Sign-up for Automatic Receipt of Articles
MUNKNEE ON : FACEBOOK | TWITTER
|

Mortgage Interest Deductibility: An Unfair Subsidy for the Rich

The National Association of Realtors claim that “any changes to the mortgage interest deduction (MID) would de-value homes…[and] trigger yet another crisis in home values.” Repealing the MID would mean attacking the “most sacred tax break in the code.” [In fact, however, our current] housing tax policies fueled the housing boom and exacerbated the bust. The MID played a particularly insidious role in the crisis by explicitly promoting over-investment in housing. “Buy as much house as you can,” real estate agents urged clients. “The more you buy, the bigger your tax break.” Words: 821

In further edited excerpts from the original article* Dennis J. Ventry Jr. (www.ssrn.com) goes on to say:

Mortgage Interest Deductibility Hurts American Competitiveness
More mortgage debt meant lower taxes, such that the deduction began effectively subsidizing gambles on fluctuations in housing prices. As such, the MID amounts to a huge subsidy that causes massive efficiency-draining distortions in the economy. The most sure-fire way to improve the competitiveness of the American economy is to repeal the mortgage interest deduction.

Mortgage Interest Deductibility Worthless for Low and Middle Income Households
The MID is as inequitable as it is inefficient. It is the quintessential “upside-down subsidy: the greater the need, the smaller the subsidy.” It provides 10 times the tax savings for households with income exceeding $250,000 compared to households earning between $40,000 and $75,000. It is effectively worthless for low- and middle-income households, such that repealing it would significantly increase the progressivity of the income tax.

Mortgage Interest Deductibility Favors Taxpayers With Income in Excess of $100,000
Recent research also indicates that the long-touted but unproven putative social benefits associated with
homeownership and the policies propping it up remain unsubstantiated. It has been reported that the benefits from the MID and the deduction for property taxes are distributed as follows:
a) 4% of taxpayers with income below $50,000
b) 22% of taxpayers with income over $50,000 – $100,000
c) 73% of taxpayers with income above $100,000.

Mortgage Interest Deductibility Is of Minimal Benefit to Majority of Americans
Such disproportionately skewed benefits belie claims of the housing industry that the MID “is an important factor promoting broad-based home ownership.” In fact the MID does not help:
a) 65% of taxpayers who take the standard deduction,
b) nearly 50% of all homeowners,
c) 22% of mortgaged homeowners,
d) low income households and only minimal benefits to
e) middle-income households,
f) renters or
g) the elderly who either are no longer servicing mortgages or who have too little income to receive any benefit.

Mortgage Interest Deductibility Has Almost NO Effect on Home Ownership Rate
Indeed, if promoting homeownership is the desideratum of U.S. housing policies, then the MID is a terribly inefficient and inequitable vehicle. Experts are unanimous in that the MID has “almost no effect on the homeownership rate.” Policies promoting homeownership “should seek to increase the number of homeowners,” and “should emphasize the purchase decision, not the quantity decision.” Any tax subsidy “should be only the minimum amount necessary to switch people from renting to ownership, and it should not be available for anyone who would buy a house anyway.”

Repealing the MID would not affect housing prices nearly as much as special interests, such as the National Association of Realtors, claim. Moreover, the downturn would be largely temporary and would be focused on big, expensive homes. If policymakers were concerned about preserving artificially inflated home values for sellers of large, overpriced homes, the repeal could be phased-in over several years.

The Mortgage Interest Deductibility Should Be Eliminated
Eliminating the MID would:
a) only minimally affect rates of homeownership, and, again, only temporarily,
b) accelerate the buildup of home equity,
c) increase the saving rate
d) help households absorb income shocks and, most importantly,
e) make homes less expensive.

A Homeowner Tax Credit Would be Preferable to Mortgage Interest Deductibility
Using the money saved from repeal ($108 billion in 2010) to fund a tax credit rather than a deduction would positively promote homeownership. Unlike the MID, a tax credit for homeowners could be independent of home value or size of debt, which would prevent excessive borrowing and precariously high loan-to-value ratios, precisely the problems that fueled the current housing and financial crises. In addition, a home credit could be capped and indexed to prevent households in high-priced areas from receiving disproportionately large subsidies.

A home tax credit would be a considerably more progressive policy than the MID and simplify the tax code reducing the number of itemizers, and partially rationalize the treatment of homeownership under a net income tax that currently fails to tax imputed rent. Most importantly, converting the MID to a tax credit would influence the decision of millions of ordinary Americans to own versus rent, thereby substantially increasing the rate of homeownership nationwide.

