101–110 of 222 posts
I really don't get this deduction, it is basically rewarding people to take risk and makes it better to take a morgage than buy the home outright?
I think I remember hearing something on Planet Money on if the MID was reformed or eliminated that house prices would drop basically across the board as an adjustment to that tax code change. Certain homeowners with a mortgage could, almost overnight, go underwater with their home and on the other end homes could become more affordable under a smaller price point.
Surely the MID would need to be slowly phased out or just capped?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sucks to be in the bay area, where houses start from 1.XM$.
This is the wrong time in the cycle to buy a house in the Bay Area, unless you're filthy rich.
Check this: http://www.paragon-re.com/3_Recessions_2_Bubbles_and_a_Baby
To me this long term trend is teling me that the drops are only temporary and contained for about 3-5 years. Sure if you buy at the peak, there is a chance that you might owe money to a bank for something you do not own (negative equity that is), but it will bounce back.
unless, you know, detroit thing happens, or that california defaults (because of pension crisis, etc), or it raises taxes too much.
i am not a fortune teller, obviously, but bay area has been its own bubble for quite a while now.
This article is incredibly misguided for several reasons... 1.) If you truly are "rich," then you pay for your home in cash. You do not take out a mortgage on your house. Look at a distribution of loan amounts, the vast majority are around $600k. Very few are are >$1M [0]. Home loans are a product for middle-class Americans. 2.) A lot of rich people don't really pay income taxes like middle class people do. This is s…
Looking at the distribution of loan amounts would only be meaningful in the context of the distribution of home sale prices.
Obviously fewer loans are made for houses that fewer people are buying.
So this article advocates for the removal of the mortgage interest tax deduction, because subsidizing home ownership leads to a larger economic divide between owners and renters. As a renter, I appreciate the intent, and I also appreciate any measure to simplify the tax code. That said, I also see compelling arguments in the deduction's favor. The sad truth is that most Americans are terrible at saving and in very po…
The problem with renting is, that it will return to you a temporal value(a space to live in each month, after the month this value is basically gone), whereby buying a house will return a lasting value, which you can even use by selling the house. In order to tackle this, the law should be implementing mechanisms to return value to the renter, like the ability to buy the flat after living in it for a certain number o…
This article is incredibly misguided for several reasons... 1.) If you truly are "rich," then you pay for your home in cash. You do not take out a mortgage on your house. Look at a distribution of loan amounts, the vast majority are around $600k. Very few are are >$1M [0]. Home loans are a product for middle-class Americans. 2.) A lot of rich people don't really pay income taxes like middle class people do. This is s…
I don't know of anyone who bases a home purchase decision on the mortgage interest deduction. Seriously location, school district, cost of home, time to commute, yard size, cost of HOA are all more important to everyone I know. In fact it has never come up in conversations about home purchases with my peer group.
Removing the MID would make middle-to-upper-middle-class people poorer, and so reduce inequality that way, but would it help poor people at all? The net monthly cost of housing would stay the same, just shift the proportion of your payment that goes to the government vs the bank. It's true that it's regressive, but I'm skeptical that's a huge factor. I think it would just help landlords, who would retain the ability…
This quote is extremely misleading! There are not given aid, they are just not charged as much tax.
When people think "welfare queens" and "federal aid" they are talking about people who pay negative tax - they get more aid then their tax.
Simply not taxing people at 100% of their income should not be considered "aid".
So this article advocates for the removal of the mortgage interest tax deduction, because subsidizing home ownership leads to a larger economic divide between owners and renters. As a renter, I appreciate the intent, and I also appreciate any measure to simplify the tax code. That said, I also see compelling arguments in the deduction's favor. The sad truth is that most Americans are terrible at saving and in very po…
Renters get absolutely screwed. Not only is there a mortgage interest deduction, I live in an area that has a special tax on rent. So not only do we pay property tax through the landlord (and probably a higher property tax for non-primary residences), we get a sales tax on top of that, being a tax on the tax. Either end the mortgage interest deduction or allow rent to be deducted (at least in part).