Mortgage deduction on the hot seat
Homeowners love the mortgage deduction. So do real-estate agents and homebuilders. But it costs the government billions in lost tax revenue and may be trimmed back to fix the fiscal-cliff problem.
But it is being talked about in the context of fixing the fiscal-cliff problem, and it is one that all homeowners with a mortgage probably should be watching. But a legitimate question is whether the mortgage deduction is morphing into a tax break only for the affluent. There will be a big, loud fight over the mortgage deduction because it has been one of the most cherished of all tax breaks.
Here's what makes it so popular:
If you buy a house with a $150,000 loan at 3.5% annual interest (the current rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage), you will pay $5,204 in interest. If you're in a 25% bracket and you itemize, your income tax bill drops by $1,301.
This assumes you can itemize deductions on your tax return. In 2012, for married couples filing jointly (which is most of us), your total deductions must exceed $11,900, so make the effort to list out charitable contributions, property taxes, state income taxes and the like. The IRS hasn't yet announced the standard deduction for 2013.
Here's why asking if the mortgage deduction is turning into a tax break simply for the affluent. Mortgage rates are down 43% from the 6% level that prevailed in 2007. That means the interest paid on a new mortgage is now much less.
So, let's say you're buying a house and want the mortgage interest to top the $11,900 threshold. That means you need a mortgage of around $350,000. That might not buy you much in New York, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area or Washington, D.C.
Nationally, however, the median price of an existing home in October was $178,600, according to the National Association of Realtors. The median price of a new home in October was $237,000, the Commerce Department reported on Wednesday.
In 2007, when mortgage rates were around 6%, the interest you would have paid on that $150,000 loan would have been $8,950. In 1982, when mortgage rates hit 15%, your interest in the first year would have been $22,500.
Fact is, as of 2010, only 25.8% actually claimed the mortgage deduction, deducting some $387 billion in the process, according to the Internal Revenue Service's Statistics of Income. That percentage is down from 28.8% in 2006, just before the housing bubble started to burst. And the number of taxpayers claiming the mortgage deduction fell by 10% in 2010 from a peak in 2007.
OK, the percentage who claimed the deduction in 2011 may be up a little, and it may rise again in 2012 as evidence mounts of a housing recovery. But lower interest rates are clearly limiting the value of the deduction in much of the country, especially for new homeowners.
If that's the case, why is the mortgage deduction defended so fiercely? The short answer is you have always been able to deduct the interest on your house under the IRS code. And, especially since World War II, one of the key selling points of homeownership has been the deduction.
Another has been the potential for capital appreciation. A third -- though less talked about -- is the fact that paying down a mortgage is a form of saving.
The deduction is in fact capped. You can only deduct up to $1 million in mortgage interest on one or more homes and up to $100,000 on the interest on a second mortgage.
The mortgage deduction has been used to promote homeownership, believed to be an important American value because it promotes economic and social stability.
It also gets a defense from Kevin Villani, former chief economist at Freddie Mac. Homeownership and the buildup of equity in the home have been important sources of seed financing for small business.
The case against the mortgage deduction is that it historically has favored one group of taxpayers -- homeowners -- over renters. The United States is the only industrialized nation that gives homeownership such tax treatment.
And critics, mostly from the right, say the mortgage deduction draws capital away from new factories and equipment and into the construction of big suburban houses.
An important question is whether junking the deduction would make much difference to homeownership rates.
Hard to say. BusinessWeek says it was 62.5% in the second quarter, after foreclosures and delinquencies are taken out. That's down from a peak of 68.3% in 2004 and 2005.
The decline has everything to do with the housing bust and falling prices.
The odds are that the deduction will survive in a world where itemized deductions are capped. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney proposed a $25,000 cap on all itemized deductions during the recent presidential campaign. The Obama administration is warm to the concept if not the amount.
Republicans want to discuss the idea as part of a broad tax-reform package. But no one has actually put much on paper. And that's scary to Kenneth Rosen, who teaches real-estate economics at the University of California, Berkeley.
The problem isn't reform. The problem is that the tax code is so huge and complex that quick changes cause more problems than they solve, he says.
Case in point: The 1982 tax reform package promoted by the Reagan administration. The law created so many tax breaks for commercial real estate that money poured into the sector. Within two years, the law had to be amended to cool the business off.
my feeling is, no one, and I repeat no one should receive more money back than they pay into the IRS.
Factoring in the deduction in buying should not be a factor to use, this is why we had such a balloon effect in home costs. It's not always a bad thing to rent.
Nothing wrong in being a rental nation.
THEY NEED TO RAISE TAXS ON ANY ONE MAKING OVER 100,000 A YEAR . AND RAISE THE RATE UP RATE 2 POINTS, EVERY 200.000. STARTING AT 25 % up to 50%. i bet we would end the dept in america. greedy rich people.
The Fed has a 0% interest rate set for the banks and giving them free money and costing the tax payers. Yes stop the deduction and stop the free money to banks.
It is an "unfair" deduction as are many that people are told they can get.
Here is the problem with deductions. Every. Single. One. is flaunted as a tax deduction. People are told, "you can deduct that on your taxes!" When the reality of it is, you might be able to if you itemize.
Churches "Your tithe is tax deductible!" (Don't get me started on the Biblical consequences of taking from Caesar to give to God)
Banks "Your mortgage is Tax deductible!" (OK Now that is an outright lie, but SO MANY times I've heard clients complain that I did it wrong. Mortgage INTEREST is deductible)
The thing is, unless you are spending a pretty good amount on these things, it is better (not required) to take the standard deduction. For many years I heard these things, and I know people believe them, while my income was less than the standard deduction (= Taxable income of 0). To itemize would have meant I have to spend MORE than my annual income at charities, medical problems, or certain work uniforms.
