It's simple, taxes must either increase substantially or we must spend a lot less...

Groogy, he's actually right.

They're both poison pills, but entitlements are pretty much impossible to get rid of.

 

Link fail. Sorry.

 

What does that even matter? It can be phased out to soften the damage for the small percentage of people that actually can not get by without it.

 

If you were a potential home-buyer and the mortgage interest deduction was phased out, what would be the benefit of purchasing a home as opposed to renting an apt?

 

People that think the deduction should be eliminated, shouldn't claim it - correct?

Folks that are against various deductions and for higher taxes have the ability (without changing the tax code one bit), to forego claiming those deductions and voluntarily cough up more tax funds.

 

Well, there's a lot of math involved relating to the price vs. rent ratio in the particular area, but as it is now I would think building equity is still the main benefit.

There's plenty of evidence that show the MID has little effect on home ownership rates. The UK and Canada for instance have a higher home ownership rate and no personal MID. They also have a lot more equity in their homes than Americans.

The real question is why does the government need to be losing billions of dollars in an attempt to make home ownership more beneficial than renting?

 

So should every person who think taxes need to be raised donate an extra percentage of their income to the federal government?

 

If they truly feel that the government should raise taxes, I see no reason why they shouldn't voluntarily contribute more.

 

Equity.

 

I disagree. Rents are cheaper now. I'd be very surprised if the equity built through owning were substantially more than money saved through renting.

What kind of evidence?

I'm not familiar with UK/Canada tax laws. And unless you are, you shouldn't put too much weight in cherry picked data.

Owning a home circulates money into the economy, thereby boosting it. Renting does not.

 

Well, I guess that pretty much squelches any debate about ever balancing the budget. The only people who can complain without hypocrisy are either suckers or saints.

I don't see any problem with someone following the current rules and still lobbying for changes to those rules that are better for the whole. I'd say that person is being selfless by looking at the big picture, and supporting changes at their own expense. Yeah, what an awful hypocrite that guy would be.

 

You think the main benefit of owning a home is the mortgage interest deduction? Which only benefits you as you simultaneously throw away tons of money in interest payments and go into major debt?

So I can never use other experts research to make claims? I have to be an expert myself? There are tons of articles and studies about the case for repealing the MID.

Here's a starting point by a foundation that has researched tax policy for over 70 years: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1081.html. The Wikipedia article also has a lot of information.

Despite the political popularity of the tax deduction for home mortgage interest, economists are basically united in their opposition to it.

What's the economic case against it? Simple: by giving a tax subsidy to housing, it distorts investment decisions toward houses and away from assets like factories and equipment that are more productive at the margin. And that makes workers less productive, ultimately lowering wages and making society poorer.

So does defense spending. It create tons of jobs. May as well keep spending.

Point is there are better and more productive things to invest money in.

 

and tax raises = pretty much sure-fire defeat in your next election.

you can't even murmur that tax raises would be on the table without most people in this country freaking out.

 

At least they can be done, albeit at the cost of your own life.

Entitlement removal can't even get off the ground in the first place.

 

The benefit of owning a home lies in the property tax deduction + the mortgage interest deduction. I itemize my taxes every other year, and when I do, I deduct 2 year's worth of property taxes and 1 year's worth of mortgage interest.

Not only that, it opens the door to other tax deductions since those 3 deductions alone exceed the standard deduction. With prudent tax planning, you can save a lot of money.

That's fine if you want to use other people's research. But UK/Canada has a different set of rules than the US. It makes no sense to cherry pick a statistic that supports your argument while ignoring everything else.

That article is from 2005. A lot has changed since then.

Point is, owning a home benefits the economy. If the government wants to encourage home buying, it needs to give people an incentive to do so.

Right now, if you exclude the MID, it's cheaper to rent than own, even if you factor in equity.

 

this is quite possibly the dumbest reply i've ever read in the history of this bbs.

 

you can put yourself on ignore? i had no idea!

 

the cherry picked statistic is that home ownership is higher or about the same in Canada and the UK without the MID. So if the objective is to increase ownership -- possibly the MID is not a very effective one.

 

I suggest that anyone who wants to eliminate various deductions to make the claim(s) on their taxes and take the extra money they receive on their refund and distribute it to charitable origanizations.