Demorats want to take away tax deductions on 3,000+ sqft homes

[cdog]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082400897_pf.html
Tax Deduction Under Fire for 'McMansions'
By Kenneth R. Harney
Saturday, August 25, 2007; F01
To add to the mortgage meltdown miseries, the credit panic, the plunging home sales and the rising foreclosures, here's a new worry: a proposed cutoff of mortgage-interest tax deductions for houses with more than 3,000 square feet.
One of Capitol Hill's most experienced and most powerful legislators is drafting a "carbon tax" bill that would do precisely that. The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), expects to introduce comprehensive climate-change legislation when Congress returns next month.
Besides imposing hefty new federal taxes on gasoline, the forthcoming bill would, in Dingell's words, seek to "remove the mortgage interest deduction on McMansions -- homes over 3,000 square feet." Dingell said he recognizes that such a proposal will spark much criticism, but he also said it is essential to reducing carbon emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050.
"In order to address the issue of climate change, we must address the issue of consumption," Dingell said in talking points prepared for town-hall discussions of the legislation. "We do that by making consumption more expensive."
Houses, like autos, are contributors to greenhouse-gas emissions. This is through heating, cooling, electrical usage and building materials, plus the highways and roads needed to make far-flung subdivisions accessible to buyers. Home builders insist that they have "gone green" in recent years and that houses constructed within the past decade are the tightest, most energy-efficient in history.
Aides to Dingell said that because the legislative language on large houses and other tax proposals is still being drafted, neither they nor the congressman could elaborate on the details of the plan or why the cutoff point of 3,000 square feet was chosen. The Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most outspoken environmental lobbies in the climate-change debate, had no immediate comment on Dingell's proposal.
But real estate and building groups were quick to offer critiques. Lawrence Yun, senior economist for the National Association of Realtors, produced preliminary estimates that ending mortgage-interest tax deductions for all single-family dwellings larger than 3,000 square feet would result in a national median-house-price decline of 4 percent on all homes, not just large houses. Yun said there are at least 10.4 million single-family houses with interior areas of 3,000 square feet or more, about 15 percent of the nation's owner-occupied housing stock.
Dingell's plan could also push up foreclosures because every 1 percent decline in median price leads to an additional 70,000 foreclosures, Yun said, citing industry research. A price decrease of 4 percent in a national market already swamped with foreclosures could add 280,000 to the total.
Linda Goold, the NAR's tax counsel, challenged the Dingell plan on operational grounds. "We strongly support increasing energy efficiency in houses, but basing [taxation] on square footage rather than actual energy usage doesn't make sense," she said.
Goold also questioned the enforceability of a federal tax increase tied to the dimensions of structures. "Who is going to do the measurements?" she said. "Different people measuring square footage can come up with different numbers. That's why MLS [multiple listing service] listings usually say the square footage is approximate."
Bill Killmer, policy advocate for the National Association of Home Builders, called the Dingell plan "wrongheaded" in its focus on house size.
"We believe a much better approach would be to look at consumer behavior -- how efficient are the appliances they've installed, how energy-efficient are the windows, insulation, heating and air conditioning" and other systems, he said.
The interest deduction is one of the biggest tax benefits in the federal budget, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. From fiscal 2006 to 2010, according to a committee study, federal revenue losses attributable to the mortgage interest deductions are expected to total $402.7 billion. Other federal studies have documented that the benefits of the write-off are heavily skewed toward higher-income taxpayers who have larger-than-average mortgages.
Over the past two decades, occasional proposals have been made in Congress to rein in the deduction -- say, by limiting it to mortgage amounts of less than $300,000. But the write-off has never been seriously endangered because it is so popular with taxpayers and has fierce support in the banking, real estate and construction industries.
Nonetheless, Killmer said his trade group takes "any proposal from Chairman Dingell very seriously because of his impressive record of legislative accomplishments." .
"The [environmental] problem he is trying to solve is important -- nobody questions that," Killmer said. "We just don't think this is the right way to go about it."
Kenneth R. Harney's e-mail address is KenHarney@earthlink.net.

[Big Warlock]

jEEEEEEEEESH Haven't they taxed enough? Time for a tea party again!!! :D

[Jyruiz]

I am not surprised, they will try to tax anything they can.:mad:

[Big Warlock]

I'm not one of Dem, but I think that thats not a bad idea.
Let's buy a bigger house as a tax dodge? More wood, more energy consumption, more waste.
Who really needs a 3000SF house...maybe the Brady bunch? Remember this doesn't affect the garage SF and that's the most important:D
Tax dodge is a little harsh! Actually your building equity in something that will eventually be a part of your retirement. And I don't think a legal method of lowering your tax liability is considered a "dodge." Going to Canada to avoid the draft, ala Clinton, is a "dodge." :eek:
Although the home mortgage interest deduction is great and a method for most Americans to have the ability to own a home, it is not even close to working on reducing your tax liability.

