4 ms·

This would be an ideal world: > What if you make the rules so simple that there are NO loopholes and there is no/little possibility for tax avoidance? Then we

This would be an ideal world: > What if you make the rules so simple that there are NO loopholes and there is no/little possibility for tax avoidance? Then we could lower tax "rates", reduce dead weight loss, and increase tax receipts. But no, we've decided, for example, that home ownership is important for everyone so we subsidize home ownership by letting people write off mortgage interest. This has the unintended effect of driving up prices for homes and encouraging people to buy more home than they need. When taxes are too high, it causes pathological behavior. Some people will, even if it nets them less after taxes, minimize taxes paid. "Tax shelters" in the 80's would be all but guaranteed to lose money, and yet people would still buy into them because they would reduce their taxes and pay huge fees based on the total taxes that would be reduced. These arrangements were legal (although the IRS was hawkish on them) but actually made no business sense for investors.

sokoloff 9y ago
Home mortgage interest deduction serves to put the financing of private home ownership on the same footing as financing of commercial house ownership (wherein the interest on loans for income-seeking activities is deductible). Eliminating the MID without eliminating the deductibility of commercial loans' interest makes commercial purchasing of real estate cheaper than private purchasing. IOW, eliminating the MID is a big handout to commercial landlords and serves to keep even more people renting rather than owning their housing.
- aaronchall 9y ago
  > Home mortgage interest deduction serves to put the financing of private home ownership on the same footing as financing of commercial house ownership (wherein the interest on loans for income-seeking activities is deductible). Sounds fair. Can I also reduce my income by furnishing my building (home) with equipment (e.g. furniture and appliances) in the same way that commerce can? Would that make sense? > Eliminating the MID without eliminating the deductibility of commercial loans' interest makes commercial purchasing of real estate cheaper than private purchasing. IOW, eliminating the MID is a big handout to commercial landlords and serves to keep even more people renting rather than owning their housing. There's only so much housing stock. If more are renting, there's more business in renting, but that mostly affects the mid to upper classes. Do we really want to subsidize urban sprawl? Maybe we do. Maybe we should. Should we do it forever? I... don't like it. Maybe all subsidies should have a phase-out/sunsetting period to avoid economic shocks while reducing the plethora of loop-holes and market distortions that they create.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    > There's only so much housing stock. If more are renting, there's more business in renting, but that mostly affects the mid to upper classes. I'm not following you here. Rental market dynamics affect the lower and middle classes and the rent/buy margin affects the middle class. If the gulf between renting and buying widens (by buying becoming relatively more expensive), how does that not help landlords (mostly upper-middle and upper class), who in turn achieve increased power over the poor and middle classes (vs the status quo)? Every 750 credit score, 2 steady income, $100K household income family who doesn't buy a house but instead rents put pressure on someone worse off in the economic stack-rank.

sokoloff 9y ago

Home mortgage interest deduction serves to put the financing of private home ownership on the same footing as financing of commercial house ownership (wherein the interest on loans for income-seeking activities is deductible). Eliminating the MID without eliminating the deductibility of commercial loans' interest makes commercial purchasing of real estate cheaper than private purchasing. IOW, eliminating the MID is a big handout to commercial landlords and serves to keep even more people renting rather than owning their housing.

aaronchall 9y ago
> Home mortgage interest deduction serves to put the financing of private home ownership on the same footing as financing of commercial house ownership (wherein the interest on loans for income-seeking activities is deductible). Sounds fair. Can I also reduce my income by furnishing my building (home) with equipment (e.g. furniture and appliances) in the same way that commerce can? Would that make sense? > Eliminating the MID without eliminating the deductibility of commercial loans' interest makes commercial purchasing of real estate cheaper than private purchasing. IOW, eliminating the MID is a big handout to commercial landlords and serves to keep even more people renting rather than owning their housing. There's only so much housing stock. If more are renting, there's more business in renting, but that mostly affects the mid to upper classes. Do we really want to subsidize urban sprawl? Maybe we do. Maybe we should. Should we do it forever? I... don't like it. Maybe all subsidies should have a phase-out/sunsetting period to avoid economic shocks while reducing the plethora of loop-holes and market distortions that they create.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  > There's only so much housing stock. If more are renting, there's more business in renting, but that mostly affects the mid to upper classes. I'm not following you here. Rental market dynamics affect the lower and middle classes and the rent/buy margin affects the middle class. If the gulf between renting and buying widens (by buying becoming relatively more expensive), how does that not help landlords (mostly upper-middle and upper class), who in turn achieve increased power over the poor and middle classes (vs the status quo)? Every 750 credit score, 2 steady income, $100K household income family who doesn't buy a house but instead rents put pressure on someone worse off in the economic stack-rank.