- This topic has 255 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 12, 2010 at 12:26 AM #564190June 12, 2010 at 2:02 PM #563395bearishgurlParticipant
[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
June 12, 2010 at 2:02 PM #563492bearishgurlParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
June 12, 2010 at 2:02 PM #563994bearishgurlParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
June 12, 2010 at 2:02 PM #564101bearishgurlParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
June 12, 2010 at 2:02 PM #564386bearishgurlParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
June 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM #563415SK in CVParticipant[quote=CA renter]
Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe in changing the rules after the game has started, but I think the elimination of the MID should not affect existing mortgages; they should be grandfathered in.This would probably cause housing prices to fall and local/state governments to see lower revenues, but that’s not really a bad thing, IMHO (I don’t think it would be a drastic change).
——————As far as the MID on second homes and rentals, I think that should be eliminated entirely.
If you think about it, the mortgage interest is an expense that the LL **chooses to add** to the legitimate expenses of owning and maintaining rental properties (repairs, maintenance, advertising, management fees, etc.). A leveraged landlord should not be entitled to more deductions than a LL who owns a property outright. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing a LL’s use of leverage. Leverage is their problem, not ours.
The only way I would allow the MID on rentals would be if the LL agreed to some form of rent control. This should also apply to Prop 13 protection — the benefit of the lower property taxes does not usually go to the renter (more affordable housing), it goes to the landlord.
There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a landlord’s profits or use of leverage.[/quote]
Changing the rules happens all the time. Near perfect examples are the elimination of the deduction for personal interest, and limitations on deductions for home equity interest. Taxes on cap gains change pretty regularly.
State and local revenues might only drop in CA where property taxes are statutorily tied to values. (I think CA is unique in that regards.) Other states figure out how much they need and set the rates accordingly. I’m not convinced that values would drop significantly even in CA.
You’re opposed to changing the rules mid-game for mortgage interest. But not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for 2nd home interest? And apparently not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for rental property?
Related to the deduction of interest on rental properties, it’s an entirely different issue. Unlikely to happen. It would kill prices way worse than doing away with the home mortgage deduction. Rent control on commercial property? I don’t think either is going to happen, or even be proposed in good faith. (Other than different depreciable lives, I can’t think of any tax differences between residential and commercial rental property. Same tax code sections which determine what is deductible cover both.) Are you going to tell Jerry Jones that he can’t deduct the mortgage interest on his new stadium and someone else is going to tell him how much rent he can charge the cowboys to play there? Nope, that one isn’t going to happen.
June 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM #563512SK in CVParticipant[quote=CA renter]
Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe in changing the rules after the game has started, but I think the elimination of the MID should not affect existing mortgages; they should be grandfathered in.This would probably cause housing prices to fall and local/state governments to see lower revenues, but that’s not really a bad thing, IMHO (I don’t think it would be a drastic change).
——————As far as the MID on second homes and rentals, I think that should be eliminated entirely.
If you think about it, the mortgage interest is an expense that the LL **chooses to add** to the legitimate expenses of owning and maintaining rental properties (repairs, maintenance, advertising, management fees, etc.). A leveraged landlord should not be entitled to more deductions than a LL who owns a property outright. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing a LL’s use of leverage. Leverage is their problem, not ours.
The only way I would allow the MID on rentals would be if the LL agreed to some form of rent control. This should also apply to Prop 13 protection — the benefit of the lower property taxes does not usually go to the renter (more affordable housing), it goes to the landlord.
There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a landlord’s profits or use of leverage.[/quote]
Changing the rules happens all the time. Near perfect examples are the elimination of the deduction for personal interest, and limitations on deductions for home equity interest. Taxes on cap gains change pretty regularly.
State and local revenues might only drop in CA where property taxes are statutorily tied to values. (I think CA is unique in that regards.) Other states figure out how much they need and set the rates accordingly. I’m not convinced that values would drop significantly even in CA.
You’re opposed to changing the rules mid-game for mortgage interest. But not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for 2nd home interest? And apparently not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for rental property?
