The case for ending housing finance subsidies

[SK in CV]

[quote=walterwhite]what’s the case for increasing the subsidy?[/quote]

Sounds good to me. Easiest way is to increase marginal rates on top tier income. Value of the deduction (and the subsidy for the interest) goes up. 1st step done!

[outtamojo]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?

[outtamojo]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?

[outtamojo]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?

[outtamojo]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?

[outtamojo]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?

[an]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?[/quote]
Better yet, you can create rental contracts for rent below market value. Then you can write off the “losses”. In essence, you’ll have something similar to MID.

[an]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?[/quote]
Better yet, you can create rental contracts for rent below market value. Then you can write off the “losses”. In essence, you’ll have something similar to MID.

[an]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?[/quote]
Better yet, you can create rental contracts for rent below market value. Then you can write off the “losses”. In essence, you’ll have something similar to MID.

[an]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?[/quote]
Better yet, you can create rental contracts for rent below market value. Then you can write off the “losses”. In essence, you’ll have something similar to MID.

[an]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billion

Here’s why:

1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.

2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.[/quote]

Excellent idea that #1. My MIL lives next door with same floor plan- we could swap houses. Better yet, why bother doing that and just write up a rental contract while staying in the same house- who’s to know eh?[/quote]
Better yet, you can create rental contracts for rent below market value. Then you can write off the “losses”. In essence, you’ll have something similar to MID.

[all]

[quote=SK in CV]
Interest income has been taxable for almost 100 years. (income tax started in 1913.) Interest paid was also deductible since the beginning of income tax in the US. But 100 years ago, almost no one other than farmers had mortgages on homes. There were no credit cards or HELOCS or car loans. It wasn’t until the mid-30’s that the number home mortgages exceeded farm mortgages.

But that doesn’t negate the fact that the mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy (or in the current lingo, a tax expenditure.) As is the deduction for church contributions, retirement plan contributions, and medical insurance. The tax code continues to evolve, In the last 100 years it’s undergone 2 major overhauls (in 1954 and again in 1986), with top tax rates ranging from the 7% at the beginning, to a high of 94% during WWII. The argument that once a deduction is codified, then any elimination of that deduction becomes a “confiscation” is absurd, unless you consider the first dollar of income tax paid as confiscation. If that’s the case, the largest confiscation of all time ocurred during the mid-80’s. It’s not a term I ever remember hearing either before or after tax reform passed under Ronald Reagan.
[/quote]

I am under impression that you saw my remark as political, while it was a mechanical one. I don’t think the decision to start taxing something that was not taxed before should be framed as ending a giveaway (and interest, unlike retirement plan, is not a post-1913 concept). If you are going to take more of my money go ahead, but please don’t make it sound like you are simply stopping a generous gift you used to give me (not you in particular, of course 🙂 ). That’s all.

[quote=SK in CV]
…unless you consider the first dollar of income tax paid as confiscation. If that’s the case, the largest confiscation of all time ocurred during the mid-80’s. It’s not a term I ever remember hearing either before or after tax reform passed under Ronald Reagan. [/quote]

True, confiscation assumes no compensation and in this case I’m being compensated through services. However, I do not want some of those services and if the government can call the money not yet taken ‘tax expenditure’ I can call the process of collection under a threat of seizure and imprisonment ‘confiscation’. At least I did not say expropriation.

I was not here during Reagan’s years. I was a teenager with things more important than the U.S. tax code on my mind. I’m sure RR like any other president was a smart person and had many qualities but I heard nothing good about him.

On topic, ending mortgage rate subsidy and $500K exemption for sale of primary residence sound like good ideas to me, but I expect every solution to come with a loophole designed by those who participate in and influence the decision making process.

[all]

[quote=SK in CV]
Interest income has been taxable for almost 100 years. (income tax started in 1913.) Interest paid was also deductible since the beginning of income tax in the US. But 100 years ago, almost no one other than farmers had mortgages on homes. There were no credit cards or HELOCS or car loans. It wasn’t until the mid-30’s that the number home mortgages exceeded farm mortgages.

But that doesn’t negate the fact that the mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy (or in the current lingo, a tax expenditure.) As is the deduction for church contributions, retirement plan contributions, and medical insurance. The tax code continues to evolve, In the last 100 years it’s undergone 2 major overhauls (in 1954 and again in 1986), with top tax rates ranging from the 7% at the beginning, to a high of 94% during WWII. The argument that once a deduction is codified, then any elimination of that deduction becomes a “confiscation” is absurd, unless you consider the first dollar of income tax paid as confiscation. If that’s the case, the largest confiscation of all time ocurred during the mid-80’s. It’s not a term I ever remember hearing either before or after tax reform passed under Ronald Reagan.
[/quote]

I am under impression that you saw my remark as political, while it was a mechanical one. I don’t think the decision to start taxing something that was not taxed before should be framed as ending a giveaway (and interest, unlike retirement plan, is not a post-1913 concept). If you are going to take more of my money go ahead, but please don’t make it sound like you are simply stopping a generous gift you used to give me (not you in particular, of course 🙂 ). That’s all.