*www.ssrn.com/abstract=1498784

Editor’s Note:
- The above article consists of reformatted edited excerpts from the original for the sake of brevity, clarity and to ensure a fast and easy read. The author’s views and conclusions are unaltered.
- Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
- Sign up to receive every article posted via Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or our Weekly Newsletter.
- Submit a comment. Share your views on the subject with all our readers.
- Buy the book below from Amazon. It’s pertinent to this article and inexpensive too.

Related Posts:

Short URL: http://www.munknee.com/?p=2120

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of munKNEE.com or any other munKNEE.com authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Notices

Posted by on Mar 2 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under Real Estate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Register and Top 40 Gold Stocks

COMMENTS

To post a comment, you must login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with our site and post your comment.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Legal Notice


Comments Closed

Comments are closed

 

WHAT'S HOT

  1. von Greyerz: Expanding Central Bank Balance Sheets Guarantee Massively Higher Inflation & Gold/Silver Prices – Here’s Why
  2. American Grads: Here’s a Great Guide to Personal Finance
  3. David Nichols: Expect to See $2,750 – $3,000 Gold By June 2013 – Here’s Why
  4. The 5 Stages of Collapse: Where Are We Currently?
  5. Alf Field Sees Silver Reaching $158.34 Based on His $4,500 Gold Projection!
  6. The GOOD, the BAD, and the Downright UGLY Factors Affecting the USD!
  7. S&P 500 Should Continue Climbing Until October and Then Decline 15-30%! – Here’s Why
  8. U.S. House Prices Have MUCH Further To Fall! Here’s Why
  9. U.S. Can NOT Avoid Coming Economic Collapse – No Matter What! Here’s Why
  10. Leeb: Gold Going to $3,000 Before the End of 2012!
  11. Creating More Inflation is Now the Official Policy of the Fed
  12. Ground Level Insights Into the “China Condition”
  13. Bock and Rickards Agree: Governments Want Gold to Go Higher!
  14. Williams STILL Believes a Hyperinflationary Great Depression is Coming! Here’s Why
  15. Governments Will Want – Will NEED – Much Higher Gold Prices! Here’s Why
  16. These Major U.S. Companies On Verge Of Collapse
  17. It’s Time to Buy Gold/Silver, Hide It, and Wait For the Smoke to Clear! Here’s Why
  18. Silver Will Go to $50 and Then Explode Dramatically Higher! Here’s Why
  19. Alf Field: Correction in Gold is OVER and on Way to $4,500+!
  20. Why Did the Baltic Dry Index Collapse? Here’s Why
  1. mygoldmygold: Wow…that’s a nice prediction…I don’t think we can predict 100% accurately...
  2. taluis: A punitive Sales or Capital Gains Tax on the sale of gold in an economic collapse (or similar situation) is...
  3. steviebee: But….if gold is going to $10,000, why should I only have “7 to 15% in Precious Metals”...
  4. GoldRate: it will be interesting to see if this triangle breaks up or down. We’ve had big volatility this week....
  5. Blindfolded Monkey: I don’t have quite the same negative view of Paul Krugman but I agree that it is clear that...


DISCLOSURE: It is our intent that all posts on this site be in accordance with the requirements, restrictions and terms of the Copyright Law of the United States and all other copyright treaties to which the United States is party and more specifically of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Blogger . As such, all posts on this website have been screened at Library of Congress Catalog as to their eligibility for posting. Should any post be deemed to be inadvertently in contravention of these Acts' terms please advise with substantiation of such apparent contravention (i.e. registration number) and the article in question will be immediately deleted from the site. Also, visit U.S. Code 17-107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights - Fair Use
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of financial, economic and investment issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER: Lorimer Wilson and Johnny Punish are not registered advisors and do not give investment advice per se. The articles to be found on the site are expressions of opinion only and should not be construed in any manner whatsoever as recommendations to buy or sell a stock, option, future, bond, commodity or any other financial instrument at any time. Please consult with a qualified investment advisor who is licensed by appropriate regulatory agencies in your legal jurisdiction before making any investment decisions, and barring that, we encourage you confirm the facts on your own before making important investment commitments. The information on this site was obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy. None of the information, advertisements, website links, or any opinions expressed constitutes a solicitation of the purchase or sale of any securities or commodities. Please note that while Wilson and Punish may already have invested or may from time to time invest in securities that are recommended or otherwise covered on this website they do not intend to disclose the extent of any current holdings or future transactions with respect to any particular security and, as such, you should consider this before investing in any security based upon statements and information contained in any report, post, comment or recommendation you read on the site.