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.
The middle class encompasses all age brackets and middle class is the backbone of America.
I'm retired and don't have a mortgage but I think throwing this deduction on the table is a direct assault on the middle class.
Cancel that $6 billion to Indonesia for green energy and have the EPA ask for their $1.5 million grant back.
Cancel the $2+ billion we give to Egypt to keep their army up to par.
That's $8 billion right there and let the middle class keep their mortgage deduction. And I've only mentioned those 3 monetary items. There's billions in grants that the USG can cancel as well.
Why is the government bleeding their taxpayers dry and nation building everywhere else ? Why ?
So people think it's ok that we lend money we don't have to Indonesia. Someone, a leftie of course said it was an investment to make a profit but had nothing to back up their claim. It's just like the profit we got from Obama's green energy right?
Once again, I'll iterate the mortgage interest tax deduction is not going to vanish. The NAR lobby funded by 1 million Realtors ( whether they like it or not) will make certain it remains intact for the middle class.
Hate the lobbyists unless they work for your benefit ?
The mortgage deduction is antiquated in the context of the modern economy. It was originally established during when the US population and economy was less peripatetic; when jobs tended to be more long-term, and rural. Consequently, people tended to live in the same area for long-periods of time. The economy that encourages this is gradually subsiding to one based on a more mobile workforce.
The mortgage is an example of bad social engineering. Encouraging people to buy homes makes it more difficult for them to relocated if and when their local economy tanks. We see this now: Many people are stuck living in areas with a lousy economy because they're chained to a mortgage. Consequently, they can't move to an area with a better economy.
And this is to say nothing of the substantial public cost associated with home ownership. People who own tend to drive more, requiring more infrastructure (roads, police, etc), and are less healthy (more driving=less walking).
I find it ironic that so many who complain about entitlements and subsidies seem opposed to eliminating the mortgage deduction even though it results in significant public expense. The government should not subsidize home ownership and more than it should subsidize tobacco, oil, or any other facet of the economy.
I don't oppose eliminating the mortgage deduction. I think it's a good idea. So many people are convinced it is good and take it into account when they buy a house. Others say why pay off the mortgage when I can deduct the interest. They forget they pay more money than they get back. Does it make sense to pay $10 to get $2 back. It's the backwards thinking we have in the Obama administration today.
I don't know who said it, but I basically agree with what was mentioned earlier in the thread. Eliminating the mortgage deduction is not in and of itself a bad thing; it's just not a good idea right now, when you have a middle class that is struggling to keep a job.
And please, I'm sick to death of having every economic discussion turn into a 'what's fair and what's not' discussion - both irritate me that way to be honest. Economics isn't about 'fair or not fair', it's about what makes economic sense for all and what doesn't. Smart people know that middle class consumers, not uber rich 'job creators', fuel economic growth. The rich don't hire people just because they have more gold in their Swiss bank accounts and they don't fire them just because someone threatens to tax them an extra two or four percent; they hire people based on the demand for labor. If you stick the middle class with a tax hike when they can afford it, and if they can see it coming, that's one thing; if you stick them with a tax bill in the hundreds or even thousands you're going to make people think long and hard about buying homes and those who have homes won't have much left over at the end of the month to pay the mortgage. That's not good for the middle class, and it's not even good for Bank of America and its investors either. So why hold the entire economy hostage just to prove some ridiculous point that has been categorically rejected by voters already?!
The GOP can spin this however they like, but threatening middle class voters with an increase in taxes just so investors can keep their ridiculously low capital gains is not a winner. If they think they got their political @sses handed to them in the last election, just wait til the next one. The Congress will look like the California legislature does right now.
that is an excellent question, one EVERYBODY should be asking!
are we all supposed to pay more so we can have more nation building? more foreign aid? more wars? more lost pallets of money?
how has that worked out for us so far?
also, with less people owning property who is going to be paying for the schools and the teacher salaries? doesn't anyone in washington ever think ahead?
on a side note, i don't have a mortgage either but have plenty of empathy for the struggling middle class which is now going to be pulled through the wringer.
Rental property is taxed at higher rates than owner-occupied homes in most states, so no problem.
Homeowners will enjoy even greater subsidizes than they do now, paid for by renters and their landlords.
Keep the deduction and let renters claim one too.
Anything that keeps money out of the hands of the psychopaths in washington and in the hands of those who earn it is to be encouraged.
What is more, deductions could be used to grease a compromise in the budget negotiations. High earners would be hit most by deduction limits, something that might make Republicans recoil. But the party may tolerate such a policy in return for a deal that limits how much actual tax rates go up for high-income households.
Taken on its own, the deduction limit wouldn’t make a huge difference. But it can play an important role in a broad plan to cut the deficit, and shows a willingness to tackle once sacred cows. The tax numbers suggest it may not be hard to structure deduction limits in a way that leaves most middle-income households untouched.
I don't oppose eliminating the mortgage deduction. I think it's a good idea. So many people are convinced it is good and take it into account when they buy a house. Others say why pay off the mortgage when I can deduct the interest. They forget they pay more money than they get back. Does it make sense to pay $10 to get $2 back. It's the backwards thinking we have in the Obama administration today.
So because some dont understand the deduction,they and those who do,should have to offer up more of their money to the state as punishment?
Interesting logic.
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.
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.
