higher tax payments for relative newcomers. We also fi nd that within the lower-middle
and high income groups, older homeowners enjoy a tax benefi t over younger homeown-
ers, on average. Our estimates indicate that, all else equal, a 63-year-old homeowner
receives a tax saving of about 11 percent relative to a 23-year-old homeowner.
We also document a regressive relationship between income and effective tax rates:
All else equal, middle- to high-income homeowners have lower effective property
tax rates, relative to low-income homeowners. In fact, nearly all of the tax features of
Proposal A were regressive. In addition to the taxable value cap, Proposal A reduced
property taxes overall, and raised cigarette taxes. Also, when Proposal A was passed,
voters were given a choice. Each of the two choices involved reductions in property
taxes, but the two choices differed in the method of making up the lost tax revenue.
Voters could have chosen higher income taxes, but they chose higher sales taxes instead.
Thus, on the revenue side, Proposal A was nearly uniformly regressive. On the
expenditure side, however, Proposal A was undoubtedly progressive, in the sense that
it provided disproportionate benefi ts to low-wealth school districts (Papke, 2005). This
combination of regressive taxes and progressive spending is not unique to Michigan.
Many European countries fi nance large public expenditures that are favorable to low-
and middle-income residents, partly by relying on the revenue-raising power of a
regressive value-added tax.
Home values have fallen across Michigan over the past few years. As mentioned
earlier, this has meant that some long-time homeowners have experienced increasing
property taxes and falling home values at the same time. This has led to considerable
controversy, and a number of legislative proposals have been put forth to deal with the
issue. One proposal would prevent taxable values (and thus tax payments) from rising
in the face of falling home values. This proposal, which has received some support in
the state legislature, would preserve the horizontal inequities resulting from the taxable
value cap.
Our analysis suggests that it might be better to consider repeal of the taxable value cap.
Holding revenues constant, repeal of the taxable value cap would result in a broadening
of the tax base, which would make it possible to raise the same amount of revenue with
lower statutory tax rates.42 Furthermore, repeal of the taxable value cap would avoid
42 The potential reduction in statutory rates would depend on the trajectory of housing prices.

National Tax Journal
530
the potential distortions that could be created by future housing price increases. Have-
man and Sexton (2008) recommend alternative property tax relief measures, such as
circuit-breaker programs, partial exemptions on owner-occupied housing, and property
tax deferral options. Each of these alternative tax-relief measures is already in place in
Michigan, in one form or another. If the taxable value cap were to be removed, these
other provisions of Michigan law, along with the Headlee tax-revenue growth limit,
could provide adequate checks against excessive growth of property tax revenues.
Finally, we acknowledge that our analysis offers a snapshot of effective tax rates at
a single point in time. Although some of our regressions include age and income as
explanatory variables, we do not claim that ours is a complete analysis of the life-cycle
effects of property taxes. Economists have shown the value of tax-incidence analyses
that trace the changes in tax burdens over the life cycle (Davies, St.-Hilaire, and Whal-
ley, 1984; Fullerton and Rogers, 1993). It would be interesting to embed our results in
a life-cycle framework.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Larry Hembroff and Karen Clark for their excellent work on the
public opinion survey that forms part of the basis for this article. We also thank George
Zodrow and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier version of the
article. Any errors are our responsibility.
REFERENCES
Achen, Christopher H., 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments. University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Anderson, Nathan B., and Therese J. McGuire, 2007. “An Unfettered Property Tax in Illinois.”
Working Paper WP07NA2. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
Arsen, David, and David N. Plank, 2003. “Michigan School Finance under Proposal A: State
Control, Local Consequences.” Working Paper. The Education Policy Center at Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.
Arsen, David, Tom Clay, Thomas Davis, Thomas Devaney, Rachel Fulcher-Dawson, and
David N. Plank, 2005. “Adequacy, Equity, and Capital Spending in Michigan Schools: The
Unfi nished Business of Proposal A.” Citizens Research Council of Michigan and the Education
Policy Center at Michigan State University Center, East Lansing, MI, http://www.crcmich.org/
PUBLICAT/2000s/2005/schoolcapital.pdf.
Bowman, John H., 2006. “Property Tax Policy Responses to Rapidly Rising Home Values: District
of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.” National Tax Journal 59 (3), 717–733.
Davies, James, France St.-Hilaire, and John Whalley, 1984. “Some Calculations of Lifetime Tax
Incidence.” American Economic Review 74 (4), 633–649.

