Ask any economist about the unintended consequences of the home interest tax deduction. Like many attempts to interfere with free market forces to promote a desired behavior through a biased tax code the harm is greater than the good. We have already seen the consequences of government policy that excessively promotes home-ownership. The result is limited economic growth and a higher foreclosure rate.

Why the deduction for home purchases, but not automobile purchases, or stock purchases? Shouldn't we let the tax payer decide how best to spend the money he borrows? Unfortunately, I don't think the Obama Administration has the fortitude to tackle this issue, but we can hope.

Pablo -- Speculation and innuendo. Please continue to follow this issue and get back to the PW when you have a foundation for this assertion.

In Canada they do not get an interest expense deduction on housing. I think we should get rid of it and if nothing else it will significantly reduce housing costs so more young people can afford t live in our city and minorities also which would be good for our diversity.

Jimmy Carter got his second term with obama and now obama is already a lame duck.

Good luck getting any existing homeowner to buy into that. You really think any existing homeowner would vote for a politician that supported ending the largest tax credit available to them - forget about it. Though the cost of living regional adjustment does make sense. I'll support that once they make a similar adjustment and inflation adjustment to AMT.

Canada -
I find your comment interesting, especially the part about minorities. Are you implying that minorities are unable to earn an income and save money that would allow them to purchase a home? If so, I think you are offering up a huge insult to those that have worked hard, and saved hard to purchase a home.

Pleasanton Parent,

I used to think our representatives cared about the opinion of their constituents but after this healthcare thing I no longer believe that. They (representatives) will do what they are told to do. I mean our campaigner in chief is getting ready to hit the road again to sell his cap and trade program.

Pablo -- This is just a bit off topic, but we have cap-and-trade policies, then called "emissions trading", to thank for saving the forests and fresh water lakes in the northeast from destruction from acid rain.

The coal industry regulated itself into virtually eliminating sulfur dioxide from power plant emissions. The basic premise of cap-and-trade is that government doesn't tell polluters how to clean up their act. Instead, it simply imposes a cap on emissions.

Granted, the carbon dioxide problem we face today is not directly parallel with the sulfur dioxide problem we faced in the 70's and 80's, particularly regarding the source control issue. But I recommend everyone learn what cap-and-trade means before completely dismissing it as a possible policy model.


Web Link

"Good luck getting any existing homeowner to buy into that."

You can put it in place for future home purchases and phase it out gradually. We need to simplify the tax code and get rid of all these deductions. We don't need the government telling citizens how to spend their money.

Fine. Eliminate my property tax then as well, that should also help simplify the tax code.

Well, I read the link posted above by "Pablo Escobar" (right!) and found no reference to the so-called "Obama regime" doing away with home interest deductions. Could someone else please point me to the portion of the article that says that this is the "Obama regime"('s) idea? I see in several places that a 2005 proposal is mentioned, and as far as I can remember, President Obama wasn't in the White House then.

Hey folks, Pablo relies on credible sources such as Fox (Opinionated)News. You know, that cable stationed owned by a former alien...