If you think the housing market is bad now, it will crater - mortgage deduction next on list

[Liberal_in_LA]

Heard on radio this morning. The mortgage deduction is on the list of considered items to reduce the deficit.

Many of us considered the mortgage deduction when deciding to become home owners.

[ohheckyeah]

1. It's like they are deliberately trying to

tank the housing industry and destroy the homeowners of the country. Isn't it bad enough that many people are upside down in their mortgages?

[xiamiam]

13. trying to? the mission is in full swing..wait until the next wave of foreclosures

those millions of people who have been in loan modification limbo with no help are about to have the trigger pulled

[flyarm]

24. it was all in the plans..what more proof do people need..to get slapped on the head and a wisper in

their ear??????????

[WinkyDink]

72. Now hear this: The PLAN is to have the US worker earn the same as a Third-Worlder. That way, the

jobs CAN stay here.

Capisce?

[pnwmom]

2. I know. I can't believe the timing on this suggestion. n/t

[pnwmom]

3. I know. I can't believe the timing on this suggestion. n/t

[Lil Missy]

4. Considered, by whom?

[Liberal_in_LA]

8. By Obama and congress I guess. It was stated as 1 of the next targets after the pay freeze was

announced this morning

[Pisces]

60. You guess??? Why post on something you don't know about. Your heard it on what radio show????

[treestar]

27. "heard on the radio"

that's it. That's all OP has.

[bullwinkle428]

37. Yes, that whole "Debt Commission" thing is just a figment

of the professional left's imagination!

[Lil Missy]

42. The OP didn't say it was being considered by the "Debt Commission"

Thus why I asked who it was being considered by.

[slackmaster]

5. Congress could place a cap on the deduction, so that only the wealthiest homeowners are affected

Let's say no more than $20,000 per year in deductible interest. That would have no effect at all on most people.

[WCGreen]

29. That is already addressed by the AMT....

And also the phase out of Itemized deductions for people making over $250k

[joshcryer]

97. Only logical option.

There are far too many people here complaining about it, even though most people get a $5 deduction or something retarded like that.

[Brother Buzz]

6. Nixing mortgage Interest deductions....

could prove to be the proverbial straw.

[sharp_stick]

7. I heard a guy on the radio this morning

ranting that Elvis is still alive and singing in clubs in Samoa.

[MedicalAdmin]

49. Shhhhhhhhhhhh.

If you keep talking about that I won't be able to get tickets anymore. I love his new jumpsuit.

[WestSeattle2]

9. Total elimination of the deduction won't happen. I can see the

elimination of deductions for second homes and for mortgages over a certain dollar amount - say $750k, but the vast majority of homeowners will continue to receive the mortgage interest deduction.

[MadHound]

10. I wouldn't be terribly confident about that

After all, SS was supposed to be the third rail of politics, yet here they are, going after it hammer and tongs. If they're willing to cut SS, they're willing to go after the mortgage deduction.

[CTyankee]

14. I doubt it. Too many people rely on that deduction for the rationale of home ownership.

Kicking that prop from underneath them would be a death blow to the real estate market.

they might reduce what wealthy people can get with their mortgage deduction, which is fine with me....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. I hope you are right about this, CTyankee.

how do you define "wealthy people" ?

[CTyankee]

34. I guess you could "pick a number" so to speak and work the math backwards

in terms of helping cure the deficit. Where would you get the most bang for the buck and where would there be a significant enhancement of revenue w/o damaging middle class home ownership...those are questions that would have to be answered...

Interesting question. I'd love to see some real numbers...

[kestrel91316]

45. What makes you think the banksters won't arrange for a total end to the home

mortgage interest deduction, watch the market collapse, then they and all the wealthy 2%ers will snap up all the now-worthless properties? And then amidst much wailing and whining, in a year or two the deduction will return and the banksters and 2%ers will sell those same properties right back, for massive profits.

They are gonna short the housing market.

[MedicalAdmin]

51. +1 - of course it's a land grab.

The wealthy are already snatching up lots of homes that the banks have conveniently bundles for them in lots of 100 houses each so that the average person can't even begin to bid on them.

It also keeps average folks from keeping their neighbor in the homes by stacking the auctions with pissed off folks with baseball bats to intimidate any rich assholes from bidding (like they did during the depression). Nope - it's huge lots of homes bundled at auctions these days. Can't let the peasants have a home.

