would fewer people buy their homes?
That's my opinion. What do you guys think?
would fewer people buy their homes?
That's my opinion. What do you guys think?
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Simply?
Yes.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
pretty sure i wouldn't have when i did...
A few might, but i would think most people want the American dream. own your own home with the white picket fence.
Now the ones buying the $500,000.00 plus homes might re think buying such a large home. But us poor folk would still buy.
Posse Member hoping for middle manager, Yep , I dont know ****
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Quote:
Originally Posted by C&CDean
I'm a tolerant mother****er.
I'd get my balls smashed in taxes if I did.
People don't know what it is to be a champion.
Oklahoma INVENTED it.
For years, buying a house has been the closest thing to a sure-fire investment. Then, the bottom dropped out of the real estate market in way too many places. Unless someone knows they can stay long enough to ride out the low times, it may be much less expensive to pay the taxes, rent, and leave than to try to unload a house under duress. That happened to a cousin, and they lost about $100K just to get out from under the mortgage on a house across country from a current job.
Yup, one of the main reasons to own a home is the tax benefits.
Behold the pale horse. The man who sat on him was death, and Hell followed with him.
Olevet Posse Pistolero
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2015.
And if fewer people did own their homes, would it affect society in any appreciable way? At the small levels of change that removing the tax deduction would lead to, I don't think so.
We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. FDR.
Here's a related question. Why should we being subsidizing home owners in the first place?
I'm not happy until you're not happy.
Same reason we subsidize people that have kids I guess, meaning I don't know???Originally Posted by mdklatt
Behold the pale horse. The man who sat on him was death, and Hell followed with him.
Olevet Posse Pistolero
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2015.
Home ownership is in line with public policy goals.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Does it make that much of a difference? It's a deduction, not a tax a credit, and it's only on the interest. What percentage of a typical house payment is interest?
I'm not happy until you're not happy.
In what way?
Another question: Is there a maximum limit on the duduction, or is McMansion ownership in line with public policy too?
I'm not happy until you're not happy.
Depends on the amount of the loan, for how long it is, etc...Early in the life of the loan most of what you're paying is interest, and not so much towards principal.
Behold the pale horse. The man who sat on him was death, and Hell followed with him.
Olevet Posse Pistolero
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2015.
Depends on where you are in repayment.
Typically, only figuring P&I, a good rule of thumb is to add up 1 through the number of payments to get a denominator. The first monthly payment is about 1/denominator towards principal. The second is 2/denominator towards principal, etc.
It's not super-precise, but it gives an approximation.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
At the begining about 95% of the payment goes to interest
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Ours was about 66% last year.
In the way that home ownership is considered good by a consensus of the electorate.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
I don't remember getting to vote on that.
We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. FDR.
In other words, the approximately two-thirds of Americans who own their homes consider it good that the other third* gets to help them pay for those homes.
*Not all of this third pays income taxes, some of them support the tax deduction because they want to buy a home some day, yadda yadda.
I'm not happy until you're not happy.
Posting Permissions