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
531
Dye, Richard F., Therese J. McGuire, and Daniel P. McMillen, 2005. “Are Property Tax Limita-
tions More Binding Over Time?” National Tax Journal 58 (2), 215–225.
Dye, Richard F., Daniel P. McMillen, and David F. Merriman, 2006. “Illinois’ Response to Ris-
ing Residential Property Values: An Assessment Growth Cap in Cook County.” National Tax
Journal 59 (3), 707–716.
Feldman, Naomi E., Paul N. Courant, and Douglas C. Drake, 2003. “The Property Tax in
Michigan.” In Ballard, Charles L., Paul N. Courant, Douglas C. Drake, Ronald C. Fisher, and
Elisabeth R. Gerber (eds.), Michigan at the Millennium, 577–602. Michigan State University
Press, East Lansing, MI.
Ferreira, Fernando, 2004. “You Can Take It with You: Transferability of Proposition 13 Tax
Benefi ts, Residential Mobility, and Willingness to Pay for Housing Amenities.” Working Paper
72. Center for Labor Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Fullerton, Don, and Diane Lim Rogers, 1993. Who Bears the Lifetime Tax Burden? The Brook-
ings Institution, Washington, DC.
Giertz, J. Fred, 2006. “The Property Tax Bound.” National Tax Journal 59 (3), 695–705.
Guilfoyle, Jeffrey P., 1998. “The Incidence and Housing Market Effects of Michigan’s 1994
School Finance Reforms.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Hausman, Jerry A., 1978. “Specifi cation Tests in Econometrics.” Econometrica 46 (6), 1251–1271.
Hausman, Jerry A., 1983. “Specifi cation and Estimation of Simultaneous Equations Models.” In
Griliches, Zvi, and Michael D. Intriligator (eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, Volume I, 391-448.
North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Haveman, Mark, and Terri Sexton, 2008. “Property Tax Assessment Limits: Lessons from Thirty
Years of Experience.” Focus Report, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, http://
www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/PubDetail.aspx?pubid=1412.
Heckman, James J., 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specifi cation Error.” Econometrica 47
(1), 153–161.
Ihlanfeldt, Keith, forthcoming. “Do Caps on Increases in Assessed Values Create a Lock-in Ef-
fect? Evidence from Florida’s Amendment One.” National Tax Journal.
King, A. Thomas, 1977. “Estimating Property Tax Capitalization: A Critical Comment.” Journal
of Political Economy 85 (2), 425–431.
Michigan Department of Treasury, 2010. “Executive Budget Appendix on Tax Credits, Deductions,
and Exemptions, Fiscal Year 2010.” Michigan Department of Treasury, Lansing, MI, http://www.
michigan.gov/documents/treasury/ExecBudgAppenTaxCreditsDedExemptsFY10_302899_7.pdf.
Mikesell, John, and Daniel Mullins, 2008. “The Effects of Property Tax Systems on Household
Property Tax Burdens.” State Tax Notes 47 (7), 533–545.