[Jbb]

:jawdrop:

[Dribble]

I'm not one of Dem, but I think that thats not a bad idea.
Let's buy a bigger house as a tax dodge? More wood, more energy consumption, more waste.
Who really needs a 3000SF house...maybe the Brady bunch? Remember this doesn't affect the garage SF and that's the most important:D
It's a stupid idea to tax people who they perceive are rich.
In answer to your question.
Who needs:
A gas guzzling big block boat.
A dirt bike
A diesel motorhome
Private plane
SUV
Heavy duty pickup truck.
Answer: No one.
This is America. We worked for our national wealth. People who are successful shouldn't be punished so we can take care of people who aren't.
BTW My house is 2000 sq ft.

[Big Warlock]

It's a stupid idea to tax people who they perceive are rich.
In answer to your question.
Who needs:
A gas guzzling big block boat.
A dirt bike
A diesel motorhome
Private plane
SUV
Heavy duty pickup truck.
Answer: No one.
This is America. We worked for our national wealth. People who are successful shouldn't be punished so we can take care of people who aren't.
BTW My house is 2000 sq ft.
Amen!!! :D
And how many poor people have you ever worked for???? :eek:

[Magic34]

I will build a huge wall through the middle of my house and call it a duplex.
They cant hold me down!!!!!

[cdog]

It's more of a hit to the middle class than anyone else. The rich pay Alt. min. tax and can't utilize the tax deduction anyway. But I'm not surprised by the “If I can't have it nobody should attitude" given by the socialists.
Actions speak louder than words. If they truly care about the environment, why not make solar panels free or at least 100% deductible for home owners. I'd bet a 4,000 sqft post 1998 home is 5X's more efficient than a 2000 sqft 1980 home. Liberals are idealist retards.

[Mr. C]

:D
Damn, i thought i owned a mcmansion. Guess in this case i'm lucky, only 2998 Sq. Ft.
Bet they would find a way to add a couple of sq. ft. though.
I will build a huge wall through the middle of my house and call it a duplex.
They cant hold me down!!!!!

[Magic34]

It's more of a hit to the middle class than anyone else. The rich pay Alt. min. tax and can't utilize the tax deduction anyway. But I'm not surprised by the “If I can't have it nobody should attitude" given by the socialists.
Actions speak louder than words. If they truly care about the environment, why not make solar panels free or at least 100% deductible for home owners. I'd bet a 4,000 sqft post 1998 home is 5X's more efficient than a 2000 sqft 1980 home. Liberals are idealist retards.
Or just make everone use a waterless car wash product. The world would be a better place.

[HocusPocus]

It's more of a hit to the middle class than anyone else. The rich pay Alt. min. tax and can't utilize the tax deduction anyway. But I'm not surprised by the “If I can't have it nobody should attitude" given by the socialists.
Actions speak louder than words. If they truly care about the environment, why not make solar panels free or at least 100% deductible for home owners. I'd bet a 4,000 sqft post 1998 home is 5X's more efficient than a 2000 sqft 1980 home. Liberals are idealist retards.
my home is small and its 30 years old and i know its not efficient at all, a new house next door to me is easily twice the size and my utility bills are much higher then his.

[Sleek-Jet]

"The [environmental] problem he is trying to solve is important -- nobody questions that," Killmer said. "We just don't think this is the right way to go about it."
Kenneth R. Harney's e-mail address is KenHarney@earthlink.net.
What enviromental problem??? That rich democrats use 10 times the amount of energy I do in my home every year?? Or that rich democrats are just telling us what's good for us... :rolleyes:

[EmpirE231]

It's more of a hit to the middle class than anyone else. The rich pay Alt. min. tax and can't utilize the tax deduction anyway. But I'm not surprised by the “If I can't have it nobody should attitude" given by the socialists.
Actions speak louder than words. If they truly care about the environment, why not make solar panels free or at least 100% deductible for home owners. I'd bet a 4,000 sqft post 1998 home is 5X's more efficient than a 2000 sqft 1980 home. Liberals are idealist retards.
Bingo!!
shoot my house was built in 89 and is 1900 sqft ... it was like living in a tent until I upgraded to the dual pane low E glass... low E door... weatherstripping etc etc.
making solar panels close to 100% deductable would help the environment wayyyy more than taxing people w/ 3000sqft homes more. ... but then they'll have to deal with the energy companies... and we know they write big checks.... :rolleyes:

