Tuesday, October 24, 2017

I'm gonna be in hot water for this one!


Front and center in the news these days is tax reform.  Republicans go so far as to call it a "middle class tax cut", even though the facts suggest otherwise, that the middle class will get a very small slice of the tax cut pie.  But now some details are emerging that are bound to be controversial, and one in particular finally addresses something I've thought long and hard about.

Whenever someone says "home mortgage interest deduction" most people usually quickly nod off, except those few who actually receive that tax write off, and they sit bolt-upright.  Here are some numbers to illustrate where we are:  Roughly 65% of Americans own their homes, meaning they don't rent.  Of those, roughly 60 don't get a tax write off for the interest they pay on their mortgage because they either have no mortgage (their home is paid for) or they owe so little on their mortgage they're better off just taking the "standard" personal tax deduction.  

If you do the math you'll find that 61% of Americans are subsidizing the other 39% to own their homes.  I find this mildly amusing because these 39% are often the same ones who protest the loudest about the subsidies/write offs government gives to large corporations for various reasons, referring to it scathingly as "corporate welfare".  Umm...so subsidies "for me" are good, but not "for them"?  *snicker*

The traditional justification used for a mortgage interest deduction is that it promotes home ownership, which in turn promotes more civic activism and more informed citizens.  They supposedly go to the polls and vote more often and are more involved in local issues, schools, etc.  Unfortunately that argument just doesn't hold water.  There is ample evidence that shows it is the level of education and income that leads to more civic involvement, not necessarily home ownership.  (Home ownership among younger, well educated, affluent adults is slowing dramatically as they are marrying and starting families later in life.)

Of the four countries shown here that compare demographically favorably with the US, we are the only one who still allows mortgage interest deductions.  With or without special tax advantages, home ownership for all four hovers around the same 65-68%.

"But...but...without that deduction, we'll never sell any houses!  We'll all DIE!!"  So says the Realtor and builder trade groups.  (Full disclosure...I've been a homebuilder for 45 years.)  Not so fast Kemosabe.  Remember back in the 1980's (?) when the IRS began phasing out the interest deduction allowed on credit card debt and auto loans?  The cry back then from those industries was the same gloom and doom.  Truth is the financial services and auto industries were unfazed.  The deductions were phased out over a number of years, giving people time to prepare and adjust for the new reality.

Here's where it gets interesting for me.  As things are now, people are incentivized to buy the biggest home they can, with a helping hand from the IRS.  In my area at least families of just two or three people are convinced they need 4,000 square foot McMansions.  (More full disclosure...I build 4,000+ square foot McMansions.)  Imagine how much more efficiently we could use our resources if families of 2 or 3 scaled back their expectations and lived in 2,000-2,500 square foot homes?  Well appointed, custom quality, super-energy-efficient smaller homes.

I predict MORE people would buy smaller, more affordable homes, even after factoring out the tax deduction.  Builders would build more homes, employing more architects, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, painters, etc.  Our home ownership rate would go UP.  Realtors would sell more homes.  Lenders would make more loans.

Who would lose if the mortgage interest deduction was phased out?  The 39% who now enjoy it, and the tax preparers who will no longer be needed to itemize taxes when everyone goes the standard deduction route.  And the property tax collectors who right now want nothing but BIG houses in their communities because of the tax $$$$ they bring in.  (But if they'll look a bit further down the road they'll realize more smaller homes vs fewer big homes should make this all revenue neutral.)

Who wins?  The taxpayers, all of us, because we'll see another 70-100 BILLION dollars in our treasury every year.  And if the IRS used that $70-100B to fund the doubling of the standard tax deduction for everyone, then we'd have a true middle class tax cut.

Am I missing something?  Your opinion?

S


12 comments:

  1. I live in a 2300 sq. ft. town home and it's much too big for me and Mrs. Chatterbox. I don't need to impress anyone with where I live and maintaining a large home isn't anything I want or need.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This deduction probably benefits those who own several mansions and summer homes and all that. Doesn't really do me any good since I rent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, if you own ANY home and have a mortgage on it, you're eligible for the mortgage interest tax deduction, along with your property taxes deduction. This one really does benefit the middle class, but as I pointed out, 61% either rent or own their home free-and-clear, so they're out. They are subsidizing the 39% +/- who own and have a mortgage. I'd rather see doubling the standard deduction, which would benefit EVERYONE, homeowner or renter, rich or poor. How much more fair can you get?

      Delete
    2. Can you claim the benefit on more than one domicile? I would think that one way or another, rents might also go up without this benefit though it would be difficult to verify that.

      Delete
  3. I'll agree with you when my mortgage is down to mostly equity and very little interest, especially because I have made investment and home buying decisions for the last humpty hump years based on current tax laws. It is all very complicated, way beyond my pay scale, but prices of homes will be less affordable if the interest is removed.

    Taxes serve two purposes, revenue and to direct socially desirable behavior; if home ownership is considered desirable we probably should not remove the tax benefit, if ownership is "Meh" today then take it away. If they do, I'll pay off my mortgage and be done with it...it's nice to have that choice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, with out this break, home prices would fall hurting current owners, and making it neutral for buyers...I've had a little wine, so I may be wrong on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe they could grandfather in current mortgage interest payments.

      Delete
    2. Wait, that would still hurt resale for current owners...I got nothing, I need to stay away from wine.

      Delete
    3. If the mortgage interest deduction was just chopped cold turkey, yes, values would be hurt. But if it was phased out over, say, 10 years, the escalation in values would just slow to a very manageable level. Right now values are rising faster than average incomes, so more and more people are being priced out of the market. Again, this could actually increase home ownership numbers over time.

      Delete
  5. I love first world problems; we wonder about how tax and other complications of home ownership occupy us, and millions upon millions of americans wonder where they will sleep tonight, where their kids will eat tomorrow. Let's all just fret about how much additional tax we might have to or not pay, sip some wine, and sit back. Snuggle under the blankets in a couple hours, etc. Let's not think about the 'others.'
    Cheers,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a roundabout way I HAVE thought of others not so fortunate, Mike. If our tax code was amended to double the personal exemption, even those without a home of their own would benefit greatly. And often it's the poor who have larger families, so this more generous personal exemption would help them THE MOST.

      Delete