Related to the deduction of interest on rental properties, it’s an entirely different issue. Unlikely to happen. It would kill prices way worse than doing away with the home mortgage deduction. Rent control on commercial property? I don’t think either is going to happen, or even be proposed in good faith. (Other than different depreciable lives, I can’t think of any tax differences between residential and commercial rental property. Same tax code sections which determine what is deductible cover both.) Are you going to tell Jerry Jones that he can’t deduct the mortgage interest on his new stadium and someone else is going to tell him how much rent he can charge the cowboys to play there? Nope, that one isn’t going to happen.
June 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM #564015SK in CVParticipant[quote=CA renter]
Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe in changing the rules after the game has started, but I think the elimination of the MID should not affect existing mortgages; they should be grandfathered in.This would probably cause housing prices to fall and local/state governments to see lower revenues, but that’s not really a bad thing, IMHO (I don’t think it would be a drastic change).
——————As far as the MID on second homes and rentals, I think that should be eliminated entirely.
If you think about it, the mortgage interest is an expense that the LL **chooses to add** to the legitimate expenses of owning and maintaining rental properties (repairs, maintenance, advertising, management fees, etc.). A leveraged landlord should not be entitled to more deductions than a LL who owns a property outright. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing a LL’s use of leverage. Leverage is their problem, not ours.
The only way I would allow the MID on rentals would be if the LL agreed to some form of rent control. This should also apply to Prop 13 protection — the benefit of the lower property taxes does not usually go to the renter (more affordable housing), it goes to the landlord.
There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a landlord’s profits or use of leverage.[/quote]
Changing the rules happens all the time. Near perfect examples are the elimination of the deduction for personal interest, and limitations on deductions for home equity interest. Taxes on cap gains change pretty regularly.
State and local revenues might only drop in CA where property taxes are statutorily tied to values. (I think CA is unique in that regards.) Other states figure out how much they need and set the rates accordingly. I’m not convinced that values would drop significantly even in CA.
You’re opposed to changing the rules mid-game for mortgage interest. But not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for 2nd home interest? And apparently not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for rental property?
Related to the deduction of interest on rental properties, it’s an entirely different issue. Unlikely to happen. It would kill prices way worse than doing away with the home mortgage deduction. Rent control on commercial property? I don’t think either is going to happen, or even be proposed in good faith. (Other than different depreciable lives, I can’t think of any tax differences between residential and commercial rental property. Same tax code sections which determine what is deductible cover both.) Are you going to tell Jerry Jones that he can’t deduct the mortgage interest on his new stadium and someone else is going to tell him how much rent he can charge the cowboys to play there? Nope, that one isn’t going to happen.
June 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM #564121SK in CVParticipant[quote=CA renter]
Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe in changing the rules after the game has started, but I think the elimination of the MID should not affect existing mortgages; they should be grandfathered in.This would probably cause housing prices to fall and local/state governments to see lower revenues, but that’s not really a bad thing, IMHO (I don’t think it would be a drastic change).
——————As far as the MID on second homes and rentals, I think that should be eliminated entirely.
If you think about it, the mortgage interest is an expense that the LL **chooses to add** to the legitimate expenses of owning and maintaining rental properties (repairs, maintenance, advertising, management fees, etc.). A leveraged landlord should not be entitled to more deductions than a LL who owns a property outright. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing a LL’s use of leverage. Leverage is their problem, not ours.
The only way I would allow the MID on rentals would be if the LL agreed to some form of rent control. This should also apply to Prop 13 protection — the benefit of the lower property taxes does not usually go to the renter (more affordable housing), it goes to the landlord.
There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a landlord’s profits or use of leverage.[/quote]
Changing the rules happens all the time. Near perfect examples are the elimination of the deduction for personal interest, and limitations on deductions for home equity interest. Taxes on cap gains change pretty regularly.
State and local revenues might only drop in CA where property taxes are statutorily tied to values. (I think CA is unique in that regards.) Other states figure out how much they need and set the rates accordingly. I’m not convinced that values would drop significantly even in CA.
