U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Mortgages
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-14-2008, 12:51 PM
 
Location: San Diego
32,798 posts, read 30,025,534 times
Reputation: 17682

Advertisements

I'll wager a larger % of tax payers are home owners than renters, that being total taxes given to the govt so I am fine with some incentive or tax relief. There are enough other taxes that penalize people for being successful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-14-2008, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Backwoods of Maine
6,940 posts, read 7,654,041 times
Reputation: 17837
Default "We're From the Government, and We're Here To Help"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf View Post
In other words, it will make the real estate market and housing prices rational again.
If it's rational and makes sense, the government won't bother with it.

Too busy putting $$$ into the pockets of the Wall Street banksters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2008, 12:55 PM
 
1,956 posts, read 4,676,386 times
Reputation: 1101
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
I'll wager a larger % of tax payers are home owners than renters, that being total taxes given to the govt so I am fine with some incentive or tax relief. There are enough other taxes that penalize people for being successful.
Those taxes should without a doubt be lowered or eliminated.

The only rational taxes in my mind a flat sales tax that does not discriminate according to product. That way, someone is taxed only on the basis of his consumption.

All other taxes and deductions are nothing more than government meddling at best, thievery at worst.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2008, 12:55 PM
 
4,182 posts, read 5,657,999 times
Reputation: 1719
The other benefit to repealing the subsidy is that it will enable the government to cut income taxes. Why? Because the subsidy (which is a loss to the government amounting to close to $100 billion annually) will now be eliminated, so the government doesn't have to offset that loss by imposing high income taxes.

The mortgage deduction is an entitlement no different from social security, medicare, medicaid, etc., but an entitlement given to the middle and upper class.

Last edited by ndfmnlf; 09-14-2008 at 01:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2008, 12:58 PM
f_m
 
2,289 posts, read 7,362,419 times
Reputation: 868
There are some places that allow tax deductions for renters.

Also, home owners pay a significant amount in property taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2008, 01:01 PM
 
1,956 posts, read 4,676,386 times
Reputation: 1101
Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m View Post

Also, home owners pay a significant amount in property taxes.
By that logic, though, I should get a federal tax deduction for the local excise taxes I pay on alcohol.

By the way, if we're going to offer a mortgage interest deduction, why not an interest deduction for credit cards, business loans, car loans. What is so special about houses as a product?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2008, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,043 posts, read 11,323,362 times
Reputation: 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf View Post
The deduction is a subsidy from the government given to homeowners. It is a form of government intervention into the real estate market. As such, it distorts the market by inflating the value of homes. The subsidy incentivizes people to buy homes, hence the demand for homes will increase, hence the price of homes will increase. Remove the subsidy, and the incentive to buy homes based on the subsidy disappears, and prices will go down. People will still be buying homes, but their decision will not be influenced by the fact that they will get a government subsidy. Their decision will be based on their actual need for the home and whether they have the income to afford it. In other words, it will make the real estate market and housing prices rational again.
This is another argument that favors the thesis that homes are by in large depreciating assets over the long run. The cost to repair, insure, and pay interest on the mortgage over time overruns the cost benefit of owning. Owning a home is meant solely for the purposes of hanging your hat. The pride of ownership is no more or less valuable than owning a car or boat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2008, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,043 posts, read 11,323,362 times
Reputation: 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
I'll wager a larger % of tax payers are home owners than renters, that being total taxes given to the govt so I am fine with some incentive or tax relief. There are enough other taxes that penalize people for being successful.
My investment advisor has about $50M in the bank and doesn't own a lick of real estate. Maybe he's an outlier, but he (like I) knew the housing market was doomed for the most part about 5 years ago. So, you're wrong. Some peole much more successful than yourself don't own.

I just sold my home and plan on sitting on the sidelines while the collapse goes on, but I can see why renters felt as though they were being treated unequally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2008, 01:15 PM
 
4,268 posts, read 13,710,483 times
Reputation: 3338
The interest tax deduction you are referring to is a cost to the government. It's not in the budget, per say, but it is costing the government money. Since I've never owned a home but want to because of the deduction I am going to side with the "nos". I've come too close for it to be taken away! From a goverment perspective, yes, it should be repealed, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2008, 01:31 PM
 
1,956 posts, read 4,676,386 times
Reputation: 1101
Quote:
Originally Posted by foma View Post
From a goverment perspective, yes, it should be repealed, however.
Which essentially means from a "taxpayer perspective"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Mortgages
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top