Housing Costs

Housing Costs

Over the last several decades, housing has become more expensive, causing many people, particularly low—and middle-income people, to spend a greater portion of their income on housing.

Members of Congress and Presidential candidates have put forward proposals for the Federal government to do more address housing affordability, by:

  • providing billions in grants and tax incentives for building and repairing affordable homes for low and middle-income people
  • providing down payment assistance to low and middle-income first-time buyers
  • increasing the number of public Housing Vouchers for very low-income, disabled and elderly people
  • reducing large corporate ownership of single-family houses
  • incentivizing local governments to reduce single-family zoning and allow more dense housing to be built

The proposals in the survey were taken from Congressional legislation, the Executive Branch, and Presidential campaign platforms:

Building More Housing Affordable to Low and Middle-Income Households

Briefing
Respondents were presented a briefing on housing affordability, especially with regard to low and middle-income households:

As you may know, housing has become more expensive over the last several decades, causing low- and middle-income families to spend a greater portion of their income on housing.

According to the government, a home is considered affordable for a family or a person living alone when it costs them less than 30% of their income. This is based on the assumption that spending more than 30% of income on housing can leave families without enough money for other basic needs (food, healthcare, and transportation).

An increasing number of households are spending more than 30% of their income on housing, especially those who rent. Lower-income households spend a much larger portion of their income on housing than other groups, and are more likely to rent: On average, low-income households spend over half of their income on housing. In contrast, high-income households, on average, spend less than a fifth of their income on housing.

They were also informed about the role of the Federal government in housing affordability:

The Federal government has been making efforts, for many years, to encourage the building and repair of housing that is affordable to low- and middle-income households, through a mix of funding to cities and states, and tax incentives to home builders.

However, most experts agree that there is still a shortage of housing that is affordable to low- and middle-income households.

Arguments
Before making their recommendations on specific proposals, they evaluated a series of arguments for and against “whether the Federal government should be doing more than it currently is to increase the availability of housing that is affordable to low- and middle-income households.”

The arguments in favor, which focused on the failure of the housing market and the need for the government to course-correct the market towards affordable housing, were found convincing by very large bipartisan majorities of 75-77%, including 68-69% of Republicans and 85-88% of Democrats. 

The arguments against, which made the case that housing supply has been increasing recently and that more government involvement will only make things worse, did not do as well as the pro arguments, but were still found convincing by bipartisan majorities of 60-65%, including 64-67% of Republicans and 57-64% of Democrats.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

The proposal was presented as follows:

The Federal government would provide $25 billion to city and state governments that want it, for them to increase the construction or repair of dense housing (townhomes, apartments and duplexes) that are affordable to low- and middle-income people to rent or buy.

The Federal government estimates that this could result in the construction or repair of about 500,000 houses.

Asked for their final recommendation, a bipartisan majority of 71% were in favor (Republicans 57%, Democrats 88%).

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States

The survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 66-73% were in favor, including Republicans (54-60%) and Democrats (80-86%).

Status of Proposal

The proposal was put forward by the Biden administration, in their Housing Supply Action Plan. It has not yet made it into Congressional legislation.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were first informed that:

Currently, the Federal government offers a tax incentive to home builders to include in their housing developments more housing that is affordable to households with income of less than about $40,000 a year.

Asked whether they would favor, "a tax credit to home builders to build or repair homes to be rented, on the condition that 60% of the homes are affordable to households with incomes of about $40,000 to $80,000 a year, adjusted for the cost of living in the area," a bipartisan majority of 73% were in favor (Republicans 63%, Democrats 85%).
Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 69-73% were in favor, including Republicans (56-64%) and Democrats (79-86%).

Status of Proposal
The proposal is in the Workforce Housing Tax Credit Act by Sen. Wyden (S. 3436); and Rep. Panetta (H.R. 6686) in the 118th Congress. It has not yet made it out of committee.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were presented the proposal, as follows:

Here is a proposal to increase the availability of homes that are affordable for low and middle-income households to purchase in low-income areas:

The Federal government would provide tax incentives to:

  • Companies that build or repair houses in low-income areas that are affordable for low- and middle-income people to purchase
  • Homeowners in low-income areas to repair their home.

This tax credit would not be available in large urban cities.

Asked for their final recommendation, a bipartisan majority of 67% were in favor (Republicans 59%, Democrats 77%).

Same Tax Incentives For Large Urban Areas

Respondents were also asked whether they would favor, “that tax incentive if it was also made available to use for housing in large urban cities.” Overall, 73% were in favor, including 63% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats.

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States

The survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 64-68% were in favor, including Republicans (54-61%) and Democrats (73-79%).

Support for the same tax incentives if they are also available for use in large urban cities is 70-74% in the swing states, including majorities of Republicans (61-66%) and Democrats (82-86%).

