patrick.net

vain says

Let's axe ALL deductions.

I agree. And ax the tax credits as well.

The trouble with axing tax credits is there are many that give to organizations because of that.

Non profits usually pick up with services that the government does not offer and that the private industry will not serve. If they get cut further it might dump the services.

mdovell says

The trouble with axing tax credits is there are many that give to organizations because of that.

I've thought about this quite a bit and I know this will sound cold, but there's no reason that our govt should be bribing people to make charitable donations. That should be done out of sincere charity, not a tax loop game. I see this as yet another way to use our tax code to socially engineer the masses, and to make ourselves feel more generous as a nation than we really are. Just like home ownership should merit the decision to buy rather than a bribe, so too should the merits of a particular charity be enough for one to donate. Also, since not all charities are equal, this allows people to funnel their money through some less-than-honorable charitable accounts for self-serving purposes. That ends up costing us tax revenue as a whole, which those who don't get the deductions end up paying for. Further, on this point, why should my tax dollars indirectly go to a church or mosque that I disagree with? Why should someone get a tax break for donating to the Westboro Baptist Church?

In principle, charitable donations should not be made tax-deductible.

I disagree. New buyers would get a lower price on a house if there were no MID. So California income tax payers who buy a new house would win by paying a lower price. There would simply be less debt out there to push up prices.

But yes, for current California owners, they would no longer get that deduction, yet would not benefit from the lower price like new buyers would. So they would lose -- except of course they could save even more by upgrading to a bigger house at the new, lower prices. The savings on their new house might be larger than the loss on their current house.

the MID doesn't factor in when qualifying for a mortgage. so I doubt removing it would effect housing prices that much.

toothfairy says

the MID doesn't factor in when qualifying for a mortgage. so I doubt removing it would effect housing prices that much.

Its impact is indirectly modeled in the risk factors. Removing the MID would cause more defaults, which would in turn increase the lending standards or DTI ratios. Not that this is a bad thing, but it will make a difference.

SJ says

I hope this happens as it will quickly drive down home prices back to reality!

I hope so. I would also expect them to grandfather in anyone who already has a mortgage though.

huh? why would that be? because they've been given this benefit and they're not entitled to it?

I hope so. I would also expect them to grandfather in anyone who already has a mortgage though.

zzyzzx says

I would also expect them to grandfather in anyone who already has a mortgage though.

That actually doesn't make a lot of sense and just creates more distortions and preferences in the tax code.

What is more likely is a phaseout of sorts. This was done in reverse for the itemized deduction phaseout that we used to have.

ih8alameda2 says

huh? why would that be? because they've been given this benefit and they're not entitled to it?

Well, because most people calculate their TAX deduction for their home when deciding how much home they can afford. Especially in the $400K-600K range for earners in the $100-200K income range.

Scrapping that deduction would mean these people... (not rich by any stretch.. just middle class in big cities). Will be told they won't get $5K-10K in cash come tax time that they probably planned for...

How do you think that will effect the economy? Huge crash in home prices another 20% atleast, more unemployment, more foreclosures... all around a guarantee of a deep, deep depression unlike anytime in history....

One that we might not recover from in our lifetimes.

Los Angeles Renter says

ih8alameda2 says

huh? why would that be? because they've been given this benefit and they're not entitled to it?

Well, because most people calculate their TAX deduction for their home when deciding how much home they can afford. Especially in the $400K-600K range for earners in the $100-200K income range.

Scrapping that deduction would mean these people... (not rich by any stretch.. just middle class in big cities). Will be told they won't get $5K-10K in cash come tax time that they probably planned for...

How do you think that will effect the economy? Huge crash in home prices another 20% atleast, more unemployment, more foreclosures... all around a guarantee of a deep, deep depression unlike anytime in history....

One that we might not recover from in our lifetimes.

So end of the world if the mortgage interest deduction is eliminated?

Michael D says

So end of the world if the mortgage interest deduction is eliminated?

That's what NAr want us to believe, yes.

If the MID ended tomorrow, lots of homeowners would be fucked. While I don't feel sorry for them since it's DUMB to base your finances on an unjustifiable bribe, I am pretty sure they would be grandfathered in. If not, maybe they actually can make ends meet; get rid of that fucking benz or don't go on vacation.

