This editorial calls for the elimination of the charitable giving deduction. He says that the mortgage deduction is firmly in place, given the current housing market. I disagree. It would be a great time to yank that absurd deduction – even when I owned a house, I thought it was absurd that since I was wealthy enough to own my house, I got my living expenses subsidized by the poors who lived in the apartments down the street.
While we’re discussing widening the tax base, perhaps it is time to end the deduction for cult-meeting houses, child-rape institutions, and shrines to ignorance and superstition churches.
By Email
By RSS Feed
Amen.
Tax breaks encourage people to obey God, buy a house, get married, and have children. Now, why could that possibly be?
I do know that when I was in my 20s, all my radical friends suddenly stopped being radical when they had to earn a steady income to pay off a mortgage and support a family. Hmmmm.
The mortgage deduction need not be all or nothing. Subsidizing a million dollar mortgage is not the same as a 100K mortgage.
Realistically, how do you propose ending the mortgage deduction?
Me? I’d phase it out by first limiting how much can be deducted, and lowering that amount over 3 years or so until it was gone altogether.
I just think its really difficult to take away something people have already budgeted into what is, for most, there biggest bill/expense. Maybe phasing down to a cap, like you suggested in your other comment.
The way I’ve heard it proposed is that people buying houses now would be screwed and everyone who already owns a home would be grandfathered in. That’s incredibly unfair and would cause real problems in the housing market.
I agree with you that the deduction is more expensive than its worth, just not sure about a palatable and fair way to phase it out.
Yeah, grandfathering sounds good until you look at how it actually works.
In Flori-duh, they passed a law that you couldn’t increase property taxes on a homeowner more than some pathetically small amount. Given that there was then a shortfall, they had to jack them for new homeowners. That created a perverse incentive whereby people who needed to downsize felt pressure not to, since the taxes on a new small home would be more than in their McMansion.
Marc, as much as I agree with you on this one, there is a greater chance of you being named Solicitor General than the mortgage interest deduction being touched. That’s here to stay. If I had $100,000, I’d bet it all on that. No ifs, ands or buts.
Marc, I have to disagree with you about the home mortgage deduction. I believe that the Government should be fostering home buying with some incentive. People who own their own homes are far more likely to feel a sense of belonging and responsibility to their communities and country. Home ownership, by and large, is a good thing. There should be a cap on the amount of mortgage interest paid that you can deduct on your taxes. The vast majority of the population should be eligible for such a deduction of up to, say, $2,000 or $2,500 a year. The preserves the incentive to have people become citizens with a sense of something at stake in their communities.
As for all of the tax deductions and exemptions for those hiding under the guise of being a church, a religious leader or some such? I have long railed that these deductions be eliminated entirely. I view organized religion as being as much as a fraud as a criminal enterprise. These fuckers should not be given a pass.
“People who own their own homes are far more likely to feel a sense of belonging and responsibility to their communities and country. Home ownership, by and large, is a good thing.”
I used to think that until I lived in the South.
But, I’d be okay with a $2000 per year cap.
we need way MORE tax deductions, not less! Until “our” government stops spending MY money on prosecuting bullshit crimes, waging war for profit, bailing out millionaire bankers, etc, etc, etc, I’ll keep as much money as I possibly can from those freakin’ thiefs, thank you very much.
Fair enough position — but then get rid of the mortgage deduction and lower the overall rate for everyone. Don’t just provide a subsidy to the mortgage lending industry.
Deal. I’m with ya on everyone getting the deduction, but it’ll never happen. Plus, don’t renters really already get some of the benefit in the terms of reduced rent? I know its sort of like “trickle down economics” (something I don’t necessarily subscribe to), but I think it actually works relatively well in this case. Most, if not all, of the houses/apts I’ve ever rented were owned by individuals (ie, not huge conglomerates) who barely made any money on the rent, and would probably have never bought the house as a rental property except for the deductions they could take. The competitive market then determines that they take this deduction into account when setting the rents. Essentially, many landlords make almost no money on rent, but do it to take advantage of the deductions, which in turn benefits the renters. Just a thought