You’re opposed to changing the rules mid-game for mortgage interest. But not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for 2nd home interest? And apparently not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for rental property?
Related to the deduction of interest on rental properties, it’s an entirely different issue. Unlikely to happen. It would kill prices way worse than doing away with the home mortgage deduction. Rent control on commercial property? I don’t think either is going to happen, or even be proposed in good faith. (Other than different depreciable lives, I can’t think of any tax differences between residential and commercial rental property. Same tax code sections which determine what is deductible cover both.) Are you going to tell Jerry Jones that he can’t deduct the mortgage interest on his new stadium and someone else is going to tell him how much rent he can charge the cowboys to play there? Nope, that one isn’t going to happen.
June 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM #564406SK in CVParticipant[quote=CA renter]
Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe in changing the rules after the game has started, but I think the elimination of the MID should not affect existing mortgages; they should be grandfathered in.This would probably cause housing prices to fall and local/state governments to see lower revenues, but that’s not really a bad thing, IMHO (I don’t think it would be a drastic change).
——————As far as the MID on second homes and rentals, I think that should be eliminated entirely.
If you think about it, the mortgage interest is an expense that the LL **chooses to add** to the legitimate expenses of owning and maintaining rental properties (repairs, maintenance, advertising, management fees, etc.). A leveraged landlord should not be entitled to more deductions than a LL who owns a property outright. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing a LL’s use of leverage. Leverage is their problem, not ours.
The only way I would allow the MID on rentals would be if the LL agreed to some form of rent control. This should also apply to Prop 13 protection — the benefit of the lower property taxes does not usually go to the renter (more affordable housing), it goes to the landlord.
There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a landlord’s profits or use of leverage.[/quote]
Changing the rules happens all the time. Near perfect examples are the elimination of the deduction for personal interest, and limitations on deductions for home equity interest. Taxes on cap gains change pretty regularly.
State and local revenues might only drop in CA where property taxes are statutorily tied to values. (I think CA is unique in that regards.) Other states figure out how much they need and set the rates accordingly. I’m not convinced that values would drop significantly even in CA.
You’re opposed to changing the rules mid-game for mortgage interest. But not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for 2nd home interest? And apparently not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for rental property?
Related to the deduction of interest on rental properties, it’s an entirely different issue. Unlikely to happen. It would kill prices way worse than doing away with the home mortgage deduction. Rent control on commercial property? I don’t think either is going to happen, or even be proposed in good faith. (Other than different depreciable lives, I can’t think of any tax differences between residential and commercial rental property. Same tax code sections which determine what is deductible cover both.) Are you going to tell Jerry Jones that he can’t deduct the mortgage interest on his new stadium and someone else is going to tell him how much rent he can charge the cowboys to play there? Nope, that one isn’t going to happen.
June 12, 2010 at 3:07 PM #563464CA renterParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe in changing the rules after the game has started, but I think the elimination of the MID should not affect existing mortgages; they should be grandfathered in.This would probably cause housing prices to fall and local/state governments to see lower revenues, but that’s not really a bad thing, IMHO (I don’t think it would be a drastic change).
——————As far as the MID on second homes and rentals, I think that should be eliminated entirely.
If you think about it, the mortgage interest is an expense that the LL **chooses to add** to the legitimate expenses of owning and maintaining rental properties (repairs, maintenance, advertising, management fees, etc.). A leveraged landlord should not be entitled to more deductions than a LL who owns a property outright. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing a LL’s use of leverage. Leverage is their problem, not ours.
The only way I would allow the MID on rentals would be if the LL agreed to some form of rent control. This should also apply to Prop 13 protection — the benefit of the lower property taxes does not usually go to the renter (more affordable housing), it goes to the landlord.
There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a landlord’s profits or use of leverage.[/quote]
Changing the rules happens all the time. Near perfect examples are the elimination of the deduction for personal interest, and limitations on deductions for home equity interest. Taxes on cap gains change pretty regularly.
State and local revenues might only drop in CA where property taxes are statutorily tied to values. (I think CA is unique in that regards.) Other states figure out how much they need and set the rates accordingly. I’m not convinced that values would drop significantly even in CA.
