Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here’s a $300 billion way to offset some of the sequester’s defense cuts
A.E.I. ^ | 2.26 | James Pethokoukis

Posted on 02/26/2013 11:03:14 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs

The current US tax code subsidizes more expensive homes at the expense of more business investment —in the process offering the biggest tax benefits to the wealthiest taxpayers. It’s costly policy in more ways than one. The tax break may actually impede middle-class homeownership by driving up prices. And the inefficient use of capital hurts economic growth.

The housing tax benefit comes in two forms. First, it spares homeowners from any tax on imputed rent. If the income tax was neutral it would treat exactly the same both these situations: a) buying a house and renting it out and b) buying a house and living in it. But only the “income” from the former is taxed. That’s a $60 billion a year tax break. Second, homeowners are allowed to deduct mortgage interest. That’s another $100 billion a year. Here’s how AEI’s Alan Viard would alter the tax code in a way he thinks both economically smart and politically doable:

Starting in 2015, the mortgage interest deduction is converted to a 15 percent refundable tax credit available to all homeowners, including those who claim the standard deduction and those with no income tax liability. The credit is limited to interest on $300,000 of mortgage debt (in 2013 dollars), with no tax relief for mortgages on second homes or on home-equity loans. The dollar limit is indexed to the consumer price index (CPI) in the same manner as the bracket endpoints and other dollar values in the tax code. Taxpayers with existing debt are allowed to claim 90 percent of the current-law deduction in 2014 on that debt, declining 10 percent per year thereafter, with the option to switch to the credit at any time. …For the mortgaged portion of home purchases, everyone receives the same 15 percent marginal incentive on modestly priced homes and no one receives any additional incentive for expensive homes. The proposal substantially limits the tax preference for expensive homes while increasing homeownership assistance for taxpayers who are less well off.

Now, it would probably make more economic sense to tax the imputed rents rather than limit the deductibility of mortgage interest since rents are income and interest is an expense. But doing the former is administratively difficult. The Viard plan would raise roughly $300 billion a year in tax revenue, some 80% of which would be paid by those with cash incomes above $200,000, 18% by those with income above $500,000, 6% with income above $1 million. The result, Viard explains, would be to “direct economic resources away from expensive homes, which have been artificially advantaged by the tax system, and toward other sectors of the economy.”

What to do with the $300 billion? Lower deficits, lower investment taxes, even offset harmful defense or basic research cuts from the sequester. This is just the sort of smart, rational policy move that would reassure both domestic voters and international investors that Washington isn’t completely dysfunctional.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 02/26/2013 11:03:20 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ExxonPatrolUs
What this idea suggests that you ought to be paying tax on anything you own, be it a home or a pair of socks. What it suggests is that I ought to be paying rental fees for the undershorts I am wearing. If not, there is an imputed rental I am escaping by owning my skivvies, therefore I ought to be taxed on that imputed income I ought to be making to rent a pair.

That's BS. Real estate taxes are already a bummer since you really are already "renting" your home from the local government. If you do not pay those taxes, the government takes it from you and boots you out.

2 posted on 02/27/2013 1:59:39 AM PST by imardmd1 (An armed society is a polite society -- but dangerous for the fool --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

Yep. This whole concept of imputed income should be taken out and shot. It seems to me to be the result of a group of eight year olds playing grownup.


3 posted on 02/27/2013 5:46:02 AM PST by jstaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

bump


4 posted on 02/27/2013 5:52:13 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ExxonPatrolUs

So in other words, because I’m living in my own house, I’m getting a tax break? Sheeeeeeeeeeit! Tax on imputed rent is basically a tax on property. Tax on real rent is an income tax. There is no actual tax break here.


5 posted on 06/22/2013 11:13:06 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drag Me From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson