Nation's Housing: No deduction for mortgage interest on big houses?

[question everything]

(apologies if already posted)

SFGate
Nation's Housing: No deduction for mortgage interest on big houses?

Kenneth Harney

Sunday, October 14, 2007

(snip)

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wants to phase out mortgage interest write-offs for houses larger than 3,000 square feet, using a graduated scale that ends at no deductions for properties with 4,200 square feet or more. Although he says he recognizes that newly constructed houses may be more energy efficient than older ones, their "sheer size, sprawl and commutes lead to dramatically more energy use - or to put it more simply, a larger carbon footprint."

In his latest draft of the plan, Dingell provides more detail about the housing-related tax elements than he did in earlier versions. The new draft also offers some limited exemptions from the phase-out, including those for historic homes built before 1900, farm houses, certified energy-efficient homes, and houses whose owners "purchase carbon offsets to make the (property) carbon-neutral."

Under the plan, owners of 3,000- to 3,199-square-foot homes would be eligible for only 85 percent of the mortgage interest deductions they now receive. Homes of 3,600 to 3,799 square feet would lose 60 percent of the interest deductions, homes of 4,0200 to 4,199 square feet would lose 90 percent and homes above 4,200 square feet would get no deductions. Mortgage interest write-offs are among the largest benefits in the federal tax code. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that homeowners will take $402.7 billion in deductions between fiscal 2006 and 2010.

Some environmental advocates initially questioned Dingell's purposes in advancing an ambitious program to limit greenhouse gas emissions - he has been a staunch defender of the auto industry for years. But Dingell's plan would impose stiff new taxes on gasoline (50 cents per gallon to start), a $50-per-ton tax on coal, petroleum and natural gas, plus the mortgage interest deduction clampdown. Now a number of scientific and environmental organizations think Dingell's proposals represent a gutsy first effort not only to cut consumption of carbon-based energy products, but to focus on energy usage and efficiency in the residential arena.

(snip)


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/14/REVNSM646.DTL

[Eurobabe]

1. Hmmm, interesting concept, tie it to square footage...

There are NO mortgage interest deductions in Germany, and the govt., is in the black with a strong currency.

No US politician however, will touch this third rail -- it's as deadly as Social Security.

[wuushew]

2. Getting rid of incandescent lights and higher CAFE standards would be better

less political risk too.

[PSPS]

3. Interesting idea, but not thoroughly thought through

The largest houses built by the bush monied class have no mortgages. They're all paid for in cash. A better idea would be to impose a graduated "future cost on the environment" tax on houses larger than, say, 3,000 square feet.

The carbon tax is, of course, badly needed. Gasoline needs to be priced above $5 per gallon in the US to get people to consume less of it. The "SUV tax writeoff" as well as the "SUV CAFE exemption" need to be eliminated.

[williesgirl]

4. My home is 4,200 sq ft and my electric bill averages $70/mo due to energy

conservation efforts on my part. In the winter, it averages between $100 and $120/mo. It is all electric. This is bullshit. Go after the auto industry where the emissions are really coming from.

Plus, many of us bought these homes when we really needed the space - I took in abused teenagers which is why I bought in the first place. I'm disabled and can no longer do so. With his plan, I'll never sell my house, which is currently on the market since I sure don't need the space any more.

How about all the skyscrapers who leave all those lights on all night so they look "fantastic"?

Sorry, but this really pisses me off.

[question everything]

8. Then write to your congress person and express the same

opinion, before this becomes law.

[robinlynne]

5. How about a tax on houses/buildings of a certain size, OR go solar.

(obviously there would have to be incentives for people who can't afford to go solar.) Anyone who has a roof that size, has a good space available for solar film. Couldn't the gov't own, or lease the solar elements, or soemthing?)

[Matariki]

6. What about number of people living in the house falling into the equation?

[1932]

7. Why the charade of "carbon footprint" and size? Why not go by price? Or even the AGI of the owner?

People with very high incomes, who can afford large mortgages perhaps should not get taxpayer subsidy that keeps home prices high.

[question everything]

9. I think that something like that already exists

I think that if your mortgage is above a million you cannot deduct all of it.

[SoCalDem]

10. and only ONE home deduction.. n/t