LA renter is wrong though. The MID vastly helps the UPPER class, that's where the "lost" revenue is disproportionally going.

klarek says

DUMB to base your finances on an unjustifiable bribe,

or the value of a simple home.

C Boy says

I don't know how it is in the BA but no landlords I know get paid in cash. I don't. My tenants pay with checks or electronic deposit. I don't have the balls to run all those transactions through a bank account then not declare them. I certainly don't have time to run around and cash the checks at the tenants banks. Even if I did that my companies name would still be on the checks and recorded at the bank. Maybe the landlords you know have more chutzpah than I do. Have you actually ever actually run a business yourself? If you did then you should know how the day to day nuts and bolts of business operations work.

A colleague at work rents to family for cash.

I paid my landlord in cash every month for six years. To pay him by bank transfer would have incurred bank transfer fees every month; why waste $2 a month when I can go downstairs and hand him the money?

Tangential question (and off topic, MID-wise): let's say you own your first home and need a bigger one (you have kids, say), so you rent something while renting out your home to someone else. If the person renting your home deposits money directly to your new landlord, does that count as taxable income for you in your state?

What if you buy a second home with a mortgage and have the renter of your first home make the mortgage payments on your second one?

How about if you paid the utilities for the person renting your home (so the bills are still in your name)? Do you still "live" at your first home in that case?

klarek says

Also, since not all charities are equal, this allows people to funnel their money through some less-than-honorable charitable accounts for self-serving purposes. That ends up costing us tax revenue as a whole, which those who don't get the deductions end up paying for. Further, on this point, why should my tax dollars indirectly go to a church or mosque that I disagree with? Why should someone get a tax break for donating to the Westboro Baptist Church?

In principle, charitable donations should not be made tax-deductible.

I understand your argument. But..

I'm in Mass. After the state government the 2nd largest provider of social services is the Catholic church. When the priest scandals happened around 8 or so years ago it caused settlements and ultimately diocese started to close/merge. Schools closed causing students to go to public which elevated classroom sizes which meant more teachers would have to be hired. Less homeless shelters, less food banks etc.

Before government was large (post FDR) services were mostly religious based. Since various non profits try to fill the gap when they hurt it can add to higher demand on social services which can equate with higher taxes.

There are different levels of non profits. A YMCA in a urban area probably serves more people than some historical society preserving rare plants in vermont. Heck I've heard the NFL is non profit (all the money is made by the teams).

mdovell says

Before government was large (post FDR) services were mostly religious based. Since various non profits try to fill the gap when they hurt it can add to higher demand on social services which can equate with higher taxes.

That's a very poor argument. The amount that the government effectively pays to charitable organizations by having non-profit deductions could be better spent by the government in providing those services.

Most true charities (as opposed to nominal non-profits) are quite inefficient, and in many cases very little of the money coming in goes towards helping people. The government could instead directly provide this money for those causes and eliminate a middle man.

As for other nominal non-profits (e.g. universities and other things that aren't true charities), they should have to balance their budgets on their own accord, since they are largely run as businesses and have endowments.

Michinaga says

I paid my landlord in cash every month for six years. To pay him by bank transfer would have incurred bank transfer fees every month; why waste $2 a month when I can go downstairs and hand him the money?

Great for you, but very few people live on the same property as the landlord. You need a different bank if they are charging for bill pay. So if your landlord moves to Lake Tahoe your plan is what?

Michinaga says

Tangential question (and off topic, MID-wise): let's say you own your first home and need a bigger one (you have kids, say), so you rent something while renting out your home to someone else. If the person renting your home deposits money directly to your new landlord, does that count as taxable income for you in your state?

What if you buy a second home with a mortgage and have the renter of your first home make the mortgage payments on your second one?

How about if you paid the utilities for the person renting your home (so the bills are still in your name)? Do you still "live" at your first home in that case?

These are all questions between you, your lawyer, your accountant, and the IRS. Since these are all things that are deceptive, at least on the face of it, then what the IRS decides your intent was will determine what happens if you are caught. If the IRS decides a transaction exists only to avoid taxes they will come down hard. Sometimes very hard if you really piss them off, like criminal charges hard.

