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,
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

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to