That's right. Look at the fed funds report and you'll see that homeowner equity, at market value, is absolutely considered an asset.
Fed Funds Report: page 110 of 124
If that's true then why aren't there federal taxes like they tax corporations' assets?
We pay capital gains taxes on the equity if it's more than $250k for singles and $500k for married couples.
People who carry a mortgage do not own their homes outright.
Yup, can't argue with you there. Will you at least admit that there are many more advantages to buying a home than renting one?
I know this. My point is that corporations are taxed on assets yearly, not just if they sell them for a capital gain.
Will you at least admit that there are many more advantages to buying a home than renting one?
Without a doubt. My contention arises from economists claiming that equity as an asset is an indicator that the economy is better. I disagree. Mortgages are a debt, not an asset. The equity is an imaginary number that even appraisers will disagree on. How they can come up with a finite value on home equity is what I don't agree with. They don't know how much equity I have in my home. How can they possibly compute this and declare a value?
I disagree with using home "ownership" as a definitive indicator that the economy is booming. Most of those people are carrying debt that is called a mortgage. Also, consider that for the average home buyer he will pay more than 2X the cost of his home by mortgage's end. To me that is a net loss.
On the other hand, I would much rather have the home I live in than rent one or an apartment. It's a headache at times but the three acres of land and open space I have is a blessing compared to living in a hellhole like New Haven, CT which is the nearest city. Even the suburbs are getting overcrowded.
I grew up in the city of Chicago and the houses were about fifteen feet apart. We didn't complain. I don't think I could do it again, though.