National Tax Journal
532
Minnesota Department of Revenue, 2007. Limited Market Value Report: 2006 Assessment Year.
Minnesota Department of Revenue, St. Paul, MN, www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/legal_policy/
research_reports/content/2007_lmv_report.pdf.
Muhammad, Daniel, 2007. “Horizontal Inequity, Vertical Inequity and the District of Columbia’s
Property Assessment Limitation.” Paper presented at the National Tax Association’s 100th Annual
Conference on Taxation, November 15. Columbus, OH.
Mullins, Daniel R., and Philip G. Joyce, 1996. “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and State and
Local Fiscal Structure: An Empirical Analysis.” Public Budgeting and Finance 16 (1), 75–101.
Nagy, John, 1997. “Did Proposition 13 Affect the Mobility of California Homeowners?” Public
Finance Review 25 (1), 102–116.
Oates, Wallace E., 1969. “The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property
Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis.” Journal of Politi-
cal Economy 77 (6), 957–971.
Palmon, Oded, and Barton A. Smith, 1998. “Confi rmation and Contradictions: New Evidence on
Property Tax Capitalization.” Journal of Political Economy 106 (5), 1099–1111.
Papke, Leslie E., 2005. “The Effects of Spending on Test Pass Rates: Evidence from Michigan.”
Journal of Public Economics 89 (5), 821–839.
Papke, Leslie E., 2008. “The Effects of Changes in Michigan’s School Finance System.” Public
Finance Review 36 (4), 456–474.
Reinhard, Raymond M., 1981. “Estimating Property Tax Capitalization: A Further Comment.”
Journal of Political Economy 89 (6), 1251–1260.
Richardson, David H., and Richard Thalheimer, 1981. “Measuring the Extent of Property Tax
Capitalization for Single Family Residences.” Southern Economic Journal 47 (3), 674–689.
Rosen, Kenneth T., 1982. “The Impact of Proposition 13 on House Prices in Northern California:
A Test of the Interjurisdictional Capitalization Hypothesis.” Journal of Political Economy 90
(1), 191–200.
Sigelman, Lee, and Langche Zeng, 1999. “Analyzing Censored and Sample-Selected Data with
Tobit and Heckit Models.” Political Analysis 8 (2), 167–182.
Skidmore, Mark, 1999. “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and the Fiscal Relationships between
State and Local Governments.” Public Choice 99 (1–2), 77–102.
United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1995. Tax and Expenditure
Limitations on Local Governments. U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, DC.
United States Bureau of the Census, 2003. Internal Migration of the Older Population: 1995 to
2000. Census 2000 Special Reports. United States Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, http://
www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-10.pdf.

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
533
Wales, T J., and Elmer G. Wiens, 1974. “Capitalization of Residential Property Taxes: An Empiri-
cal Study.” Review of Economics and Statistics 56 (3), 329–333.
Wasi, Nada, and Michelle J. White, 2005. “Property Tax Limitations and Mobility: Lock-in Effect
of California’s Proposition 13.” In Burtless, Gary, and Janet Rothenberg Pack (eds.), Brookings-
Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, Issue 6, 59–97. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
Yinger, John, 1982. “Capitalization and the Theory of Local Public Finance.” Journal of Political
Economy 90 (5), 917–943.
Yinger, John, Howard S. Bloom, Axel Boersch-Supan, and Helen F. Ladd, 1988. Property Taxes
and House Values: The Theory of Estimation of Intrajurisdictional Property Tax Capitalization.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Youngman, Joan M., 2007. “The Variety of Property Tax Limits: Goals, Consequences, and
Alternatives.” State Tax Notes 46 (8), 541–557.

National Tax Journal
534
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES
Variable De nition
EFFECTIVE RATE The effective property tax rate that respondents pay, measured
by the tax payment divided by the state equalized value of the
property.
POPULATION The total population of the municipality or township in which
the respondent resides.
WEALTH A measure of wealth of the municipality or township in which
the respondent lives, measured by the per-capita state equalized
value in the municipality/township.
MOBILE HOME Indicator variable to distinguish whether a respondent lives in a
mobile home park (1= respondent lives in a mobile home park,
and 0 otherwise). Mobile-home park residents are exempt from
paying the property tax in Michigan.
DETROIT Indicator variable to distinguish whether a respondent lives in
Detroit (1=if the respondent lives in Detroit, and 0 otherwise).
URBAN Indicator variable to distinguish whether a respondent lives in an
urban area (vs. a non-urban area). Calculated by using the Cen-
sus Bureau’s defi nition: an urban area has a core census block
with a population density of at least 1,000 people per square
mile, and has surrounding census blocks that have an overall
density of at least 500 people per square mile (1=if the respon-
dent lives in an urban setting, and 0 otherwise).
CITY Indicator variable to distinguish whether a respondent lives in a
city (1=if the respondent lives in a city, and 0 otherwise).
TOWNSHIP Indicator variable to distinguish whether a respondent lives
in a township (1=if the respondent lives in a township, and 0
otherwise).
CONSECUTIVE
YEARS
Number of consecutive years a respondent has lived in his/her
home.
CONSECUTIVE
YEARS SINCE A
Number of consecutive years a respondent has lived in his/her
home (maximum value = 13 years). This maximum is in place
because Proposal A had been in effect for 13 years at the time of
the survey (since 1994).
BLACK Indicator variable to distinguish whether the respondent is Afri-
can American (1=African American, and 0 otherwise).