You’re opposed to changing the rules mid-game for mortgage interest. But not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for 2nd home interest? And apparently not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for rental property?
Related to the deduction of interest on rental properties, it’s an entirely different issue. Unlikely to happen. It would kill prices way worse than doing away with the home mortgage deduction. Rent control on commercial property? I don’t think either is going to happen, or even be proposed in good faith. (Other than different depreciable lives, I can’t think of any tax differences between residential and commercial rental property. Same tax code sections which determine what is deductible cover both.) Are you going to tell Jerry Jones that he can’t deduct the mortgage interest on his new stadium and someone else is going to tell him how much rent he can charge the cowboys to play there? Nope, that one isn’t going to happen.[/quote]
Agree with you that state/local revenue would probably not change too much.
Good point about my not wanting to change the rules mid-game for primary residences, but not for investments. I should clarify that I differentiate between basic needs/primary residences and wants/investments. IMHO, a primary residence is a basic need; therefore, it should be treated differently than investment RE. While some would make the argument, that people don’t *need* to own, I actually favor responsible ownership of a primary residence for as many people as possible. It’s best for society (IMHO) when people can control their housing costs and control their own property. Ideally, everyone would have a paid-off house before retirement.
For this reason, I believe (primary) home ownership should be encouraged and given preference over RE investment. Prices would fall, ownership rates would rise, and owners’ equity would rise (IMHO).
Commercial RE is another issue entirely, but I would also encourage the ownership of a single commercial/industrial building per person or related entity by giving them Prop 13 protection and also allow the MID on a *single* property (there might be some size limitations). The property should be reassessed any time there is an ownership change. People should not be able to pass on their Prop 13 protection via corporations or LLCs, etc. (which simply increases prices on these properties — the seller gets the benefit, but the taxpayers have to subsidize it).
Additionally, multi-family dwellings (apartment buildings) could retain Prop 13 protection, but I’d like to see a way for tenants to somehow benefit from this as well — a shared benefit of sorts.
June 12, 2010 at 3:07 PM #563562CA renterParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe in changing the rules after the game has started, but I think the elimination of the MID should not affect existing mortgages; they should be grandfathered in.This would probably cause housing prices to fall and local/state governments to see lower revenues, but that’s not really a bad thing, IMHO (I don’t think it would be a drastic change).
——————As far as the MID on second homes and rentals, I think that should be eliminated entirely.
If you think about it, the mortgage interest is an expense that the LL **chooses to add** to the legitimate expenses of owning and maintaining rental properties (repairs, maintenance, advertising, management fees, etc.). A leveraged landlord should not be entitled to more deductions than a LL who owns a property outright. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing a LL’s use of leverage. Leverage is their problem, not ours.
The only way I would allow the MID on rentals would be if the LL agreed to some form of rent control. This should also apply to Prop 13 protection — the benefit of the lower property taxes does not usually go to the renter (more affordable housing), it goes to the landlord.
There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a landlord’s profits or use of leverage.[/quote]
Changing the rules happens all the time. Near perfect examples are the elimination of the deduction for personal interest, and limitations on deductions for home equity interest. Taxes on cap gains change pretty regularly.
State and local revenues might only drop in CA where property taxes are statutorily tied to values. (I think CA is unique in that regards.) Other states figure out how much they need and set the rates accordingly. I’m not convinced that values would drop significantly even in CA.
You’re opposed to changing the rules mid-game for mortgage interest. But not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for 2nd home interest? And apparently not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for rental property?
Related to the deduction of interest on rental properties, it’s an entirely different issue. Unlikely to happen. It would kill prices way worse than doing away with the home mortgage deduction. Rent control on commercial property? I don’t think either is going to happen, or even be proposed in good faith. (Other than different depreciable lives, I can’t think of any tax differences between residential and commercial rental property. Same tax code sections which determine what is deductible cover both.) Are you going to tell Jerry Jones that he can’t deduct the mortgage interest on his new stadium and someone else is going to tell him how much rent he can charge the cowboys to play there? Nope, that one isn’t going to happen.[/quote]
Agree with you that state/local revenue would probably not change too much.
