Search

In 2006, responsibility for implementing the Dutch housing allowance system was transferred from the Ministry of Housing to the Tax Authority. It has since been renamed, and is now known as the ‘rent rebate system’. A number of dilemmas have become evident since the 2006 changes. Attention has shifted to how to implement the system effectively: how to limit the overconsumption of housing services, how to avoid moral hazard, how to reduce outright fraud, how to reduce the poverty trap, and how to prevent the escalation of public spending. These new dilemmas have led to the central research question in this article: how to redesign a system of rent rebates? The discussion of these dilemmas points to further changes. Proposals for a redesign of the rent rebate system in the Netherlands are presented. These proposals could also be relevant for other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study explores the role of housing expenses and subsidies with respect to income distribution in Flanders (the northern part of Belgium) and the Netherlands in 2005–2006. It analyses income poverty and inequality by comparing equivalent disposable income before and after housing expenses with a relative poverty threshold and the Gini coefficient. Poverty and income inequality increase in both ‘countries’ when equivalent disposable income is corrected for housing expenses. Furthermore, the relative position of outright owners and social tenants regarding poverty improves. Housing subsidies play a (partly) different role in Flanders and the Netherlands. The implicit social rent subsidy in Flanders and the explicit housing allowance in the Netherlands serve the same goal; however, they both redistribute income relatively strongly in favour of low-income tenants. The tax relief system on the other hand increases income inequality in society, in both Flanders and the Netherlands, whereas our comparative analysis suggests that tax relief does not have a moderating effect on net housing expenses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Tijdschrift voor Sociologie is the property of Uitgeverij Acco and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Residential mortgage securitization on the secondary mortgage market in the United States has grown enormously since 1970. This contribution describes the growth, especially the growth of the large special circuit housing finance system within the secondary mortgage market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at the heart of it. Different housing finance systems are introduced first in order to position the system of securitization. The technicalities of securitization are then briefly covered, before the focus shifts to the development of residential mortgage securitization in the United States. The reasons for expansion of the secondary mortgage market are traced, and especially of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the benefits they offer to homeowners and the buyers of securities. The success of securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac does not seem to be based on a miracle of competition in the housing finance market, but largely on regulation and subsidization of these organizations. Nowadays, the question has become whether the undesired effects of this large part of the housing finance market outbalance the desired effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A sharp drop in prices on the home owner market is not only hard to predict but also the reason why many politicians would prefer to implement any tax changes gradually, if at all. Against this backdrop, the present study explores the relationship between a change in the personal income tax treatment of home ownership and a change in house prices. First, based on a literature study, it identifies the factors in the development of house prices. Then, using data from several European countries, it compares the effects of personal income tax reform on the development of house prices. As the comparison reveals, the method and timing of adjustments in the tax system have a strong influence on house price development. Furthermore, econometric modelling of the Dutch home owner market suggests that when the restrictions on tax concessions are less stringent, the real decline in house prices is not as steep and does not last as long. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]