[quote=SK in CV]
…unless you consider the first dollar of income tax paid as confiscation. If that’s the case, the largest confiscation of all time ocurred during the mid-80’s. It’s not a term I ever remember hearing either before or after tax reform passed under Ronald Reagan. [/quote]

True, confiscation assumes no compensation and in this case I’m being compensated through services. However, I do not want some of those services and if the government can call the money not yet taken ‘tax expenditure’ I can call the process of collection under a threat of seizure and imprisonment ‘confiscation’. At least I did not say expropriation.

I was not here during Reagan’s years. I was a teenager with things more important than the U.S. tax code on my mind. I’m sure RR like any other president was a smart person and had many qualities but I heard nothing good about him.

On topic, ending mortgage rate subsidy and $500K exemption for sale of primary residence sound like good ideas to me, but I expect every solution to come with a loophole designed by those who participate in and influence the decision making process.

[all]

[quote=SK in CV]
Interest income has been taxable for almost 100 years. (income tax started in 1913.) Interest paid was also deductible since the beginning of income tax in the US. But 100 years ago, almost no one other than farmers had mortgages on homes. There were no credit cards or HELOCS or car loans. It wasn’t until the mid-30’s that the number home mortgages exceeded farm mortgages.

But that doesn’t negate the fact that the mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy (or in the current lingo, a tax expenditure.) As is the deduction for church contributions, retirement plan contributions, and medical insurance. The tax code continues to evolve, In the last 100 years it’s undergone 2 major overhauls (in 1954 and again in 1986), with top tax rates ranging from the 7% at the beginning, to a high of 94% during WWII. The argument that once a deduction is codified, then any elimination of that deduction becomes a “confiscation” is absurd, unless you consider the first dollar of income tax paid as confiscation. If that’s the case, the largest confiscation of all time ocurred during the mid-80’s. It’s not a term I ever remember hearing either before or after tax reform passed under Ronald Reagan.
[/quote]

I am under impression that you saw my remark as political, while it was a mechanical one. I don’t think the decision to start taxing something that was not taxed before should be framed as ending a giveaway (and interest, unlike retirement plan, is not a post-1913 concept). If you are going to take more of my money go ahead, but please don’t make it sound like you are simply stopping a generous gift you used to give me (not you in particular, of course 🙂 ). That’s all.

[quote=SK in CV]
…unless you consider the first dollar of income tax paid as confiscation. If that’s the case, the largest confiscation of all time ocurred during the mid-80’s. It’s not a term I ever remember hearing either before or after tax reform passed under Ronald Reagan. [/quote]

True, confiscation assumes no compensation and in this case I’m being compensated through services. However, I do not want some of those services and if the government can call the money not yet taken ‘tax expenditure’ I can call the process of collection under a threat of seizure and imprisonment ‘confiscation’. At least I did not say expropriation.

I was not here during Reagan’s years. I was a teenager with things more important than the U.S. tax code on my mind. I’m sure RR like any other president was a smart person and had many qualities but I heard nothing good about him.

On topic, ending mortgage rate subsidy and $500K exemption for sale of primary residence sound like good ideas to me, but I expect every solution to come with a loophole designed by those who participate in and influence the decision making process.

[all]

[quote=SK in CV]
Interest income has been taxable for almost 100 years. (income tax started in 1913.) Interest paid was also deductible since the beginning of income tax in the US. But 100 years ago, almost no one other than farmers had mortgages on homes. There were no credit cards or HELOCS or car loans. It wasn’t until the mid-30’s that the number home mortgages exceeded farm mortgages.

But that doesn’t negate the fact that the mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy (or in the current lingo, a tax expenditure.) As is the deduction for church contributions, retirement plan contributions, and medical insurance. The tax code continues to evolve, In the last 100 years it’s undergone 2 major overhauls (in 1954 and again in 1986), with top tax rates ranging from the 7% at the beginning, to a high of 94% during WWII. The argument that once a deduction is codified, then any elimination of that deduction becomes a “confiscation” is absurd, unless you consider the first dollar of income tax paid as confiscation. If that’s the case, the largest confiscation of all time ocurred during the mid-80’s. It’s not a term I ever remember hearing either before or after tax reform passed under Ronald Reagan.
[/quote]

I am under impression that you saw my remark as political, while it was a mechanical one. I don’t think the decision to start taxing something that was not taxed before should be framed as ending a giveaway (and interest, unlike retirement plan, is not a post-1913 concept). If you are going to take more of my money go ahead, but please don’t make it sound like you are simply stopping a generous gift you used to give me (not you in particular, of course 🙂 ). That’s all.

[quote=SK in CV]
…unless you consider the first dollar of income tax paid as confiscation. If that’s the case, the largest confiscation of all time ocurred during the mid-80’s. It’s not a term I ever remember hearing either before or after tax reform passed under Ronald Reagan. [/quote]

True, confiscation assumes no compensation and in this case I’m being compensated through services. However, I do not want some of those services and if the government can call the money not yet taken ‘tax expenditure’ I can call the process of collection under a threat of seizure and imprisonment ‘confiscation’. At least I did not say expropriation.

I was not here during Reagan’s years. I was a teenager with things more important than the U.S. tax code on my mind. I’m sure RR like any other president was a smart person and had many qualities but I heard nothing good about him.

On topic, ending mortgage rate subsidy and $500K exemption for sale of primary residence sound like good ideas to me, but I expect every solution to come with a loophole designed by those who participate in and influence the decision making process.

[Author]

Posts