Good point about my not wanting to change the rules mid-game for primary residences, but not for investments. I should clarify that I differentiate between basic needs/primary residences and wants/investments. IMHO, a primary residence is a basic need; therefore, it should be treated differently than investment RE. While some would make the argument, that people don’t *need* to own, I actually favor responsible ownership of a primary residence for as many people as possible. It’s best for society (IMHO) when people can control their housing costs and control their own property. Ideally, everyone would have a paid-off house before retirement.
For this reason, I believe (primary) home ownership should be encouraged and given preference over RE investment. Prices would fall, ownership rates would rise, and owners’ equity would rise (IMHO).
Commercial RE is another issue entirely, but I would also encourage the ownership of a single commercial/industrial building per person or related entity by giving them Prop 13 protection and also allow the MID on a *single* property (there might be some size limitations). The property should be reassessed any time there is an ownership change. People should not be able to pass on their Prop 13 protection via corporations or LLCs, etc. (which simply increases prices on these properties — the seller gets the benefit, but the taxpayers have to subsidize it).
Additionally, multi-family dwellings (apartment buildings) could retain Prop 13 protection, but I’d like to see a way for tenants to somehow benefit from this as well — a shared benefit of sorts.
June 12, 2010 at 3:07 PM #564063CA renterParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe in changing the rules after the game has started, but I think the elimination of the MID should not affect existing mortgages; they should be grandfathered in.This would probably cause housing prices to fall and local/state governments to see lower revenues, but that’s not really a bad thing, IMHO (I don’t think it would be a drastic change).
——————As far as the MID on second homes and rentals, I think that should be eliminated entirely.
If you think about it, the mortgage interest is an expense that the LL **chooses to add** to the legitimate expenses of owning and maintaining rental properties (repairs, maintenance, advertising, management fees, etc.). A leveraged landlord should not be entitled to more deductions than a LL who owns a property outright. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing a LL’s use of leverage. Leverage is their problem, not ours.
The only way I would allow the MID on rentals would be if the LL agreed to some form of rent control. This should also apply to Prop 13 protection — the benefit of the lower property taxes does not usually go to the renter (more affordable housing), it goes to the landlord.
There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a landlord’s profits or use of leverage.[/quote]
Changing the rules happens all the time. Near perfect examples are the elimination of the deduction for personal interest, and limitations on deductions for home equity interest. Taxes on cap gains change pretty regularly.
State and local revenues might only drop in CA where property taxes are statutorily tied to values. (I think CA is unique in that regards.) Other states figure out how much they need and set the rates accordingly. I’m not convinced that values would drop significantly even in CA.
You’re opposed to changing the rules mid-game for mortgage interest. But not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for 2nd home interest? And apparently not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for rental property?
Related to the deduction of interest on rental properties, it’s an entirely different issue. Unlikely to happen. It would kill prices way worse than doing away with the home mortgage deduction. Rent control on commercial property? I don’t think either is going to happen, or even be proposed in good faith. (Other than different depreciable lives, I can’t think of any tax differences between residential and commercial rental property. Same tax code sections which determine what is deductible cover both.) Are you going to tell Jerry Jones that he can’t deduct the mortgage interest on his new stadium and someone else is going to tell him how much rent he can charge the cowboys to play there? Nope, that one isn’t going to happen.[/quote]
Agree with you that state/local revenue would probably not change too much.
Good point about my not wanting to change the rules mid-game for primary residences, but not for investments. I should clarify that I differentiate between basic needs/primary residences and wants/investments. IMHO, a primary residence is a basic need; therefore, it should be treated differently than investment RE. While some would make the argument, that people don’t *need* to own, I actually favor responsible ownership of a primary residence for as many people as possible. It’s best for society (IMHO) when people can control their housing costs and control their own property. Ideally, everyone would have a paid-off house before retirement.
For this reason, I believe (primary) home ownership should be encouraged and given preference over RE investment. Prices would fall, ownership rates would rise, and owners’ equity would rise (IMHO).