I've been aroung people who were talking about this purchase or donation they were making, and the rationalization is that they can get it deducted from their taxes. People you've got it all wrong. These deductions actually reduce INCOME, not taxes, and are subject to ceilings and floors. And if it is deducted from your income, you're getting a percentage back from the IRS. Throwing good money at things for a deduction of a maximum of 35% of what you throw.
Look at this.
Standard Deduction 11,500
Total Income 111,500.00
Taxable Income 100,000.00
Tax bracket 35%
Donation to a charity so you can pay less in taxes 10,000
Income you can use 90,000
Charity + Tax =45,000
What yo really have to spend for all of your stuff at the end 66,500.
That's 59 % of what you earned.
NOW imagine now that you're able to itemize.
Total income 111,500
Itemized deduction 21,500
Taxable income 90,000
Tax bracket 35%
Cost of deduction 21,500
So you spent 21,000 to save 3,500 on your taxes.
And for consistency,
-53000 Total Cost
58500 What's left at the end (Your spending money)
WAIT... Your financial situation is WORSE? Yeah, it is. So if you don't actually believe in the work your money's going to, I wouldn't spend it. Don't get me wrong, DONATE, support the things you believe in. Just don't do it for the purpose of getting a better refund in April.
The deductions are intended to support nonfinancial agendas. The government gives a small subsidy to you to participate in keeping the nation up. You know, by supporting local charities or the like.
Which, you should be doing for your own good.
Next time you hear, "it's tax deductible!" your response should be, "So?"
Now the mortgage int thing, it really should be available to all homeowners, or none. I'm middle class and a homeowner, but my interest is too low to deduct. Over time, you start paying less interest, so eventually it goes away for everyone, I won't build you an amortization schedule to prove that. It used to be one you could take without itemizing. That's the most fair. But All or None.
With the last election results in the bag the Obummer gang of 40 Czars can do what ever they want and know that the people who reelected them aren't a threat. this regime. Obummer fooled so many people with promises of obummer phones and obummer welfare the 2013 Welfare checks should use the lame duck POTUS picture as a logo and not the federal seal. BOHICA will be the new US motto for the unwashed masses of freeloaders crying WTF happened to my welfare check and free healthcare I was promised if I voted for the democratic party's empty promises Don't worry because the homeland security has recently promoted 234 new FEMA Blue shirts to defend Washington DC with the billions of .40 hollowpoint bullets and the hundreds of 300,000.00 armored vehicles.
As a CPA for 28 years, I see almost a thousand clients a year. Most are able to itemize. Here in Illinois, the state income tax rates are 5% of AGI, with very few adjustments. So a married couple with $100k of AGI would pay $5k in state income taxes. Furthermore, in most counties in IL, a $200k home will generate real estate taxes of $4k to $8k of real estate taxes. These two items alone put most people over the standard deduction, not even including the charitable contributions that people make. So the actual number of people who are able to itemize due to home ownership are far greater than this article infers.
Knowing Boehner and his tendencies to hurt the American people any thing is possible including killing the Mortgage dedudtion.
Boehner, we the Democrats will remember you for ever as a persistent blocker of progress for our country, and we will work hard in the next elections in 2014, to kick you out of the House of Representatives. We will pursue this task with all our heart. Our prime future agenda is to consolidate our efforts to get you fast ejected in the next elections out of a job you did not know how to do efficiently, you did not earned it, and you do not deserved it as an American! We will make you invisible by jerking you out to never return because have done so much damaged to the American people, to our credit ratings during the Budget Ceiling discussions by so much indolent opposition against the president Obama. Unfortunately for the people of America your negative actions quickly ricochet against the middle class, stopping their opportunity for job creations, better economics future, and less poverty. We still do not understand, and still we cannot mentally accept a man's in your position to be so weakly and wrongly leading this mass of incoherent Tea Party nuts, and Republican members, that with no excuse, were put there by the people to supposedly work with the people benefits, and for the people gains only, and not for you monetary growth, and big names in the House of Representatives. You made yourself a detestable inhuman, we all deeply feeling sick just by listening to you bully unaccomplished voice always commanding nothing but despair, no jobs, no presidential Bills passed, future poverty, anti -health opposition for the citizens, you need to be put out of your job quickly and we can hardly wait for the next elections! You, and all of you have put us through misery, poverty, and no jobs, you have discredit our USA by not wanting to increase the Debt Ceiling when you kissed the rear of Bush, and increase the debt ceiling many times because you adore this man of poor and reckless presidential performance just like yours!
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Tired of constantly dying batteries, she came up with a device that could revolutionize energy storage -- and won $50,000 from Intel.
- Detroit in hot water over proposal to sell art
- Sears spirals toward oblivion
- Why aren't heads rolling at the IRS?
- Do we pay attention to roads and bridges now?
- Yahoo may be going after Hulu
- Apple's first computer could fetch $450,000
- AT&T adds sneaky fee onto its wireless bills
- Soaring ER use adds more pain to health costs
- Netflix gets 'Arrested Development' stars cheap
[BRIEFING.COM] Stocks entered the weekend on a mixed note as the S&P 500 shed 0.1% while the Dow ended with a gain of 0.1%.
The major averages began the day on a lower note as nine of ten sectors saw losses of more than 0.5%.
The consumer staples sector was the lone exception as the group spent the entire day in positive territory thanks to the relative strength of Dow component Procter & Gamble (PG 81.89, +3.19). The second-largest staple stock advanced ... More
More Market News
Try as the bears might, they couldn't break US stocks. But investors still face frothy prices and considerable headwinds.