Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Crewleader

(17,005 posts)
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 01:40 PM Dec 2014

From Robert Reich on housing

More than half the new households formed in the next six years will be renters rather than homeowners, according to a new report by the Urban Institute. But there aren’t nearly enough rental units to keep up with demand. The result will be low vacancy rates and higher rents, alongside stagnant incomes. Renter incomes are on average only 70 percent of homeowner incomes.

Homeowners get a huge windfall from the federal government that renters don’t get. It’s called the home mortgage interest deduction. Costing at least $70 billion a year, it’s one of the largest federal tax expenditures, but most of it goes to higher-income households who generally could afford a home without assistance: Last year, almost 80 percent of it went to homeowners with incomes above $100,000. So why not limit the deduction to $20,000 a year per homeowner, and use the savings for a tax credit for all renters of 10% of their rental costs?

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
From Robert Reich on housing (Original Post) Crewleader Dec 2014 OP
People struggling to own condos in NY and Boston and anywhere on the west coast Warpy Dec 2014 #1
I think it all even out really yeoman6987 Dec 2014 #2
That depends on your market Warpy Dec 2014 #3
Wait wait wait... ret5hd Dec 2014 #4

Warpy

(111,261 posts)
1. People struggling to own condos in NY and Boston and anywhere on the west coast
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 01:52 PM
Dec 2014

would find that incredibly parsimonious. One size doesn't fit all, especially in real estate.

At some point, the whole thing will have to get messy. Then people in Mississippi who paid $750,000 for a 3,000 square foot monstrosity will get jealous because somebody living in a glorified closet in San Francisco for the same money is getting a better break.

But yes, either they're going to have to restrict it to one residence or they're going to have to cap it. Too many fat cats are gaming the system with their multiple pleasure palaces.

Renters' rebates have already been part of the Mass. tax code for decades and have worked well to alleviate part of the burden of urban living on renters. That part will work beautifully.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
2. I think it all even out really
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 01:58 PM
Dec 2014

Homeowners do get a tax break but it goes to property taxes and home insurance. I have done both rent and own and renting is way cheaper by a long shot.

Warpy

(111,261 posts)
3. That depends on your market
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 02:03 PM
Dec 2014

Rents were rising here, so I bought a cheap fixer as a hedge. Rents exceeded my PITI within 2 years, so it's been a good deal. The mortgage deduction was a yearly windfall, not really vital but nice when I needed to do a large repair, like getting the stucco redone on the exterior.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»From Robert Reich on hous...