[TBF]

75. Yup. nt

[WestSeattle2]

105. Real estate sales excise taxes generate billions in revenue for

the states. They do not want to see any further reduction in housing sales. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would be catastrophic for the real estate industry - and the states. I'm sure they will reduce the deduction at some point, but total elimination? Not in my lifetime, and I'm 50.

[treestar]

28. Yes, I'm amazed there is one for second homes!

And that the left would even consider being against what you describe!

[Gaedel]

101. Lots of relatively small boats

Are built with an icebox, one burner stove, and marine toilet so that the boat loan can qualify as a "second home" loan for tax purposes.

[treestar]

106. That's insane.

[Gaedel]

107. Mebbeso, but it is the case nt

[notesdev]

11. It needs to go

It's a subsidy from renters to owners... the government should not be a vehicle for one person to accumulate property at the expense of another. And it's one of the big reasons this bubble was able to go as far as it did.

[lise]

30. boy oh boy

do I ever agree with you.

I've been both an "owner" and a renter and this mortgage deduction has *always* bugged me.

Where's the deduction for your monthly rent bill?

And, as you say, it's just another thing the gov. does to push the price of housing up.

-as evidenced here by all the people who admit they took it into consideration on whether to "buy" or not.

It is just plain wrong on so many levels.

Get rid of this turd ....PLEASE.

[Lance_Boyle]

48. The renter's 'deduction' is the extra rent s/he doesn't get charged

that s/he would get charged if the owner didn't get the deduction. You don't think property owners would just eat that "tax increase" without spreading the pain, do you?

[NashVegas]

76. This Is Why I Love My 80 YO Landlady & Hope She Sticks Around

I don't think I'd ever rent from someone under the age of, say, 65, or someone who doesn't outright own the property I'm in.

[joshcryer]

92. Who does it benefit?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/who_does_the_mortgage-interest.html



You might be arguing for it because you have some rental property or something, but the fact is, you're just a pawn in a game where the richest people get the most.

[lise]

104. actually,

The home I "owned" when I didn't take the mortgage deduction had a rental apartment attached.

The price of the home was 1) low enough, and 2) I had a large downpayment saved over years and years and 3) the rent i charged was waaayy below market.

I wanted to make the whole deal so attractive to whoever chose to live there that they would stay as looong as possible, thus cutting down on headaches for me as a landlord.

So , the whole thing is do-able without the interest deduction. But we need low prices and high downpayments to make it work.

Coincidentally, high downpayments also lead to less interest paid to the Bank and a quicker road to actually *owning* the home, instead of just renting it from the Bank.

This is what the Housing Market needs to go back to.

We haven't been there since the 80's. So we've got a ways to go.

It will be painful for those who over- bought during the Bubble, but Much Better for society as a whole to just get away from this sickening "Housing as Investment" mentality of the past couple decades.

Homes are for Living In and building Communities and Neighborhoods.

And, as an added bonus, lower home prices leads to lower rents and an easing of our disgusting Homelessness problem, which, not coincidentally, has sky-rocketed along with the Housing Bubble of the past couple decades.

[MedicalAdmin]

64. It occurs to me that Canada does not have a mortgage deduction

And they also don't have our housing bubble or our associated mortgage problems.

Are these related issues?

[WolverineDG]

52. Yay! Then more property can be owned by the banks!

Damn the middle class! Those leeches have taken too much from society as it is!!


dg

[slackmaster]

73. The mortgage interest deduction doesn't hurt renters, and it may help them

Mortgage interest is a cost to the landlord. Landlords pass their expenses on to renters. The deduction allows landlords to charge less for rent.

[joshcryer]

91. Or profit more.

Since capitalism uses circular reasoning for price triggers, there's no real reason for a landlord to charge less rent when the going rate on the market is higher.

[slackmaster]

108. It depends on local market conditions. If there is a surplus of rentals available, prices go down.

If there is a shortage of rentals, landlords can charge more; but they are still in competition with other landlords.

[Scruffy1]

102. The mortgage deduction goes primarily to the rich

The amount saved by the typical middle class homeowner is largely a figment of real estate sales peoples imagination. When you consider that the current standard deduction is $11,400.00. you only get a deduction on the amount above this after you put in state taxes and medical deductions you a typical 1000.00 a month in interest
might leave you with a savings of $1000.00 bucks or so. Now if you are rich and buy a million dollar house and pay
$60,000.00 in interest it is a sure thing that all of it will be deductible. In my state this works out to a 43% saving or over $25,000.00. I knew one old rich coot who spent six million on a house just for this reason.

