And on the flip side, cheering for really affordable housing via policies that would cause a housing collapse is hardly a step forward. The economy is hardly "crummy", no matter how emphatically whiners on this board pound their chests. The MID could certainly be unwound (as could many policies), but virtually every market in the world is primed and limited by free market forces and government policies. Unwinding long-standing policies that have driven investment for decades requires more impartial judgment.

if you don't tax cap gains, it creates an enormous loophole for business owners avoid paying taxes on income. instead of a salary, get paid in shares, which the company immedately repurchases from the individual back into treasury. That's a cap gain - but you want all cap gains to be tax free.

Ok, but when these issues come up and we conservatives say 'see how much compliance costs? See the cost of the regulatory burden? See the unintended consequences?', the argument against is always 'it'll hurt poor people'.

Except the market is already fucked up because of policy intended to help poor people.

So this is why I'll never support these government efforts to 'help the poor'. They don't work,

and everyone else suffers because of it.

the tax exemption on cap gains on principal residence is a good thing IMO, because it allows you to keep your money and roll it into your next home when you sell, even if you don't immediately purchase a new home. Otherwise, the tax bill on selling a house would be ginormous.

Let me give it a try (where's that darn FC hat?):

If you are a fiscal conservative who thinks that the progressive tax code is far too skewed, almost any policy which reduces the tax burden at the high end is better than none at all. If you are a pro-economic growth conservative, a sustainable policy which results in higher real estate valuations would be good. That is what the MID presently does. Removing the MID would cause short-term economic dislocation, and misallocation of investments, and a fiscal conservative would prefer a less volatile investment environment. A fiscal conservative (and a savvy liberal) normally just accepts the rules as they exist, and adjusts their investments accordingly to take advantage of policies, rather than bellyache.

BTW, JSA is right that home ownership, like marriage, often leads to an entire set of economically "virtuous" behaviors which help teh economy and society as a whole (saving every month, holding a job for decades, staying married, spending on "stuff", etc.). That isn't a case for the MID, but it is a general argument in favor of home ownership.

Holy shit! It doesn't "cost" you a fucking thing! It is MY money - not yours, not the government's. "Allowing" a taxpayer to keep more of his/her own money is not a government subsidy. To think otherwise evinces a level of ignorance and/or brainwashing that needs to be eradicated.

Your first paragraph boils down to blatant self-interest, doesn't it?

As for the second paragraph, I'm not convinced that home ownership leads to virtuous behavior, especially if that home ownership is triggered by something as tawdry as the MID.

This is an incredibly sad mentality.

It's rooted in pure envy.

Getting rid of MID won't lower your taxes, it'll only raise the taxes of those who pay mortgage interest.

A tax increase on my neighbors has never helped me in any way and even if it did, i have no right to my neighbor's money in the first place.

NAR will swat this out of the park like a Reggie Jackson home run.

NAR will swat this out of the park like a Reggie Jackson home run.
And throw the various homebuilding and roadbuilding lobbying orgs into the mix too. Although this is a fine idea, it's going nowhere, even on the margins.

And churches. The hit to charities would be even larger than the hit to the real estate industry.

Because you think the charitable deduction would be eliminated in conjunction with the mortgage interest deduction, or is there some aspect of the MID that benefits churches that I'm not aware of?

Well, if my taxes are higher that yours because you get the MID and I don't, then the MID sure as hell does cost me. Blatant self-interest has apparently brainwashed you quite effectively.

I don't get this one either. Aren't most churches tax-exempt?

how? They don't pay taxes as it is, so eliminating the MID means nothing to the church.

how? They don't pay taxes as it is, so eliminating the MID means nothing to the church.

Quote:

Because you think the charitable deduction would be eliminated in conjunction with the mortgage interest deduction, or is there some aspect of the MID that benefits churches that I'm not aware of?

No, it is because the top 10% tend to itemize deductions, only because of the MID. the MID (and property tax) make up the bulk of their deductions. THEN, their major charitable donations are fully deductible. I may only have 10K that I can afford to donate to causes this year, but I can donate 15K if I am itemizing deductions (and save 5K on taxes). Lose the MID, and hardly anybody would be able to itemize and write off their donations. The itemized deduction is the linchpin for fundraising for charities. People really need to understand that, to fully appreciate how difficult full removal of the MID would be. It would create a short-term blip in the housing market, but would reduce charitable revenue by at least 20% long-term.

Read this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/...tion-changes-2016-12