This is the first study to examine the fiscal effects of the New York property tax levy limit, using variation from the degree of fiscal stringency across school districts and over time in its first five years of implementation. Based on a difference-in-differences estimator, coupled with an event study specification, we find that the tax limit has imposed a real cap on many school districts; that is, at-limit districts’ total current expenditures per pupil are significantly lower than what they would have spent absent the limit. For those affected school districts, this expenditure gap does not come from spending on teacher salaries or fringe benefits but rather from other instructional salaries/expenses, central administration, transportation, interfund transfers, and undistributed spending. We also find heterogeneity in the constraining effects of the tax limit across different need-based groups of school districts.

New York’s School Tax Relief Program, STAR, provides state-funded property tax relief for homeowners. Like a matching grant, STAR changes the price of education, thereby altering the incentives of voters and school officials and leading to unintended consequences. Using data for New York State school districts before and after STAR was implemented, we find that STAR increased student performance, school district inefficiency, and school spending by 2 to 4 percent in most districts, leading to an average school property tax rate increase of 14 percent. The STAR-induced tax rate increases offset about one third of the initial STAR tax savings and boosted property taxes for business property. STAR did little to offset the existing inequities in New York State’s education finance system, particularly compared to an equal-cost increase in state aid. This article should be of interest to policy makers involved in property taxes or other aspects of education finance.

This is the first study to directly examine the relationship between tax increment financing (TIF) and education expenditures, using the state of Iowa as a case study. I find that greater use of TIF is associated with reduced education expenditures. I also find little evidence to support the commonly held proposition that school spending increases when TIF districts expire. Finally, the negative price effect of TIF on education spending is increasingly larger for school districts in lower wealth or income groups compared with their counterparts in higher wealth or income groups. The negative, though small, effect of TIF on education spending, coupled with no gain from the often-claimed long-run benefits of TIF, justifies policy measures to protect school districts from TIF.