Latest Breaking News

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)

21. That would damage the high end market in major cities...

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:15 PM

Nov 2012

Alternative there would be shift from fully amortized loans...which could lead to more hanky panky.

The reality is that the upper middle class will not stand for the loss of their primary deduction.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mortgage Interest Deduction, Once a Sacred Cow, Is Under Scrutiny [View all] Omaha Steve Nov 2012 OP

we're paying off the mortgage in two weeks- 25 years early. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #1

Congratulations. Fridays Child Nov 2012 #2

Do you pay a marginal rate greater than 28%? (i.e. >$178k single income) high density Nov 2012 #16

That's the key. If it's just limiting it, rather than eliminating it, it may not be a bad idea. Gormy Cuss Nov 2012 #28

actually it is, because your property's value is based in part on others' effective borrowing costs. unblock Nov 2012 #8

only if we plan to sell the house. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #27

Awesome. So you got yours. Earth_First Nov 2012 #12

You do realize that there are many who are not in the same situation don't you? still_one Nov 2012 #44

yep. but i have enough of my own concerns to lose sleep over... BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #52

Wouldn't it be nice if someone worried about universal health care, and someone worried about still_one Nov 2012 #57

i already have affordable healthcare. i've been on Medicare for 16 years. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #58

Fuck that. Vattel Nov 2012 #3

Well, that is surely going to help the housing situation in this country Trailrider1951 Nov 2012 #4

DING.....DING....DING. yourout Nov 2012 #7

Unfortunately.....home "buyers" subsidized renters for decades... Swede Atlanta Nov 2012 #32

Mortgage interest deduction is regressive taught_me_patience Nov 2012 #5

+1 LeftyMom Nov 2012 #6

Baloney. Lots of blue collar,working class families own houses. virgogal Nov 2012 #10

everyone benefits, if only indirectly. unblock Nov 2012 #13

I used to work in rental management. Believe me, the owners were not passing their savings along. LeftyMom Nov 2012 #14

not as a direct line item in anyone's rental contract, of course unblock Nov 2012 #19

Property owners are charging what they can get away with, and not a cent less. LeftyMom Nov 2012 #24

again, it's a market effect, so you're not going to see it looking at any one owner's situation. unblock Nov 2012 #30

It's an imaginary effect. The reality is that property owners can buy policy and renters can't. LeftyMom Nov 2012 #34

check your history. unlike many tax loopholes, this one was one of those put in just for the rich. unblock Nov 2012 #48

How does that increase revenue for the country? That's what removing the MID is about. nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #20

removing the deduction raises revenue for the government directly, unblock Nov 2012 #26

I was asking how adding a rental payment to deductions increased revenue. nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #33

it doesn't, at least not directly unblock Nov 2012 #46

Please explain to me how this works taught_me_patience Nov 2012 #50

What? The poor can ACTUALLY get subsidized housing JimDandy Nov 2012 #29

Where? There's a years long wait to get on the years long waiting list for Section 8. LeftyMom Nov 2012 #35

True, the waiting time to get Section 8 JimDandy Nov 2012 #37

No, there was a years long wait to get on the wait list for Section 8 when times were good. LeftyMom Nov 2012 #39

It's all a balancing act. JimDandy Nov 2012 #43

It isn't because of mortgage deduction why the poor suffer, it is because of trillion dollar wars still_one Nov 2012 #45

Well I guess we should have worked harder to re-elect Obama. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #9

The only thing I expected from President Obama is choosing good Supreme Court Justices still_one Nov 2012 #47

I could see a cap on it ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #11

It really needs to be a cap WinniSkipper Nov 2012 #18

That would damage the high end market in major cities... ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #21

I may be calculating this wrong WinniSkipper Nov 2012 #53

Dems would lose California if a cap were implemented. taught_me_patience Nov 2012 #51

Dems better not let piglicons soak us out of that for richie rich. lonestarnot Nov 2012 #15

Pssst... Earth_First Nov 2012 #17

I'm not worried too much. lonestarnot Nov 2012 #23

What were house prices when that mortgage deduction began? julian09 Nov 2012 #25

This sounds very bad. blackspade Nov 2012 #22

It will be last time i ever vote for any R or D again if they do nolabels Nov 2012 #36

The Supreme Court was the main reason for voting Democratic at least this time still_one Nov 2012 #49

I will not die of a thousand cuts nolabels Nov 2012 #55

It is important. It is a lifetime appointment. We lost in 2000 because of the Supreme Court. still_one Nov 2012 #56

It doesn't sound bad if you read the article. high density Nov 2012 #41

eliminate corporate and military welfare. problem solved. thank you so much nt msongs Nov 2012 #31

There is an income cap on the mortgage deduction jmowreader Nov 2012 #38

"Taxing the rich alone won't do it" PSPS Nov 2012 #42

Reducing taxes on the rich sure helped put us in the hole. So why not let their taxes kelliekat44 Nov 2012 #61

Taxing the rich is a huge part of my plan jmowreader Nov 2012 #63

This is the same trick as it has always been PSPS Nov 2012 #40

actually, the rich do use mortgages, as an instrument to make money. uncle ray Nov 2012 #59

No No and NO! loudsue Nov 2012 #54

We lost that in the UK back in April 2000. dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #60

Reagan used affirmative action to make poor whites jealous, Walker used benefits of public workers PurityOfEssence Nov 2012 #62

Touching it would be political suicide. Blue Hen Buckeye Nov 2012 #64

The Worry Nannies are out in full force ROFL, what part of high-income households did you miss? snooper2 Nov 2012 #65