Personally I think the mortgage deduction just helps to jack up home prices and has little social benefit. Go ahead and ask anyone how much they paid in taxes last year. Not one on a hundred will know. Remember the infamous poll
that most Americans believed their taxes went up last year? Now ask them how much they saved with the mortgage exemption. They won't have a clue and neither does any poster on DU. Maybe its just functions as a subsidy to banksters and home builders in the long run. What we really need is housing that everyone can afford to live in in dignity, not tax sheltered McMansions.

[bhcodem]

12. I will just pay off the loan early

I have been paying extra toward the principal and have less than $10,000 to go. If I can't deduct the interest, I will just stop having to pay interest.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. How nice for you. n/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

17. lol. I'm a relatively new homeowner. losing the deduction would be a huge loss

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. hell..I just purchased. First payment is due Jan. 1...

this will suck for me. lol

[Liberal_in_LA]

21. You'll love that deduction. Mine 1st year's deduction increase my take home by more than $500 month

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. sigh...yeah ...it is the first year that will be the killer. I have budgeted for that

but if this kicks in, I will be screwn.

[Xenotime]

55. Right?

Rub it in while others are suffering.

[lise]

31. YES!

See , that's the other reason they've got it there in the first place.

Who makes $$ if you don't pay off your loan? Bankers!

This deduction makes NO SENSE for the people that it *claims* to "help".

When you put off paying the loan in FULL and burning the mortgage, you get screwed and the bankers get rich.

This is actually a sound populist idea to get rid of this POS and encourage people to OWN the homes they live in (by paying the mortgage off) instead of "renting them from the Bank".

[cemaphonic]

90. The interest on $10000 is way under the standard deduction anyway.

Unless you have way more in itemized deductions than most people do, you're probably using the standard deduction.

[Ilsa]

19. I don't know how this affects the poorest, but most lower middle class and

Middle middle class folks that I know haven't used mortgage interest deduction in years. The standard deduction provides a better or lower tax liability.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. It will have an effect on middle class people in high cost/high income areas.

IOW, people who are relatively lower middle class for their geography itemize because while they may be making more and paying more for mortgages than people who would be considered middle class in other parts of the country, the standard deduction is not regionally adjusted so their interest payments often do make it more advantageous to use the mortgage interest deduction as part of itemized deductions.

[Dr.Phool]

23. I stopped itemizing last year. Standard deduction was more.

It was the only deduction I had left, since you can deduct property taxes without itemizing now.

[ohheckyeah]

25. This middle middle class

person has used the mortgage deduction for a long time. It would hurt a lot to lose it at a time when we are already struggling.

[lise]

33. the poorer you are

the less it helps you.

In fact, at some point, you can't even use it at all.

It's mainly for the rich and those who buy expensive homes.

I bought a cheap home and could not use this. I would have recieved no gain at all from this deduction.

Again, it's a very bad idea and the housing market and US people will be much better off without it.

Getting rid of it will help the market to go down to where Americans can actually comfortably AFFORD the homes they buy. Instead of stretching beyond belief just to put a roof over your head.

That said, I'm sorry for those who bought homes depending on this POS , but this RE Bubble must be killed dead or we will never, ever get out of the mess we are in.

[Dappleganger]

26. More people will walk away.

[lynne]

32. Won't happen so no use talking about it -

- for just the reason you mention. It will further tank the already sickly housing market and take the home construction industry and all suppliers with it. Really silly to even consider such in this economic environment.

Not to mention its a death sentence for any politician pushing this. Should it pass, Obama should just hand over the White House key to Boehner and get it over with.

[Bragi]

36. Won't happen because it would be good public policy

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9651596&mesg_id=9655412

[lynne]

70. Sorry, don't agree. Think it's horrid public policy that harms low to middle class persons -

- as it removes incentive and possibly even the ability for them - particularly low income - to purchase a home, especially if they were budgeting that tax savings into their annual income. The deduction is equal for high vs. low income persons as it is the total amount of interest so it is proportionate to their individual means and no one segment of society is favored. The subsequent loss of tax revenue from loss of home sales, loss of construction businesses, loss of tax revenue at state level for real estate and sales tax for construction items would offset any increases in taxes received due to removal of the deduction. Not to mention that we will have further job losses and additional individuals filing for unemployment as the home construction industry completely dries up.