Related Standard Polls

Standard polling has found bipartisan support for tax incentives to build homes in distressed communities, which is the aim of the above proposal and why it is restricted to low-income non-urban areas:

  • Asked, “If Congress pursues bipartisan legislation to improve the housing issues that Americans are experiencing, do you support or oppose the following initiatives being included – New tax credits for developers to build and renovate homes for sale in distressed communities,” was supported by 66% (Republicans 63%, Democrats 78%) (Morning Consult/Bipartisan Policy Center, May 2024)

Status of Proposal

The proposal is in the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act by Rep. Kelly (H.R. 3940) and Sen. Cardin (S. 657) in the 118th Congress. It has not yet made it out of committee.

Reducing Housing Costs for Very Low and Low-Income Households

Briefing
Respondents were presented a briefing on housing affordability for very low and low-income households, as follows:

Now let’s turn to policies to reduce the cost of housing specifically for low- and very low-income households.

The Federal government currently has some programs to reduce the cost of housing for very low-income households – those making up to about $20,000 a year. However, most very low-income households still spend around two-thirds of their income on housing.

Arguments
Before making their recommendations for specific policies, they evaluated arguments for and against, “whether the Federal government should do more to increase the availability of homes that are affordable to low- and very low-income households.”

The first argument in favor, that investing in affordable housing is necessary to help stop the cycle of poverty and give people a shot at the American Dream, was found convincing by a very large bipartisan majority of 78% (Republicans 71%, Democrats 89%). The first argument against, that taxpayers already spend billions on low-income housing and other welfare, and people should instead live with family or friends to reduce costs, did much worse, with just 56% finding it convincing, including 61% of Republicans, but just 52% of Democrats.

The second argument in favor, that making housing more affordable for very low-income people will reduce homelessness, which benefits everyone in the long run, was found convincing by a large bipartisan majority of 78% (Republicans 72%, Democrats 86%). The second argument against, that the real problem is low wages, and without tackling that problem the government will just have to keep pumping more money into housing, was also found convincing by a large bipartisan majority (69%), with no variation between parties (Republicans 69%, Democrats 70%).

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were presented the proposal, as follows:

The Federal government spending up to $40 billion to increase the building and repair of housing that is affordable to people with low- and very low-incomes.

These funds would be given to cities and states that want it to enact their own plans to increase the availability of affordable housing, and to help provide more low-interest loans to home builders to build affordable housing.

Asked for their final recommendation, a bipartisan majority of 74% were in favor (Republicans 63%, Democrats 86%).

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 69-73% were in favor, including Republicans (57-63%) and Democrats (79-89%).

Related Standard Polls
Standard polling has found bipartisan support for expanding tax incentives to build rental housing affordable to low-income households:

  • Asked, “If Congress pursues bipartisan legislation to improve the housing issues that Americans are experiencing, do you support or oppose the following initiatives being included – Expanded support for tax credits that states award competitively to developers to help them build affordable apartments for low-income households,” was supported by 65% (Republicans 61%, Democrats 75%) (Morning Consult/Bipartisan Policy Center, May 2024)

Status of Proposal
The proposal is in the Housing for All Act by Rep. Lieu (H.R. 5254) and Sen. Padilla (S. 2701) in the 118th Congress. A similar proposal was put forward in the Housing Crisis Response Act by Rep. Waters (H.R. 4233). Neither bill has yet to make it out of committee.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were informed that:

Public housing is government-funded housing for people that are very low-income, the elderly and the disabled, in which they are required to pay around 30% of their income on rent. People who are eligible for public housing can choose between living in public housing that is owned by the government, or getting money in the form of Housing Vouchers to help them pay rent in private housing.

Right now there are more people who want and qualify for Housing Vouchers than are. There are also fewer landlords participating in public housing programs than are needed to meet the demand for public housing.

Asked whether they favor a proposal to, “spend $24 billion to provide more people with Housing Vouchers," a bipartisan majority of 74% were in favor (Republicans 63%, Democrats 87%).

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, majorities of 69-72% were in favor, including majorities of Democrats in every state (78-88%), and majorities of Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania (58-64%). Republicans were statistically divided in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Status of Proposal
The proposal is in the Housing Crisis Response Act by Rep. Waters (H.R. 4233). It has not yet made it out of committee.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were asked whether they favor a proposal to “provide low- and middle-income people who are purchasing a home for the first time with up to $25,000 to help cover their down payment, with more assistance for people whose parents never owned a home.” 

A majority of 67% were in favor, including a large majority of Democrats (84%) and 52% of Republicans (with 48% opposed, a statistical divide).

Asked how acceptable they find the proposal on an eleven-point scale, with 0 being not at all acceptable, 5 just tolerable, and 10 very acceptable, 81% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 69% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats.

