|
it ought to be common. I was reading some stuff earlier today on the internets that pointed out something like 60 percent (maybe it was even more) of the mortgage interest deduction is taken by those earning more than $100,000. Which income puts people somewhere above the average or the median in this country.
If you can't itemize, you can't take the mortgage interest deduction. In the early years of a typical mortgage, that interest may actually make it possible to itemize. My accountant has told me that in my particular situation, I'll only be able to take the deduction for about five years. On a thirty year mortgage.
Personally, I think the very hardest part of being a first-time buyer is coming up with a down payment. Although in recent years that's been less and less necessary.
Whether rent is higher or mortgage payments are higher depends on a lot of things, not the least of which buyers are often persuaded to buy a larger and more expensive home precisely because of that deduction.
It's somewhat like buying a car, in that spreading the car loan payments over five years (and I'm old enough to remember when car loans suddenly went from three years to five years and I'm still horrified) makes the cost of owning a car seem quite reasonable. Unless you get yourself into a deal where you owe more than the car is worth. When I buy a car I buy second hand and I buy a lot less car than I can theoretically afford. Same with my house. When I was first considering buying (and I live in Santa Fe which is supposedly too expensive for anyone but a millionaire) one financial person tried to persuade me to go for an interest-only loan. I could have bought a house twice as expensive as the one I got, had I fallen for that trap. Nope. I put 20% down, and have a highly affordable (for me) house payment. To be fair and honest here, I had the money for the down payment because of sale of a previous home in a divorce. Nonetheless, I opted for a small place within my means.
I do have sympathy for those out there who can't seem to get ahead. It's VERY hard, and the less you have the tougher it is. Some years back I heard some NPR reporter who'd done a series on some very poor people saying that the only thing wrong with them was that they didn't have money. So when the crappy car broke down, there was no money to fix it. A trivial accident or illness meant not working, no money coming in, and of course no money to pay for medicine or treatment. It's a truly vicious cycle. Once you get even a little ahead, with reasonable planning and no unforeseen financial disasters (illness, accident, loss of job) it's not that hard to stay ahead. It's why we absolutely should have good safety nets: universal health care, good and long-lasting when needed unemployment benefits, genuine retraining programs for people whose jobs are going away. Stuff like that. Not endless tax cuts for the rich.
|