Removing the deduction harms low and middle-class individuals the most and would be an additional economic disaster added to the mess that we currently are enduring. It would also guarantee a republican sweep in 2012. Your view is very short-sighted.

[Bragi]

87. I agree it won't happen due to politics

But that's about all I agree with in your statement.

You say removing the deduction would reduce the ability of low-income people to own a home.

I ask, so what? What matters isn't if people own or rent homes, what matters is that they have affordable quality housing. Whether they own or rent is quite secondarty.

You wrote: The deduction is equal for high vs. low income persons as it is the total amount of interest so it is proportionate to their individual means and no one segment of society is favored.

That's completely incorrect. I offer this explanation:

Figure out the tax savings through mortgage interest deductability for someone with an expensive house with a $750,000 mortgage who pays the top marginal income tax rate of 35 per cent?

Now figure out the tax benefit for someone of lower income with a mortgage of, say, $150,000 who pays taxes at, say, the bottom 10 per cent rate?

Now figure out the tax savings for someone of low income who rents? I believe the tax savings is zero. (In fact, any tax deduction for mortgage payments on their rented accommodation would go to the landlord, if they have a mortgage. And the larger the mortgage, the bigger their tax break.)

How fair is that? It's pretty obvious who benefits the most from this tax deduction. It's those with the highest incomes and the largest mortgage debt.

Not a smart system, but it's just one of the many things that make no sense that can't be addressed because of politics.

[MedicalAdmin]

65. Which is exactly what is / will happen.

Are we ready for Bush/Palin 2012. Whether we want it or not, here it (or something similar) comes.

Welcome to the aristocracy / dynasty.

[Bragi]

35. Would it not likely be phased in?

It's hard to imagine that the deduction would be eliminated all at once. More likely it would be reduced over a number of years until it disappears.

This would actually be good public policy for two reasons:

1. the deduction itself is regressive in that it benefits higher and highest income groups more than those with lower income (and who are more likely to be renters, or hold smaller mortages) and

2. The U.S government needs more tax revenue, so eliminating this regressive deduction would be useful.

Because this would be good public policy, I do not expect it to happen.

[Ginto]

44. It also encourages home ownership which is a good thing.

Even if this climate, property is good to have and owning property is a way for most families to build wealth.

[Bragi]

54. I'm skeptical about the social benefits of home ownership

From a society-wide standpoint, what matters is that people have good affordable housing. It doesn't matter a lot if they own or rent.

As for it being the way most families build wealth, I agree that this has been the case in the past.

This wealth-building depends, however, on ever-increasing home prices. Eventually, a bubble occurs, and this wealth-builder, like all Ponzi schemes, collapses. This is what is occurring now.

I think a wiser and more progressive course than trying to put in place measures to bring back ever-escalating house prices would be to think about housing as shelter, and think about wealth-building (or better still, financial security) as something separate.

This would be both smart and progressive, which is why it won't happen.

[Ginto]

56. I think of it as a savings account.

I put money into my house and at a later date I can cash it in. I may get no more than what I've put in, but at least it forces me to have some sort of asset.

[Bragi]

61. You could do the same with any investment

If you rented and invested the money that you would have used to pay down principle, and earned the historical average rate of return, then you'd still build wealth.

What has made housing a particularly attractive investment for the past 3 or 4 decades is that a) this investment is subsidized through tax deductability, and b) housing has become an intergenerational Ponzi scheme.

[Ginto]

62. Different when you're forced to do it.

You get the benefit of living there while paying into it. In some ways it is similar to social security.

I do believe housing should be more like in Europe where the house is handed down over many generations. That is how you build wealth for your family. Once one generation has paid off the house, the next can use their income for other investments including other property.

[MedicalAdmin]

67. And yet that doesn't happen here in the US.

Largely because taxes are so regressive and stacked in favor of the congress and other rich people that the average Joe and Jane just don't have the capital reserves to survive financially the bills associated with succession. Thus, many family assets are sold off to pay for the process, which the rich don't have to do because for them, those costs can be found under the cushions in the living room couch.

[Ginto]

69. It's not that hard.

You just give your kids the house and they live in it. Unfortunately, the US culture is based on kids buying their own homes and most would never think about living in their parents home. In fact, many in the US will accept nothing less than a new home or insist on having one built.

So you are against the estate tax? Not sure what you are trying to say.

