The Committee to Reinflate The Bubble

[SanDiegoDave]

I rarely agree with National Review. But when they’re right they deserve to credited.

An article called “The Committee to Reinflate The Bubble” nails it. There is lobbying to recreate/extend the same policies that brought us the bubble.

A big issue is what to do about the MID (mortgage interest deduction). Obama wants to make it a class envy thing (cut it off for those earning >$250). Homeowners want to keep it (for obvious reasons). And the Fed’s want to kill it entirely for revenue reasons.

A suggestion: Get rid of MID, but allow people to take depreciation over time, just as businesses are allowed to do with their capital assets. This takes the notion of an “investment” out of home buying and defines it as it is: a capital asset. It may go up. It may go down. But it should not viewed as a tax-free investment vehicle like it used to (which brought us the bubble).

[mike92104]

I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.

[mike92104]

I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.

[mike92104]

I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.

[mike92104]

I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.

[mike92104]

I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.

[CA renter]

[quote=mike92104]I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.[/quote]

Absolutely.

Same with Prop 13 protection, which I ardently defend for primary residences. I have no problem with full-time, primary residents being protected by Prop 13, but do have a problem with subsidizing landlords.

IMHO, one of the reasons we have so many rentals in California is Prop 13. Being a LL in California is very lucrative because LLs are collecting the spread between their very low cost basis (due to Prop 13 and low prices in the 70s and 80s) and market rents. Since they collect market-based rents, they should pay market-based taxes.

Eliminating Prop 13 protection for rentals, second homes, investments, and commercial buildings (when they change hands, eliminating the loophole created by LLCs and other holding vehicles) would go a long way toward fixing our budget problems, too.

Housing is a basic necessity, and we should not encourage “investing” which drives up costs for people who simply need to buy shelter for themselves and their families.

[CA renter]

[quote=mike92104]I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.[/quote]

Absolutely.

Same with Prop 13 protection, which I ardently defend for primary residences. I have no problem with full-time, primary residents being protected by Prop 13, but do have a problem with subsidizing landlords.

IMHO, one of the reasons we have so many rentals in California is Prop 13. Being a LL in California is very lucrative because LLs are collecting the spread between their very low cost basis (due to Prop 13 and low prices in the 70s and 80s) and market rents. Since they collect market-based rents, they should pay market-based taxes.

Eliminating Prop 13 protection for rentals, second homes, investments, and commercial buildings (when they change hands, eliminating the loophole created by LLCs and other holding vehicles) would go a long way toward fixing our budget problems, too.

Housing is a basic necessity, and we should not encourage “investing” which drives up costs for people who simply need to buy shelter for themselves and their families.

[CA renter]

[quote=mike92104]I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.[/quote]

Absolutely.

Same with Prop 13 protection, which I ardently defend for primary residences. I have no problem with full-time, primary residents being protected by Prop 13, but do have a problem with subsidizing landlords.

IMHO, one of the reasons we have so many rentals in California is Prop 13. Being a LL in California is very lucrative because LLs are collecting the spread between their very low cost basis (due to Prop 13 and low prices in the 70s and 80s) and market rents. Since they collect market-based rents, they should pay market-based taxes.

Eliminating Prop 13 protection for rentals, second homes, investments, and commercial buildings (when they change hands, eliminating the loophole created by LLCs and other holding vehicles) would go a long way toward fixing our budget problems, too.

Housing is a basic necessity, and we should not encourage “investing” which drives up costs for people who simply need to buy shelter for themselves and their families.

[CA renter]

[quote=mike92104]I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.[/quote]

Absolutely.

Same with Prop 13 protection, which I ardently defend for primary residences. I have no problem with full-time, primary residents being protected by Prop 13, but do have a problem with subsidizing landlords.

IMHO, one of the reasons we have so many rentals in California is Prop 13. Being a LL in California is very lucrative because LLs are collecting the spread between their very low cost basis (due to Prop 13 and low prices in the 70s and 80s) and market rents. Since they collect market-based rents, they should pay market-based taxes.

Eliminating Prop 13 protection for rentals, second homes, investments, and commercial buildings (when they change hands, eliminating the loophole created by LLCs and other holding vehicles) would go a long way toward fixing our budget problems, too.

Housing is a basic necessity, and we should not encourage “investing” which drives up costs for people who simply need to buy shelter for themselves and their families.

[CA renter]

[quote=mike92104]I’d prefer to eliminate the interest deduction on second homes.[/quote]

Absolutely.

Same with Prop 13 protection, which I ardently defend for primary residences. I have no problem with full-time, primary residents being protected by Prop 13, but do have a problem with subsidizing landlords.

IMHO, one of the reasons we have so many rentals in California is Prop 13. Being a LL in California is very lucrative because LLs are collecting the spread between their very low cost basis (due to Prop 13 and low prices in the 70s and 80s) and market rents. Since they collect market-based rents, they should pay market-based taxes.

Eliminating Prop 13 protection for rentals, second homes, investments, and commercial buildings (when they change hands, eliminating the loophole created by LLCs and other holding vehicles) would go a long way toward fixing our budget problems, too.

Housing is a basic necessity, and we should not encourage “investing” which drives up costs for people who simply need to buy shelter for themselves and their families.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter]
Housing is a basic necessity, and we should not encourage “investing” which drives up costs for people who simply need to buy shelter for themselves and their families.[/quote]

Youd do alot more to allievate pricing pressure on this class of housing by reducing the number of houses you can buy with subsidized loans. Currently it is 10. It was reduced to 4, but that went away rather fast. If LL’s had to pay market rates on the money they borrow, and the people you speak of get a GSE loan, it would be a much more obvious, immediate, and fair way of getting the lower middle class to own housing.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter]
Housing is a basic necessity, and we should not encourage “investing” which drives up costs for people who simply need to buy shelter for themselves and their families.[/quote]

Youd do alot more to allievate pricing pressure on this class of housing by reducing the number of houses you can buy with subsidized loans. Currently it is 10. It was reduced to 4, but that went away rather fast. If LL’s had to pay market rates on the money they borrow, and the people you speak of get a GSE loan, it would be a much more obvious, immediate, and fair way of getting the lower middle class to own housing.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter]
Housing is a basic necessity, and we should not encourage “investing” which drives up costs for people who simply need to buy shelter for themselves and their families.[/quote]

Youd do alot more to allievate pricing pressure on this class of housing by reducing the number of houses you can buy with subsidized loans. Currently it is 10. It was reduced to 4, but that went away rather fast. If LL’s had to pay market rates on the money they borrow, and the people you speak of get a GSE loan, it would be a much more obvious, immediate, and fair way of getting the lower middle class to own housing.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter]
Housing is a basic necessity, and we should not encourage “investing” which drives up costs for people who simply need to buy shelter for themselves and their families.[/quote]

Youd do alot more to allievate pricing pressure on this class of housing by reducing the number of houses you can buy with subsidized loans. Currently it is 10. It was reduced to 4, but that went away rather fast. If LL’s had to pay market rates on the money they borrow, and the people you speak of get a GSE loan, it would be a much more obvious, immediate, and fair way of getting the lower middle class to own housing.

[Author]

Posts