Weep for the McMansions....

[JayB]

I've been constantly amazed that large homes haven't come under the same level of enviro-scrutiny that large cars have, and it will be interesting to see what kind of response this proposed legislation gets before its inevitable demise. I am sort of surprised that it's taken Dingell this long to come up with a way to extend the costs of addressing climate change beyond Detroit.

 

I'd like to see the end of the mortgage interest deduction anyway, seeing as it can't be defended on economic or social grounds, as well as the elimination of the capital gains exemptions on profits from the sale of homes - but that's another topic.

 

"WASHINGTON -- To add to mortgage meltdown miseries, the credit panic, plunging home sales and rising foreclosures, here's a new worry: a proposed cutoff of mortgage-interest tax deductions for all houses larger than 3,000 square feet.

 

One of Capitol Hill's most experienced and powerful legislators is drafting a "carbon tax" bill that would do precisely that. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, expects to introduce comprehensive climate change reform legislation once Congress returns next month.

 

Besides imposing hefty new federal taxes on gasoline, the forthcoming bill will, in Dingell's words, seek to "remove the mortgage-interest deduction on McMansions -- homes over 3,000 square feet." Dingell said he recognized that proposals such as these would be controversial, but that he believed they were essential to reducing carbon emissions by 60% to 80% by the year 2050.

 

"In order to address the issue of climate change, we must address the issue of consumption," Dingell said in talking points prepared for town hall discussions of the legislation. "We do that by making consumption more expensive."

 

Houses, like autos, long have been known to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions through heating, cooling, electrical usage and building materials, plus the highways and roads needed to make far-flung subdivisions accessible to buyers.

[Jim]

No problem there. I'd like to see some type of carbon tax. But you know the bankers and real estate lobby will be crawling all over this one pretty fast. Sustainability is a great catch phrase these days, often seen on bumper stickers of folks driving to the suburbs on their 20 mile commute.

 

 

[DPS]

I'd like to see the end of the mortgage interest deduction anyway, seeing as it can't be defended on economic or social grounds, as well as the elimination of the capital gains exemptions on profits from the sale of homes - but that's another topic.

 

This is an interesting idea, certainly the size home one owns has an impact just as the size and efficiency of one's car. Neither of these choices, however, has anywhere near the environmental impact as having children. If the US was serious about limiting environmental impact we would eliminate tax breaks for having children, or better yet implement tax penalties for having children.

Edited August 28, 2007 by danielpatricksmith

[JayB]

I'd like to see the end of the mortgage interest deduction anyway, seeing as it can't be defended on economic or social grounds, as well as the elimination of the capital gains exemptions on profits from the sale of homes - but that's another topic.

 

This is an interesting idea, certainly the size home one owns has an impact just as the size and efficiency of one's car. Neither of these choices, however, has anywhere near the environmental impact as having children. If the US was serious about limiting environmental impact we would eliminate tax breaks for having children, or better yet implement tax penalties for having children.

 

Another heartless right-winger attacking welfare. Shameful.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'd like to see the end of the mortgage interest deduction anyway, seeing as it can't be defended on economic or social grounds, as well as the elimination of the capital gains exemptions on profits from the sale of homes - but that's another topic.

 

This is an interesting idea, certainly the size home one owns has an impact just as the size and efficiency of one's car. Neither of these choices, however, has anywhere near the environmental impact as having children. If the US was serious about limiting environmental impact we would eliminate tax breaks for having children, or better yet implement tax penalties for having children.

 

Another heartless right-winger attacking welfare. Shameful.

 

The childless renters speak. Try managing a budget and raising a family in a decent neighborhood before you spew your crap.

 

The children your neighbors have (and get a tax break for) will be funding your social security payment someday.

[DPS]

The childless renters speak. Try managing a budget and raising a family in a decent neighborhood before you spew your crap.

 

The children your neighbors have (and get a tax break for) will be funding your social security payment someday.

 

Actually I own what would be called a mcmansion in a nice neighborhood (you couldn't afford to live there) and I have a child.

[JayB]

Any reason why homeowners with children should be more heavily subsidized than renters with children?

[Adam13]

And last time i checked social security isnt gonna be around long enough for anyone who is a kid right now to fund it.

[minx]

oh shit dps, that was smug as hell. waiting for the oncoming kk assault.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Any reason why homeowners with children should be more heavily subsidized than renters with children?

 

Yes, because they pay a mortgage (with interest) and property taxes.

 

[olyclimber]

its all a part of their evil plan

 

etYwtFb2Zyo

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Actually I own what would be called a mcmansion in a nice neighborhood (you couldn't afford to live there) and I have a child.

