1
2
3
Wealth and Want | |||||||
... because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity. | |||||||
Home | Essential Documents | Themes | All Documents | Authors | Glossary | Links | Contact Us |
Owner-Occupied Housing Mason Gaffney: Sounding the Revenue Potential of Land: Fifteen Lost Elements
In addition, the IRS reports nothing at
all for the imputed income of owner-occupied lands,
because this kind of non-cash income is not taxable.
Todd Sinai and Joseph Gyourko of the
Wharton School report aggregate owner-occupied
“house” values in the U.S. in 1999 were
$11.1 trillions. The annual rental value of that,
figuring at 5%, would be roughly half a trillion
dollars a year -- quite a chunk to omit from the
rental portion of national income. We also know that
the prices of lands for both housing and recreation
have risen sharply since 1999, perhaps by 50% or so, so
that $11.1 trillion may be $16.7 trillion now.
That means that the imputed rent
income is 50% higher than half a trillion (i.e. ¾
trillion dollars), and also that the net worth of the
owners has risen by about $5.6 trillion. Such silent
gains are also a form of income from land. To
all that, many economists remain blind, dumb, and
curiously incurious.
Sinai and Gyourko’s treatment is superior to what one usually sees, with some effort made to treat land separately. However, even they, like others, write of the imputed income of owner-occupied “housing,” exclusively. That is doubly misleading.
The land, that is the space and location, does
not depreciate physically, and so requires none of
those expenses. Its rental equivalent is its net
current income. Instead, it usually appreciates in
value, and that annual increment is also a current
income. So the “imputed income of
owner-occupied housing” is mostly attributable to
the land - but no one is saying
so.
Mason Gaffney: The Red and the Blue
It is not just average incomes per capita that
define the economic position of most people in a state
or city. The distribution of income and wealth
makes a lot of difference. But wait again: IRS
data, and other data derived from IRS sources, vastly
misstate the concentration of real income because they
omit the imputed income of owner-occupied
housing. Thus, a salary-earner paying high rent
in the Gold Coast of Chicago has the same reported
income as one on the same salary on the same Gold Coast
who owns his own million dollar house or coop or condo,
and pays no rent. More: the renter’s income is
actually reported as higher, because the owner gets to
deduct the costs of ownership, interest and property
taxes. It’s the renters who turn Chicago
blue - along with most big cities. Read the whole
article
|
|
to email this page to a friend: right click, choose
"send"
|
||||||
Wealth and Want
|
www.wealthandwant.com
|
|||||
... because democracy alone hasn't yet led to a society
in which all can prosper
|