Los Angeles Renter says

Well, because most people calculate their TAX deduction for their home when deciding how much home they can afford. Especially in the $400K-600K range for earners in the $100-200K income range.

Scrapping that deduction would mean these people... (not rich by any stretch.. just middle class in big cities). Will be told they won't get $5K-10K in cash come tax time that they probably planned for...

1) Your argument is that people can't adjust their allowances on their W-4 properly to compensate? That is a very weak argument. If people are regularly (i.e. year after year) getting $5-10K in tax refunds, they should learn how to fill out the W-4 properly. I wouldn't trust them to have calculated the tax benefits of home ownership correctly if they can't get their W-4 right, so this undercuts your argument.

2) Why must a tax preference be permanent? Any tax deduction or credit can change over time. That argument is not sympathetic and can be accounted for by a phaseout.

3) The range you gave isn't always accurate. If you make $100K as married filing jointly, we are probably talking about the 25% bracket (unless you have huge items that put your AGI below 70K or so bumping you into 15%). If you make $200K, then you are talking about the 28% bracket.

If you live in Texas (no state income tax), then your net benefit (which is an interest rate deduction, effectively) is only $2250 at $100K with a $400K house (assuming the loan is interest only!) because 11K of that would be covered by a standard deduction anyway, and similarly it would be $5320 for $200K/$600K.

If you live in California (9.55% marginal bracket), then it might be in the range you're saying, since you might be paying a larger amount in state taxes, although the range would be $7,510-$11,265 for federal and state taxes, again assuming an interest only loan.

However, if the loan is not interest only and instead amortizing (as most loans do), then the amount of the benefit decreases over time. Someone who is 15 years in isn't getting the benefit you're suggesting since they aren't paying as much interest as you're saying.

For what klarek said: let's say $800K house and 33% bracket and in California, which would give more than $17K on an interest only basis. Removing the deduction would disproportionately affect higher income people, which is probably a good thing, since they may own more expensive houses.

The middle class in big cities is sort of a red herring. The median income in the city of San Francisco is still around $70K. If you make $200K, you are still exceedingly well off.

Texans are allowed to deduct the State sales tax paid for the year from their Federal taxes(whether or not you own or rent). You may either use a standard amount or if you bought a large ticket item (car) actual amount paid.

I think the mortgage deduction will stay because

1. It lets banks write bigger loans for higher origination fees and servicing charges to consumers who base maximum home purchase price on what it does to their cash flow.

2. The National Association of Realtors members can sell more homes (to buyers with an emotional attachment to the tax deduction they don't get as renters) and more expensive homes with bigger expensive commissions with the deduction in place. As of 2005 their PAC was the largest in the country and #3 donor to political campaigns.

Being nice to current mortgagees and bad for future buyers is just a side effect of funneling money which would be paid as taxes into the banking and real-estate industries and getting agents' a bigger share of the housing buy.

C Boy says

Texans are allowed to deduct the State sales tax paid for the year from their Federal taxes(whether or not you own or rent). You may either use a standard amount or if you bought a large ticket item (car) actual amount paid.

Sure, but that's not nearly as much unless you're a big consumer. If you're one of the people who buys a new car frequently enough that this makes a difference, then you can probably afford losing the deduction too. Even if you made $4000/month in consumer spending (which implies you earn quite a bit, since that would exclude rent and utilities, various services, and any number of other things that aren't subject to sales tax), with the highest possible sales tax of 8.25%, that only totals around $4000/year in sales tax to deduct. And Texas excludes groceries and medicine from sales tax, has sales tax holidays for clothes items under $100, and cars are taxed at 6.25% only (no local/county). It doesn't boost things into the stated range unless you are very well off.

drew_eckhardt says

Being nice to current mortgagees and bad for future buyers is just a side effect of funneling money which would be paid as taxes into the banking and real-estate industries and getting agents' a bigger share of the housing buy.

Yes, it's a handout largely to banksters and realtors. For everyone else, housing prices just rise to compensate. They have better lobbyists than us other folk.