More Details

Briefing

Respondents were first informed that:

People who own their home are much more likely to build up wealth because when they sell their house they usually make back at least some of the money they put into the house. As a result, households that own a home have about 40 times more wealth than households that rent.

They were presented the proposal, as follows:

A proposal has been put forward for the Federal government to provide low- and middle-income people who are purchasing a home for the first time with up to $25,000 to help cover their downpayment, with more assistance for people whose parents never owned a home.

The argument in favor of the proposal, that millions are locked out of buying a home and so unable to build long-term wealth and escape intergenerational poverty, was found convincing by a bipartisan majority of 73%, including 61% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats.

The argument against, that people should take financial responsibility for themselves, and increasing demand for housing will only raise home prices, did not do as well, but was still found convincing by a bipartisan majority of 61%, including 67% of Republicans and a small majority of Democrats (55%).

Asked for their final recommendation, 67% were in favor, including a large majority of Democrats (84%) and 52% of Republicans.

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, majorities of 63-68% were in favor, including majorities of Democrats (81-87%) in every state. Among Republicans, a majority were in favor in Georgia (54%), views were closely divided in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, and less than half were in favor in Michigan and Wisconsin (43-44%).

Related Standard Polls
Standard polling has found majority support for providing $25,000 in down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers, without the requirement that they are low or middle-income, but less than half of Republicans are in favor:

  • According to a Bloomberg News article about a Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll: “Harris’ recent proposal to give $25,000 in assistance to first-time home buyers… won the support of 57% of swing-state voters. But it was also the most polarizing of the proposals: About twice as many Democrats supported the policy as Republicans.” (Morning Consult/Bloomberg News, August 2024, questionnaire and crosstabs are not publicly available) 

Polling has found bipartisan majority support for a smaller amount of assistance – $10,000 – as well as the general idea of down payment assistance:

  • Asked, “If Congress pursues bipartisan legislation to improve the housing issues that Americans are experiencing, do you support or oppose the following initiatives being included?”
    • “A $10,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers,” was supported by 70% (Republicans 69%, Democrats 79%)
    • “Funding for down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers,” was supported by 67% (Republicans 64%, Democrats 75%) (Morning Consult/Bipartisan Policy Center, May 2024)

Status of Proposal
The proposal was put forward initially by the Biden Administration in 2023 (FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Plan to Lower Housing Costs for Working Families), and then by Vice President Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign (A New Way Forward For The Middle Class, Chapter 7, III). It has not yet been put into Congressional legislation.

A similar proposal is in the Downpayment Toward Equity Act by Sen. Warnock (S. 3930) and Rep. Waters (H.R. 4231). It has not yet made it out of committee.

Reducing Large Corporate Ownership of Homes

Briefing
Respondents were told that they were going to evaluate “policies that aim to reduce the price of single-family homes, townhomes and duplexes.”

They were presented a briefing, as follows:

Some experts say that one reason that home prices have been increasing at a faster rate than incomes is that large corporations have been increasingly buying single-family homes, townhomes and duplexes. This can cause prices of these homes to increase, because:

  • Corporations can place a higher bid on a house than most people, because they have much more cash and access to mortgages with low interest rates.
  • When homeowners know that a corporation will pay more than people, they raise the price of their house when trying to sell it, above what it would be if corporations were not in that market buying homes.

Over the last couple of decades, corporations have purchased around one-quarter of all single-family homes for sale. Currently, they own about two to three percent of all single-family homes. Other experts don’t agree that large corporations have contributed to the increasing price of homes.

Arguments
Before making their recommendations for specific proposals, they evaluated arguments for and against, “whether the Federal government should try to reduce the number of homes that are owned by large corporations.”

The arguments in favor, that large corporations drive up prices which lock people out of buying homes, and take worse care of the homes they own causing neighborhood blight, were found convincing by very large bipartisan majorities of 77-78%, including 68-69% of Republicans and 85-86% of Democrats. 

The arguments against, that the government should not interfere in the private market, and that corporations increase housing supply by turning single-family houses into duplexes and quadplexes, did not do as well. They were found convincing by 56-60%, including 58-64% of Republicans and modest majorities of Democrats (55-56%).

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were first told:

As you may know, when a person takes out a loan to purchase a home, they can deduct from their taxes some or all of the amount they pay on the interest on that loan. Corporations can also get the tax deduction on the interest on their home loans. In addition, corporations get a tax deduction if the value of the houses they own goes down (known as depreciation). 

They were then presented a proposal, "to discourage corporations from buying single-family homes, townhome by: Denying large corporations that own more than 50 homes the right to any tax deductions related to owning those homes." A bipartisan majority of 71% were in favor (Republicans 61%, Democrats 82%).