Commercial RE is another issue entirely, but I would also encourage the ownership of a single commercial/industrial building per person or related entity by giving them Prop 13 protection and also allow the MID on a *single* property (there might be some size limitations). The property should be reassessed any time there is an ownership change. People should not be able to pass on their Prop 13 protection via corporations or LLCs, etc. (which simply increases prices on these properties — the seller gets the benefit, but the taxpayers have to subsidize it).
Additionally, multi-family dwellings (apartment buildings) could retain Prop 13 protection, but I’d like to see a way for tenants to somehow benefit from this as well — a shared benefit of sorts.
June 12, 2010 at 3:07 PM #564171CA renterParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe in changing the rules after the game has started, but I think the elimination of the MID should not affect existing mortgages; they should be grandfathered in.This would probably cause housing prices to fall and local/state governments to see lower revenues, but that’s not really a bad thing, IMHO (I don’t think it would be a drastic change).
——————As far as the MID on second homes and rentals, I think that should be eliminated entirely.
If you think about it, the mortgage interest is an expense that the LL **chooses to add** to the legitimate expenses of owning and maintaining rental properties (repairs, maintenance, advertising, management fees, etc.). A leveraged landlord should not be entitled to more deductions than a LL who owns a property outright. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing a LL’s use of leverage. Leverage is their problem, not ours.
The only way I would allow the MID on rentals would be if the LL agreed to some form of rent control. This should also apply to Prop 13 protection — the benefit of the lower property taxes does not usually go to the renter (more affordable housing), it goes to the landlord.
There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a landlord’s profits or use of leverage.[/quote]
Changing the rules happens all the time. Near perfect examples are the elimination of the deduction for personal interest, and limitations on deductions for home equity interest. Taxes on cap gains change pretty regularly.
State and local revenues might only drop in CA where property taxes are statutorily tied to values. (I think CA is unique in that regards.) Other states figure out how much they need and set the rates accordingly. I’m not convinced that values would drop significantly even in CA.
You’re opposed to changing the rules mid-game for mortgage interest. But not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for 2nd home interest? And apparently not opposed to changing the rules mid-game for rental property?
Related to the deduction of interest on rental properties, it’s an entirely different issue. Unlikely to happen. It would kill prices way worse than doing away with the home mortgage deduction. Rent control on commercial property? I don’t think either is going to happen, or even be proposed in good faith. (Other than different depreciable lives, I can’t think of any tax differences between residential and commercial rental property. Same tax code sections which determine what is deductible cover both.) Are you going to tell Jerry Jones that he can’t deduct the mortgage interest on his new stadium and someone else is going to tell him how much rent he can charge the cowboys to play there? Nope, that one isn’t going to happen.[/quote]
Agree with you that state/local revenue would probably not change too much.
Good point about my not wanting to change the rules mid-game for primary residences, but not for investments. I should clarify that I differentiate between basic needs/primary residences and wants/investments. IMHO, a primary residence is a basic need; therefore, it should be treated differently than investment RE. While some would make the argument, that people don’t *need* to own, I actually favor responsible ownership of a primary residence for as many people as possible. It’s best for society (IMHO) when people can control their housing costs and control their own property. Ideally, everyone would have a paid-off house before retirement.
For this reason, I believe (primary) home ownership should be encouraged and given preference over RE investment. Prices would fall, ownership rates would rise, and owners’ equity would rise (IMHO).
Commercial RE is another issue entirely, but I would also encourage the ownership of a single commercial/industrial building per person or related entity by giving them Prop 13 protection and also allow the MID on a *single* property (there might be some size limitations). The property should be reassessed any time there is an ownership change. People should not be able to pass on their Prop 13 protection via corporations or LLCs, etc. (which simply increases prices on these properties — the seller gets the benefit, but the taxpayers have to subsidize it).
Additionally, multi-family dwellings (apartment buildings) could retain Prop 13 protection, but I’d like to see a way for tenants to somehow benefit from this as well — a shared benefit of sorts.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.