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
535
Variable De nition
EDUCATION Number of years a respondent was in school (e.g., high–school
graduate=12, college graduate=16).
20k < INCOME<40k Indicator variable to distinguish those individuals whose house-
hold income ranged from $20,000 to 40,000 at the time of the
survey.
40k < INCOME < 70k Indicator variable to distinguish those individuals whose house-
hold income ranged from $40,000 to 70,000 at the time of the
survey.
INCOME > 70k Indicator variable to distinguish those individuals whose house-
hold income was above $70,000 at the time of the survey.
AGE Age of the respondent.
MARRIED Indicator variable to distinguish whether the respondent is mar-
ried (=1 if the person is married, =0 otherwise).
SLOW GROWTH Indicator variable equal to 1 if the county in which the respon-
dent lives had an overall population growth rate less than 5
percent between 1994 and 2006, and 0 otherwise. Twenty-nine
of Michigan’s 83 counties were characterized as slow-growth
counties.
MEDIUM GROWTH Indicator variable equal to 1 if the county in which the respon-
dent lives had a population growth rate between 5 percent and
12 percent, and 0 otherwise. Twenty-one of Michigan’s 83 coun-
ties were characterized as medium-growth counties.
HIGH GROWTH Indicator variable equal to 1 if the county in which the respon-
dent lives that had an overall population growth rate greater than
12 percent between 1994 and 2006, and 0 otherwise. Thirty-
three of Michigan’s 83 counties were characterized as high-
growth counties.

National Tax Journal
536
Notes: All regression results are corrected for selection bias and heteroskedasticity. Asterisks denote
signifi cance at the 5% (**), and 10% (*) levels.
APPENDIX B: HECKMAN SELECTION EQUATION ESTIMATION RESULTS
(z-statistics in parentheses)
Independent Variable Dependent Variable: S election Indicator Variable
Ln (POPULATION)0.068
(0.96)
Ln (WEALTH)–0.277*
(–1.88)
MOBILE HOME 0.091
(0.22)
DETROIT –0.535
(–1.60)
URBAN CITY –0.457*
(–1.95)
URBAN TOWNSHIP –0.480
(–1.46)
RURAL CITY –0.311
(–1.49)
CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A 0.035**
(2.26)
EDUCATION 0.068**
(2.28)
Rho –0.106
Number of Observations
Censored
Uncensored
628
185
443

Property Value Assessment Growth Limits and Redistribution
537
APPENDIX C: LENGTH OF HOMEOWNERSHIP REGRESSION RESULTS
(t–statistics in parentheses)
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable
(1)
CONSECUTIVE YEARS
(2)
CONSECUTIVE YEARS SINCE A
Ln (POPULATION) 0.177
(0.31)
–0.108
(–0.50)
Ln (WEALTH) –1.529
(–1.16)
–0.063
(–0.13)
MOBILE HOME –6.386***
(–2.62)
–3.639***
(–3.10)
DETROIT 4.132
(1.04)
0.227
(0.12)
URBAN CITY 2.204
(1.31)
0.521
(0.75)
URBAN TOWNSHIP 2.076
(0.84)
1.644*
(1.77)
RURAL CITY 1.045
(0.73)
0.075
(0.11)
BLACK –6.243*
(–1.77)
–0.857
(–0.52)
20k < INCOME < 40k 1.625
(0.53)
0.624
(0.64)
40k < INCOME < 70k 2.512
(0.89)
0.466
(0.46)
INCOME > 70k 1.467
(0.50)
0.705
(0.63)
AGE 0.503***
(9.45)
0.121***
(7.41)
MARRIED 1.068
(0.68)
0.756
(1.44)
EDUCATION –0.209
(–0.76)
–0.081
(–0.72)
R-squared 0.346 0.203
Number of Observations 443 443
Notes: All regression results are corrected for selection bias and heteroskedasticity. Asterisks denote
signifi cance at the 1% (***), 5% (**), and 10% (*) levels.