Maybe to most of what you have written However, I don't consider $350,000+ for an 800-1000 sq. foot 2 br/1 bath bungalow (here in Sacramento) in a lousy neighborhood affordable. Go a few blocks over and the same houses are already at half a million. Go a bit further south towards the Bay Area or east towards Tahoe and you start getting to the $500,000+ range for a small-normal size home, not the estate one would have imagined for this kind of money.
Do you know that the cost of --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Kenny H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > *also trying to rewrite the tax code and screw people out of their > > mortgage deduction > > And who is getting screwed out of thier mortgage deduction? Under the > proposal, the average home owner will maintian their full > deductiblity. And those who are unable to deduct it now, because they > dont save enough by itemizing will be able to deduct it. > > Who will lose part of their deduction? The upper third or so on the > wealth scale. You seem overly concerned for these poor souls. First, > they will retain dudutability up to about the average price home > regionally. Thus in California, those with a million dollar home, > would, under the proposal, be only be able deduct the mortgage > interest equivalent to about a $400-500,000 home. And yet, in balance, > a lot of these taax payers are not currently able to deduct for such, > because at their incomes the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) kicks in. > But under the proposal, AMT will be killed, thus the upper third or > tax payers trade part of their mortgage deduction for elimination of > the onerous AMT. > > So don't cry too hard for these upper 1/3 of taxpayers who will be > affected. (Which seems odd for you -- to cry for such (mostly > Republicans), but I guess its just compassion bubbling out for all of > God's creatures.) Their taxes will be pretty much uneffected as the > AMT "gains" will balance out the partial mortgage deducability loss. > > And the lower 2/3s of tax payers will be generally uneffected -- or > will actually gain -- by being able to deduct mortgage interest when > they can't now. > > And the overall effect will be to make housing more affordable. A good > thing, yes? > > What is interesting is your implication that mortgage interest > deductions is an entitlement. It is a poor policy economically, having > been a huge bonanza of a tax shelter for the rich and has contributed > to current housing being out of reach for 85% of potential buyers. > > An effect will be that less money will be sunk into fancy show-off > houses and more into capital investments which will raise productivity > and wage rates for all. A good thing, yes? > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/