[Bragi]

79. Sorry, it's nothing like social security

Whether you rent or own, you have to pay for your accommodation. It isn't as though, if you own, all your monthly payment goes to building equity and you're getting your house for free. The interest you pay on your mortgage, which is usually the lion's share of the monthly payments, does not increase your equity, or your savings.

Also, the number of life-long renters is much greater in Europe than in the U.S. Europeans don't share the notion that home ownership is of any particular importance. What mostly used to matter to them is having affordable, quality housing.

I it used used to matter because, in some European countries, American-style home ownership zealotry became the rage in the alst 20 years or so, which caused more people to buy rather than rent, which fueled housing price bubbles, the collapse of which is now causing the instability in their financial system .

[Ginto]

80. Desire to buy homes didn't cause the bubble.

Loose underwriting is the culprit there. I am of the belief that having a home with a backyard to play and hang out with family is a good thing and should be encouraged. As nice as some of my apartments have been, I would not want to raise a family in any of them. Also, the house is good for the dogs.

[Bragi]

81. I understand you prefer houses to apartments

What I have raised in debate here, I would suggest, isn't the merits of apartments versus houses, it is the social and economic merits of ownership versus renting.

As for loose underwriting, that was indeed an issue. The real problem, however, came when the investment houses "securitised" and sold bundles of these high-risk loans as though they were good loans.

Once housing prices started to fall even a bit, the arse fell out of the whole scheme, and we tumbled into the current situation, where many people have lost all their housing equity, and are, in essence, just renting their homes from whoever holds their mortgage. Or they've been foreclosed completely and don't own anything.

[WolverineDG]

38. But that is acceptable here on DU

there are many here who feel that those of us who depend on that deduction are nothing more than super-wealthy, elite leeches on society & that doing away with this deduction is a good thing.

dg

[Earth_First]

39. +1

...and there are more than just a FEW who believe this.

[JBoy]

40. Canada doesn't allow home mortgage interest to be deducted

- one of the significant differences with the US.

Canadians have more incentive to pay off their mortgage, because their payments are with after-tax dollars, and as a result they are less leveraged in their homes. Canadians have 70% equity in their homes on average (30% mortgage), while Americans have 45% equity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deduction#Canada)

It would likely be pretty disruptive to completely remove the deduction, but a move in that direction might be one of the less painful ways to raise revenue.

[tjwash]

41. Only if your mortgage is over 500000 dollars.

If you have a mortgage under 500000 dollars, you will still get the deduction.

How many middle class people are sitting on million dollar properties? Sounds good on the rush/hannity AM radio torches and pitchforks shows though. Get hordes of uninformed idiots frothing at the mouth about how the "big-gubmit is coming after ma-money" while they are wayyyyyy below the cut off line for anything, while trying to preserve tax shelters and loopholes for the ultra wealthy.

It's actually not a bad idea...it would take a big wet bite out of those fucking mcmansions that ultra wealthy people buy up, let sit, and use as a tax shelters while they become eyesores and environmental blights.

[kestrel91316]

46. Even in this shithole of a RE market in SoCal, $500k STILL won't get you

much more than a 1-BR crackerbox condo.

[uncle ray]

43. but, but, but, that's FAIR!

a question for those who would lose their homes if the mortgage deduction went away: how were you going to afford your payments once you paid down enough that you'd be paying more principle than interest and no longer reaping the benefits of the deduction?

if phased out over 5 to 10 years, the impact should be minimal.

[Ginto]

47. I think we should raise taxes on apartment rents to tackle the deficit.

Generally, it's not a matter of not being able to afford the house without the deduction. Generally it's about putting money in savings or repairing the roof. Maybe putting something away for the kids college.

[Bragi]

57. Is that a joke?

Am I missing the sarcasm in your comment, or would you really support increased taxes for families who rent their accommodation and who generally earn less than those who own?

[Ginto]

59. Why shouldn't we raise taxes on rent in upscale neighborhoods?

Yes, it was a joke. Makes as much sense as eliminating the mortgage deduction.

[WolverineDG]

50. It's only "fair" to those who don't own property & are jealous of those who do

meanwhile, I use the deduction to afford improvements on my house, which adds to its value in addition to buying the materials & employing the people who do the work (which directly benefits the local economy).

dg

[Bragi]

58. No, it would more fair overall

It would be smarter and more equitable from an economic and social standpoint.

This being the case, you can relax, it won't happen.

