3 ms·
I agree 100% that we should get rid of this deduction. I owned a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house in Manhattan, KS (an affordable part of the country). I never qualified
by Mz 10y ago
I agree 100% that we should get rid of this deduction. I owned a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house in Manhattan, KS (an affordable part of the country). I never qualified for this deduction. The house was too cheap and the interest on the mortgage was too low.
I was solidly middle class.
This deduction benefits people spending substantial amounts on mortgage interest, thus it mostly benefits people buying McMansions (or actual mansions). In theory, middle class individuals in large cities are helped to qualify for homes because housing prices are so steep in the big city. In practice, it encourages "house inflation" where The Haves buy and build bigger and bigger houses and The Have Nots are piled up in rentals like cord wood or out in the street. If you can afford a house at all, this deduction actively encourages you to buy as much house as possible. It deepens the divide between The Haves and The Have Nots, thereby shrinking the middle class, not helping it. It helps ensure that you are either rich or poor in this country, not middle class.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoI share your experience - I lived in both Texas and Florida in modest houses, and I think we could take the MID only once. It's getting to where it's not that clear that a McMansion is a "have" thing, especially if it take maxing out the mortgage. The real difference between "haves" and "have nots" is their credit rating. In places, the premium for rental may approach 100% of the payment if the same owner occupied the same house in a 20% down mortgage. But at the same time, people will max the mortgage out, so selling a 3-1 in Manhattan, Ks may be a very real challenge.