 

if you're right about that (I can't afford your house) then you're rich enough that it doesn't matter either way. And you are more than welcome to NOT take that deduction and pay extra taxes, BTW.

 

For folks in the middle class, who shoulder the tax burden, the mortgage deduction and child tax credit are HUGE.

[cj001f]

Any reason why homeowners with children should be more heavily subsidized than renters with children?

 

Because we only believe in free markets when we want to? Also known as "the only subsidies I don't like are the ones I can't get"

[KaskadskyjKozak]

oh shit dps, that was smug as hell. waiting for the oncoming kk assault.

 

I'm glad to see that you await my every post with eager anticipation, Minxie.

[tanstaafl]

Of course, no landlord would include the costs of their mortgage and property taxes in the rent they charge. They just eat that cost.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Because we only believe in free markets when we want to? Also known as "the only subsidies I don't like are the ones I can't get"

 

Eliminate property taxes, and don't RAISE the federal income tax, and I'll be happy to forgo some of these deductions. The problem is overtaxing from multiple sides. As long as we have this crazy system of taxation nickle and diming us to death, I will have to play the game.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Of course, no landlord would include the costs of their mortgage and property taxes in the rent they charge. They just eat that cost.

 

if you don't like it, buy a property.

[JayB]

"Of course, no landlord would include the costs of their mortgage and property taxes in the rent they charge. They just eat that cost."

 

Hey - someone stole my reply.

 

It's also conceivable that the difference between the value of the interest-subsidy exceeds the value of property taxes in the majority of the cases, in which case you still have a net subsidy for homeowners relative to renters, even if you don't factor the payment of property taxes through rent into the equation.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It's also conceivable that the difference between the value of the interest-subsidy exceeds the value of property taxes in the majority of the cases, in which case you still have a net subsidy for homeowners relative to renters, even if you don't factor the payment of property taxes through rent into the equation.

 

rental properties have lots of costs they take on, and pass on to you, but you don't have to spend your time on addressing them either (maintenance, meeting fire codes, etc.) Time translates to money as well.

 

if you want to reap the benefits of these tax deductions, buy. if not, quit whining about it. until you have run your own household, and seen what it takes (a hell of a lot more cost and work than renting), you'll never know.

 

 

 

 

[cj001f]

If owning a home is so burdensome, rent

 

 

I was unawares that landlords where not subject to the whims of the market when pricing their properties. They can pass on those costs if the rental market allows.... which isn't always the case.

[fenderfour]

Go into debt. It's the american way

[JayB]

Any reason why homeowners with children should be more heavily subsidized than renters with children?

 

Because we only believe in free markets when we want to? Also known as "the only subsidies I don't like are the ones I can't get"

 

Pointing out the absurdity of a situation where homeowners enjoy subsidies and renters do not isn't the same as arguing for subsidies for renters. Neither renting nor owning should be subsidized in any fashion IMO.

 

I'd favor a wholesale shift away from annual on taxes on property to taxes on either profits realized by the occupants of the land (corporations/famers/car-dealerships, etc) or income (individuals), coupled with taxes on the capital gains realized on the sale of property that are consistent other asset classes.

 

For one thing, this would keep old people from being taxed out of their homes.

[cj001f]

Pointing out the absurdity of a situation where homeowners enjoy subsidies and renters do not isn't the same as arguing for subsidies for renters. Neither renting nor owning should be subsidized in any fashion IMO.

 

methinks you mistoke me. I'd be more than happy to eliminate many of the subsidies in American life, both direct (home ownership and indirect (the massive highway projects required to support the boondoggle burbs)

[JayB]

It's also conceivable that the difference between the value of the interest-subsidy exceeds the value of property taxes in the majority of the cases, in which case you still have a net subsidy for homeowners relative to renters, even if you don't factor the payment of property taxes through rent into the equation.

 

rental properties have lots of costs they take on, and pass on to you, but you don't have to spend your time on addressing them either (maintenance, meeting fire codes, etc.) Time translates to money as well.

 

if you want to reap the benefits of these tax deductions, buy. if not, quit whining about it. until you have run your own household, and seen what it takes (a hell of a lot more cost and work than renting), you'll never know.

 

 

I definitely sympathize with and applaud the efforts of anyone trying to keep his or her family housed and fed these days, but that's true whether they own their shelter or rent it.

 

 

[olyclimber]

OLY OFFTOPIC AGAIN

 

Ron Paul propoganda:

 

KGpY2hw7ao8