Romney And the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction

[George Costanza]

What do you think the Romney would do with the home mortgage interest deduction if elected you-know-what? I think he would try his best to remove it. But you can't go around SAYING THAT two months before a national election, now can you?

Anyone have an information or thoughts on that?

Here's something to get the ball rolling:

Mitt Romney Refuses To Say Which Tax Deductions He Would Eliminate

 

[mex]

What do you think the Romney would do with the home mortgage interest deduction if elected you-know-what? I think he would try his best to remove it. But you can't go around SAYING THAT two months before a national election, now can you?

Anyone have an information or thoughts on that?

Here's something to get the ball rolling:

Mitt Romney Refuses To Say Which Tax Deductions He Would Eliminate

30-year rates are at 3.5%.

It's not even worth itemizing at that rate.

Do your math before posting such nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Goodness, you must be in the million + bracket.

 

[Lakhota]

Yep, say goodbye to the home mortgage interest deduction under Romney/Ryan.

 

[mex]

Really? Goodness, you must be in the million + bracket.

no. my son just bought his first house. He makes just over 30K. At 3.5% APR, his standard deduction is more than he'd get if he itemized.

This ain't rocket surgery, but I'm willing to look at your numbers to prove me wrong.

Or, you can keep yammering on about nothing.

Your move.

 

[American Horse]

Actually, for low income earners the mortgage deduction has been negated by the minimum standard deduction for some time. I would support it, and my family and extended family have most of our earnings from real estate. The Association of Realtors and the Builders Association are strong promoters, but their support is mostly pro-forma.

There are also upper limits on deductibility including interest on a mortgage exceeding the value of a home including when a home is "under water" financially. With interest rates so low it would be a good time to remove it, but Romney would need to make the case. I think he'd prefer to be vague about specifics because most of the loopholes and deductions are complex and hard to expkain and easily demagogued; and it will be hard to penetrate the fog) to make them attractive, so he may prefer to remain vague and non specific. That would be an error.

I think he has a full list of changes to deductions both for businesses and individuals that he would put into effect. The nature of the existing law will make them essentially not applicable to earners below 50k. He would change deductibility of medical treatment, pharma, and medical insurance, but even those will be hard to pass, strong as the opposition will be.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Really? Goodness, you must be in the million + bracket.

no. my son just bought his first house. He makes just over 30K. At 3.5% APR, his standard deduction is more than he'd get if he itemized.

This ain't rocket surgery, but I'm willing to look at your numbers to prove me wrong.

Or, you can keep yammering on about nothing.

Your move.

My rate isn't that low (IIRC, I'm right at 4%), but you are correct: for me, it's essentially a wash. (The difference was <$100, I don't recall which way.)

 

[mex]

Really? Goodness, you must be in the million + bracket.

no. my son just bought his first house. He makes just over 30K. At 3.5% APR, his standard deduction is more than he'd get if he itemized.

This ain't rocket surgery, but I'm willing to look at your numbers to prove me wrong.

Or, you can keep yammering on about nothing.

Your move.

My rate isn't that low (IIRC, I'm right at 4%), but you are correct: for me, it's essentially a wash. (The difference was <$100, I don't recall which way.)

This is all I'm saying.

I remember the days of high mortgage interest... it was definitely a benefit to deduct interest in those days.

4% is a hell of a rate. Lock it in for God's sake. That's almost free money.

 

[mex]

Actually, for low income earners the mortgage deduction has been negated by the minimum standard deduction for some time. I would support it, and my family and extended family have most of our earnings from real estate. The Association of Realtors and the Builders Association are strong promoters, but their support is mostly pro-forma.

There are also upper limits on deductibility including interest on a mortgage exceeding the value of a home including when a home is "under water" financially. With interest rates so low it would be a good time to remove it, but Romney would need to make the case. I think he'd prefer to be vague about specifics because most of the loopholes and deductions are complex and hard to expkain and easily demagogued; and it will be hard to penetrate the fog) to make them attractive, so he may prefer to remain vague and non specific. That would be an error.

I think he has a full list of changes to deductions both for businesses and individuals that he would put into effect. The nature of the existing law will make them essentially not applicable to earners below 50k. He would change deductibility of medical treatment, pharma, and medical insurance, but even those will be hard to pass, strong as the opposition will be.

agreed.

especially the DEMAGOGUED part.

Lots of people own homes and have not a clue about their finances. they will fall prey to the politicians' scare tactics.

Hence this thread...

 

[GreatDay]

What do you think the Romney would do with the home mortgage interest deduction if elected you-know-what? I think he would try his best to remove it. But you can't go around SAYING THAT two months before a national election, now can you?

Anyone have an information or thoughts on that?

Here's something to get the ball rolling:

Mitt Romney Refuses To Say Which Tax Deductions He Would Eliminate

It's the only way to even come close to making his numbers work, but they still don't..

It is amazing that Romney can look at America and think to himself, damn the poor got way too much and the rich ain't got nearly enough...time to broaden the base and lower the rate.

 

[American Horse]

Since the end of the Clinton Administration the wealthy have borne a greater share of the burden of revenues to the federal government, and the poor least.

You might want to consider that the greatest force for the disparity of income between the rich and the poor is regulations, but not just regulations, but rules added to regulatons.