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 67-71% were in favor, including Republicans (55-66%) and Democrats (78-81%). 

Status of Proposal
The proposal is in the Stop Predatory Investing Act by Sen. Brown (S. 2224) in the 118th Congress. It has not yet made it out of committee.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were asked whether they favor, "Prohibiting large corporations (more than $50 million in assets) from buying new homes, and requiring those that own such homes to sell them within the next ten years. Failure to comply would result in a substantial financial penalty." A bipartisan majority of 67% were in favor (Republicans 55%, Democrats 81%).

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, bipartisan majorities of 66-71% were in favor, including majorities of Democrats in every state (75-81%), as well as majorities of Republicans (57-63%) in every state except Wisconsin which was statistically divided (52% favor, 48% opposed).

Status of Proposal
The proposal is in the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023 by Sen. Merkley (S. 3402) in the 118th Congress. It has not yet made it out of committee.

Survey: PPC, October 2024

Respondents were asked whether they favor the Federal government continuing the following policy:

When deciding how to distribute funding for infrastructure, the Federal government is giving priority to local governments that are making efforts to change their housing regulations, such as zoning requirements, so that more dense multi-family and mixed-use housing can be built.

A majority of 64% favored the Federal government continuing this policy, including a majority of Democrats (80%), and 51% of Republicans. 

Asked how acceptable they find the proposal on an eleven-point scale, with 0 being not at all acceptable, 5 just tolerable, and 10 very acceptable, 85% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 78% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats.

More Details

Briefing
Respondents were presented a briefing on the issue of local zoning restrictions for housing, as follows:

Experts agree that one of the reasons the supply of housing has not kept up with demand is because of long-standing local regulations that prevent building more dense housing – that is, more multi-family houses (e.g. duplexes, apartment buildings) and more mixed-use housing (such as apartments above stores).

They were informed about the Federal government’s current role in these zoning laws:

The Federal government cannot directly tell local governments what housing policies to have, but they can try to influence them. Here is something that the Federal government is doing right now:

Congress recently passed a bill to provide local governments with money to build and repair their roads, bridges, utilities and other infrastructure. To encourage them to allow more dense housing, when deciding how to distribute funding for infrastructure, the Federal government is giving priority to local governments that are making efforts to change their housing regulations so that more multi-family and mixed-use housing can be built.

Arguments
They evaluated arguments for and against the Federal government – when distributing funding for infrastructure repair – continuing their policy of giving priority to local governments that change their regulations to allow for more dense housing.

The argument in favor was found convincing by a large majority of 71%, including 59% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats. The argument against was found convincing by a similarly large majority of 73%, with little variation between Republicans (75%) and Democrats (72%).

Final Recommendation
Asked for their final recommendation, a majority of 64% favored the Federal government continuing its policy, including a majority of Democrats (80%).

Among Republicans, 51% were in favor and 49% opposed – a statistical divide. However, asked how acceptable they would find the proposal on a 0-10 scale, with 5 being “just tolerable,” 78% of Republicans rated it at least tolerable (5-10).

Demographics

Results in Six Swing States
The survey was also conducted in six swing states: AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA and WI. Across all swing states, majorities of 55-61% were in favor, including majorities of Democrats (70-74%). Among Republicans, less than half were in support in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania (41-43%), while views were statistically divided in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin (47-48%).

Respondent’s own local government changing housing regulations
Respondents were also asked whether they would favor their “own local government allow[ing] for the construction of more dense multi-family and mixed-use housing.” A bipartisan majority of 68% were in favor (Republicans 54%, Democrats 84%).

Across the swing states, majorities were in favor (61-70%), including majorities of Democrats (79-83%). Among Republicans, majorities were in favor in Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (53-56%), while views were statistically divided in Arizona and Michigan.

Related Standard Polls
Standard polling has found bipartisan support for incentivizing local governments to allow for  the construction of more housing:

  • Asked, “If Congress pursues bipartisan legislation to improve the housing issues that Americans are experiencing, do you support or oppose the following initiatives being included – Incentives to local communities to remove zoning and land use restrictions that prevent the development of more housing,” was supported by 57% (Republicans 57%, Democrats 65%) (Morning Consult/Bipartisan Policy Center, May 2024)

When asked whether they favor, in general, allowing for more dense and mixed-use housing, majorities have been in favor:

  • “Allow townhouses or small multi-family homes to be built on any residential lot,” 58% support.
  • “Allow apartments near offices, stores and restaurants,” 75% support. (Pew, September 2023)

Status of Proposal
The Executive Branch adopted a policy in 2023 that gives priority for infrastructure repair funding to local governments that are making efforts to change their zoning regulations to allow for the construction of more dense and mixed-use housing (Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces Actions to Lower Housing Costs and Boost Supply).