IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedbwp/95-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Debt capacity, tax exemption, and the municipal cost of capital: a reassessment of the new view

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Fortune

Abstract

The Traditional View of municipal investment holds that the federal tax-exemption of interest payments by state and local (municipal) governments provides a capital cost subsidy to municipal investment. Recently a New View has emerged which argues that tax-exemption plays a minor role, if any, in shaping municipal investment decisions. In its simplest version (with municipal debt issued at a constant interest rate), the New View argues that tax-exemption plays a role only for municipalities in which the representative individual has an income tax rate lower than the implicit tax rate on municipal bonds. An extended version of the New View, in which municipal bonds are sold at interest rates which increase with leverage, predicts that all communities will choose tax finance at the margin. Thus, the New View holds that local taxes should be the dominant form of finance for municipal investment at the margin, except perhaps, in communities represented by people with income tax rates at or above the implicit tax rate on municipal bonds. The New View rests on an assumption of unlimited borrowing power with constant interest rates in the taxable bond market. However, virtually all agents face debt capacity limits which prevent them from using taxable debt to finance all capital investment, both private and municipal. This paper examines the implications of debt capacity limits and concludes that when they are effective, all municipalities should treat the municipal bond rate as the marginal cost of funds except those very rare communities in which the representative citizen has both a high income tax rate and an extremely high capacity to borrow in the private debt market. This study also finds that leverage-related interest rates strengthen rather than weaken the case for the Traditional View. In short, we conclude that the New View applies only to communities whose representative citizens are extremely affluent. If less-than-affluent communities choose different mixes of tax and debt finance, the effect is not on the marginal cost of capital or on the volume of municipal investment. Rather, it is on the average cost of capital, and on the distribution of income.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Fortune, 1995. "Debt capacity, tax exemption, and the municipal cost of capital: a reassessment of the new view," Working Papers 95-8, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedbwp:95-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp1995/wp95_8.htm
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp1995/wp95_8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hulten, Charles R. & Schwab, Robert M., 1991. "A Haig-Simons-Tiebout Comprehensive Income Tax," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 44(1), pages 67-78, March.
    2. Metcalf, G.E., 1991. "The Role Of Federal Taxation In The Supply Of Municipal Bonds: Evidence From Municipal Governments," Papers 72, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - John M. Olin Program.
    3. Hulten, Charles R. & Schwab, Robert M., 1991. "A Haig-Simons-Tiebout Comprehensive Income Tax," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 44(1), pages 67-78, March.
    4. Gordon, Roger H & Slemrod, Joel, 1983. "A General Equilibrium Simulation Study of Subsidies to Municipal Expenditures," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 38(2), pages 585-594, May.
    5. Peter Fortune, 1984. "Tax Exemption and Resource Allocation: Implications for Prices, Production, and Factor Choice," Public Finance Review, , vol. 12(3), pages 347-364, July.
    6. Roger H. Gordon & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 1991. "Do Tax-Exempt Bonds Really Subsidize Municipal Capital?," NBER Working Papers 3835, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fortune, Peter, 1998. "Tax-Exempt Bonds Really Do Subsidize Municipal Capital!," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 51(1), pages 43-54, March.
    2. Hulten, Charles R. & Schwab, Robert M., 1997. "A fiscal federalism approach to infrastructure policy," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 139-159, April.
    3. Fortune, Peter, 1998. "Tax-exempt Bonds Really Do Subsidize Municipal Capital!," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 51(n. 1), pages 43-54, March.
    4. James M. Poterba & Arturo Ramirez Verdugo, 2008. "Portfolio Substitution and the Revenue Cost of Exempting State and Local Government Interest Payments from Federal Income Tax," NBER Working Papers 14439, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Thomas Luke Spreen & Ed Gerrish, 2022. "Taxes and tax‐exempt bonds: A literature review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 767-808, September.
    6. Charles R. Hulten & Robert M. Schwab, 1988. "Income Originating in the State and Local Sector," NBER Chapters, in: Fiscal Federalism: Quantitative Studies, pages 215-254, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. M.S. Tumanggor, 2020. "Issuance of Municipal Bonds through Capital Markets as Financial Revenue for Regional Development," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(3), pages 326-334.
    8. Fullerton, Don & Metcalf, Gilbert E., 2002. "Tax incidence," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 26, pages 1787-1872, Elsevier.
    9. Berkovec, James & Fullerton, Don, 1989. "The General Equilibrium Effects of Inflation on Housing Consumption and Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(2), pages 277-282, May.
    10. Edward V. Regan, "undated". "A New Approach to Tax-Exempt Bonds, Infrastructure: Financing with the AGIS Bond," Economics Public Policy Brief Archive ppb_58, Levy Economics Institute.
    11. Edward L. Glaeser, 2012. "Urban Public Finance," NBER Working Papers 18244, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Joel Slemrod, 1984. "A General Equilibrium Model of Taxation That Uses Micro-Unit Data: Withan Application to the Impact of Instituting a Flat-Rate Income Tax," NBER Working Papers 1461, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Zachary Bethune & Bruno Sultanum & Nicholas Trachter, 2016. "Private Information in Over-the-Counter Markets," Working Paper 16-16, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
    14. Charles R. Hulten & Robert M. Schwab, 1987. "Income Originating in the State and Local Sector," NBER Working Papers 2314, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. James M. Poterba, 1984. "Expected Future Tax Policy and Tax Exempt Bond Yields," Working papers 350, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    16. Joel Slemrod, 1985. "The Impact of Tax Reform on Households," NBER Working Papers 1765, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Randall W. Eberts & William F. Fox, 1992. "The Effect of Federal Policies On Local Public Infrastructure Investment," Public Finance Review, , vol. 20(4), pages 557-571, October.
    18. Robert P. Inman, 1993. "Presidential Leadership and the Reform of Fiscal Policy: Learning from Reagan's Role in TRA 86," NBER Working Papers 4395, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Merle Erickson & Austan Goolsbee & Edward Maydew, 2002. "How Prevalent is Tax Arbitrage? Evidence from the Market for Municipal Bonds," NBER Working Papers 9105, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Gilbert E. Metcalf, 1993. "Tax exporting, federal deductibility, and state tax structure," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 109-126.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Municipal finance;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedbwp:95-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Spozio (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbbous.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.