[WolverineDG]

71. No it would mean more people would end up only being renters

while the banks & super-wealthy would own all the real estate. *THAT* is not equitable at all.

dg

[Bragi]

83. Not so

I live in Canada. We don't have deductable mortgage interest payments, but we have a home ownership rate almost identical to that of the U.S.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

[uncle ray]

85. they are not after all of the real estate, they are after all of the money.

they already own the all of the real estate they want to own. they use it to take your money. and then the real estate, again.

[WolverineDG]

88. which is what they will have when everyone has to rent & can't afford to own a home

Hope you're happy when that happens, but I doubt you will be.

dg

[uncle ray]

89. tricking people into buying is more lucrative than dealing with renters.

[uncle ray]

84. really? the "you're all just jealous" argument?

nobody is jealous of someone who depends on a tax deduction to be able to afford to impress their friends, family and neighbors. i AM jealous of those who own their homes, whether modest or lavish, free and clear. and that is what i strive for myself.

good for you, doing your part to prop up the construction sector. you're also propping up Wall Street and paying for it with federal tax dollars. i say FUCK wall street, pay off a modest mortgage and give your hard earned money directly to your local businesses and do it without the federal gov't subsidizing the whole process while someone far away gets very rich off the whole process.

[Mimosa]

53. Could any Democrat actually support this attack on the middle class?

Liberal_in_LA, most people of average means do in fact consider the mortgage deduction when deciding to become home owners. It has been a basic tent pole of middle class stability since the late 1940s, early 1950s.

To do away with it will make home ownership less available to the lower middle class. This people will become poorer, more vulnerable like renters in some giant ghetto.

[taught_me_patience]

63. The mortgage interest deduction is regressive

But it gets tremendous support from DUers.

:shrug:

[MedicalAdmin]

68. It is a regressive tax, but it is helpful at tax time to many.

Assuming they are solidly in the middle class. For the poor it is a useless deduction because they don't make enough or own enough house to make it worth while to use.

And for the rich it is money in the bank (or offshore account / etc.)

[Bragi]

74. Agreed, however...

Yes, it's a useful thing for the middle class at tax time, but long term it's also one of the underlying factors that has fueled the housing price bubble, and the consequent collapse of the housing market, to the serious detriment of the middle class.

However, I understand that the easy political choice is to not fiddle with this deduction, so no phase-out of this deduction will happen.

[joshcryer]

94. No, it's really not.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/who_does_the_mortgage-interest.html

[Bragi]

86. This doesn't surprise me greatly

Few people actually understand the economics of housing, or understand their own mortgages, or understand how increased housing equity actually happens.

The superior merit of home ownership is part of the American dream. It's really hard for many people to see it for what it really is -- just one way of paying for your accommodation.

It's also hard for people to understand that the decades and decades of steady housing price increases was not inevitable, nor is it a state we are likely to see again in the future.

[joshcryer]

93. It's just loud DUers who have rental property.

Who would support this except for those who have rental property?

[uppityperson]

66. I've never made enough to take this deduction, standard deduction gives me more

I didn't consider this when I became a home owner. Others may have but speaking for me, I didn't.

[hayu_lol]

78. Along with the helpful(to most)mortgage deduction...

we should pick up the long-gone credit card interest deduction that we used to have. Might be a lever to reduce interest rates.

[Pisces]

77. Just heard on the tv. that this will never be touched. Tv trumps radio.

[mainer]

82. Everyone's always for higher taxes for the other guy

but when it affects them, they screech "unfair!"

If you're screaming for more progressive taxes, isn't this what you're talking about?

[joshcryer]

95. I think people are just ignorant that the regressive tax benefits the rich more.

Because they can check the little box on their tax forms it makes them feel special, but the reality is that deductions are intrinsically right wing.

[JuniperLea]

96. It's all part of the plan...

They took all the money, they want all the real property as well.

[Romulox]

98. It doesn't make sense for the government to promote real estate prices which don't match wages

The mortgage deduction doesn't ultimately help working people--every penny that they "save" they give back again in inflated real estate prices.

[joshcryer]

99. Is the Mortgage-Interest Deduction Really A Middle-Class Tax Break?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/79206/the-mortgage-interest-deduction-really-middle-class-tax-break

[joshcryer]

100. Who does the mortgage-interest deduction benefit?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/who_does_the_mortgage-interest.html

[OlympicBrian]

103. Well, the news today is "It's Confirmed, The Housing Double Dip Is Here"

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-case-shiller-september-2010-11