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.
local market conditions ultimately determine prices .
That's entirely true. Although taxes themselves are of course a local market condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
until rates and or taxes increase things drastically they just play a tiny role .
That's not entirely true, and it's not actually relevant to the price change effects of something so drastic as eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction from a market that already includes it on a national scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
even 6-7% mortgages saw housing prices boom
You make it sound as though mortgage rates at 6-7% would be high.
That's entirely true. Although taxes themselves are of course a local market condition.
That's not entirely true, and it's not actually relevant to the price change effects of something so drastic as eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction from a market that already includes it on a national scale.
You make it sound as though mortgage rates at 6-7% would be high.
mortgage rates at 6-7% are the historical average and are not that high , that is my point . but carrying costs on that rate would be far higher than todays rates with the loss of a deduction .
those that want to own will own regardless of the deduction . almost 1/3 to 1/2 the resales are all cash deals anyway . even with the deduction almost 1/2 of all homeowners can't itemize as well .. so in the end i will say the loss of the deductions will have little effect on values as long as rates are fairly low . it is no worse off than any other point in time with higher rates .
By the same token hard work isn't always cheating.
Of course not. Is this the best you could come up with? Why not just concede that hard work and cheating are two of the paths that various people have traveled down in the process of becoming wealthy. It should pretty much be obvious, after all.
You make it sound as though mortgage rates at 6-7% would be high.
So an increase in mortgage rates from 4% to 7% wouldn't be a high rate but would it be "significant"? That's a $30k per year cost increase on a $1 million mortgage and you said a $9k per year cost increase would significantly reduce the pool of potential buyers for your home.
Nobody said that the proposal would have no effect on real estate prices or the real estate market. The only exception being taken is with your characterizing the effect as being significant.
I don't know if the deductions would deter future home buyers but the rise of interest rates will.
history says not . until rates get very high home prices and mortgage rates have had little correlation . local markets were the factor not rates . up until 6-7% or so home prices boomed .
if rates were a big factor we would not have had the real estate bubble at 7% mortgages . in fact in the bubble here in ny in the late 1980's i was happy to get an 8% mortgage .
there are endless studies out there that show there is little effect from rising rates on home prices until they pass 6 to 7% . rising mortgage rates do not happen in a vacuum , they happen because the economy is doing well and humming along .
as long as you have low rate mortgage like now the loss of the deduction would make things not much different compared to carrying costs with higher rate mortgages .
anyone that marginal likely can't afford to buy because over time that mortgage interest deduction will eventually get less and less anyway as it is paid down and if taxes are that big of a deal that 2x that standard deduction can't make it a do than you can't afford that house in my opinion .
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-19-2017 at 08:03 AM..
Because of the AMT, I can’t deduct state and local taxes, and haven’t been able to do so for the last two decades.
I paid the AMT for 20 years as well. Form 6250 was a pain to have to fill out, but the equity in assuring that fat cats make some minimum contribution to things should be plain enough. It was certainly the case throughout those years that paying the AMT add-on had no effect on my lifestyle at all. I was rolling in it, with or without the AMT. The point might be moot anyway, as elimination of the AMT is part of both the House and Senate tax reform proposals. The best hope now is that they won't be able to agree on a conference committee compromise version.
So an increase in mortgage rates from 4% to 7% wouldn't be a high rate but would it be "significant"? That's a $30k per year cost increase on a $1 million mortgage and you said a $9k per year cost increase would significantly reduce the pool of potential buyers for your home.
Nobody said that the proposal would have no effect on real estate prices or the real estate market. The only exception being taken is with your characterizing the effect as being significant.
6-7% was no problem in 2006-2007 when home demand and prices were soaring .
mortgage rates at 6-7% are the historical average and are not that high , that is my point . but carrying costs on that rate would be far higher than todays rates with the loss of a deduction .
What percent of active mortgages were written at "today's rates?" Why would the concept of average historical mortgage rates be of any relevance at all? What matters here is the current price change that would be dropped into the buyer-seller niches of a national real estate market between sellers who bought at a price that reflected the deduction and buyers who would not have the deduction available to them.
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.