At a faculty lunch yesterday, I heard about an ingenious scheme used by some universities in New York, where much rental housing is rent controlled. Here are the three key elements, as it was described to me by one of my colleagues:
1. The university buys a rent-controlled building. The purchase price is low, because the existing landlord cannot make much money renting it.
2. The university then rents the apartments to its own senior faculty, who view this as a great perk. In essence, the difference between the free-market rent and the controlled rent is a form of compensation for the professor. As a result, the university can reduce the professor's cash compensation by an equivalent amount. The university is effectively earning the market rent for the apartment.
3. But it gets even better. The implicit rental subsidy is a form of non-taxed compensation. Normally, if an employer gives an employee a perk like this, the subsidy is taxable income (unless the perk is deemed a working condition required to do the job, like a hotel manager living in a hotel). But here, the university can claim there is no subsidy: It is only charging what the rent-control law requires. Because of this tax treatment, the implicit subsidy is worth even more to the professor than the equivalent cash compensation. This fact allows the university to reduce the professor's cash compensation by an even greater amount. Thus, the university effectively earns even more than the free-market rent on a real estate investment purchased much lower than the free-market price would have been.
In the end, the goal of the rent control laws is thwarted (the low rents are enjoyed by well-paid tenured faculty rather than the needy), the income tax laws are thwarted (a sizable part of compensation is untaxed), and all this is done by a nonprofit institution (the university) whose ostensible purpose is to serve the public interest.
women clipart, women artist, digital women planner, digital women com daily, digital women printables, digital woman, digital women art, 3d women
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(285)
-
▼
September
(40)
- The Latest from the Standup Economist
- Economic Education Video Competition
- New NRC Rankings
- Bill Clinton channels Friedrich Hayek
- The Harvard Nobel Prize Pool
- A New Approach to Intermediate Macroeconomics
- kcwc days 5, 6 & 7
- Best Congressional Testimony Ever
- Smart Athletes
- kcwc day 4: floral baby kimono
- kcwc day 3: baby kimono
- Me on All Things Considered
- kcwc day 2: baby lounge pants
- Larry and Harvard
- kcwc day 1: dana's 90 minute shirt
- Predicting the Nobel
- kids clothes week
- Krugman versus Rajan
- Inside Job
- Glaeser on Goolsbee
- The Tourist Platter of Economics
- Classroom Games
- How much would the President raise the top tax rate?
- Economics Teaching Conference
- embossed blog cards
- Viard on Marginal Tax Rates
- Miron on the Bush Tax Cuts
- A Dastardly Clever Scheme
- Goolsbee to Chair CEA
- Economics in a Nutshell
- Ruby's blessing dress
- A Small Step in the Right Direction
- Bernanke on the Financial Crisis
- Advice for Frosh
- Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?
- Counting Small Businesses
- Cash for Clunkers
- This year's Freshman Seminar
- Da Vinci, Updated
- The CEA Chair Says Goodbye
-
▼
September
(40)
No comments:
Post a Comment