[bigq]

Bingo!!
shoot my house was built in 89 and is 1900 sqft ... it was like living in a tent until I upgraded to the dual pane low E glass... low E door... weatherstripping etc etc.
making solar panels close to 100% deductable would help the environment wayyyy more than taxing people w/ 3000sqft homes more. ... but then they'll have to deal with the energy companies... and we know they write big checks.... :rolleyes:
If you think they truely care for the so called environment "problems" you would be missing the point. It is only a money grab nothing more!
BTW I think people are right on with low e windows and Solar panels are the shit!:D

[572Daytona]

It looks like a tax on families to me. Just because Dingell hasn't figured out where to put it to have kids yet doesn't mean he should tax those who do. I don't see a chance in hell of this passing but they should at least consider the number of people / sq foot rather than just a pure sq footage cutoff. Same as the mpg ratings really should be based on a figure per passenger. There are times when I'm picking up my kids and their friends where my suburban is much more fuel efficient than making 8 round trips in some 2 seater liberalmobile.

[Boatcop]

my home is small and its 30 years old and i know its not efficient at all, a new house next door to me is easily twice the size and my utility bills are much higher then his.
Amen!
My house was built in 1976. Around 1,000 sf. I added 640 sf. Had the house wrapped and stucco'd. Upgraded the insulation and threw in a 4 ton heat pump instead of the 2 ton A/C with heat strip.
My utility bills (all electric) now are about 2/3 of what they were before remodel. And that's with about a 30% rate hike over pre-upgrade rates.
I agree that smaller older homes are less energy efficient than newer homes, 3 times their size.

[Screaming Pete]

Or just make everone use a waterless car wash product. The world would be a better place.
O they say Pimping An't Easy:D :D

[Sleek-Jet]

Amen!
My house was built in 1976. Around 1,000 sf. I added 640 sf. Had the house wrapped and stucco'd. Upgraded the insulation and threw in a 4 ton heat pump instead of the 2 ton A/C with heat strip.
My utility bills (all electric) now are about 2/3 of what they were before remodel. And that's with about a 30% rate hike over pre-upgrade rates.
I agree that smaller older homes are less energy efficient than newer homes, 3 times their size.
What was the SEER rating on the heat pump vs. the AC unit??
I went from a 10 SEER to a 13.5 in the house and my energy bills dropped by 30%...

[Magic34]

O they say Pimping An't Easy:D :D
But somebody's got to do it :D I am trying to shut down all carwashes in So Cal.:D :D

[Screaming Pete]

Ya that's it we want the H Clinton parade in the white house where the Dem. will have full rain of things............:eek: :confused:

[cdog]

Or just make everone use a waterless car wash product. The world would be a better place.
Shameless plug!:D
Article brought to you by the Real Estate professionals at RE/MAX.
www.CoreyCondit.com :)

[Boatcop]

What was the SEER rating on the heat pump vs. the AC unit??
I went from a 10 SEER to a 13.5 in the house and my energy bills dropped by 30%...
I don't think the original 1976 A/C even had a SEER rating. The new one is a 12.

[Screaming Pete]

maybe it would be a god thing that away the rest of the U.S. could feel the way we deep pockets out here in California are hurt at every oppertunity by our Senators, Tree Huggers and alike

[deltarat]

I'm not one of Dem, but I think that thats not a bad idea.
Let's buy a bigger house as a tax dodge? More wood, more energy consumption, more waste.
Who really needs a 3000SF house...maybe the Brady bunch? Remember this doesn't affect the garage SF and that's the most important:D
You know what I have a 4 bedroom 3200sf house. I have 3 kids and my Mother In Law just moved in because she can no longer take care of her self. So lets put this in order
4 bedrooms
one for my wife and myself
one for my daughter
one that the boys share
We are no different than any other family and I can tell you that sometimes 3200sf is not enough room to find any quite space to relax and unwind.
We live in a small house by the standards of my neighborhood.
So to answer your question I DO!

[Magic34]

Shameless plug!:D
Article brought to you by the Real Estate professionals at RE/MAX.
www.CoreyCondit.com :)
:D Waterless car wash articles will be hitting your area next week. Seriously. :)

[Screaming Pete]

:D Waterless car wash articles will be hitting your area next week. Seriously. :)
WORK IT!!!!!!!!!:D

[Magic34]

You know what I have a 4 bedroom 3200sf house. I have 3 kids and my Mother In Law just moved in because she can no longer take care of her self. So lets put this in order
4 bedrooms
one for my wife and myself
one for my daughter
one that the boys share
We are no different than any other family and I can tell you that sometimes 3200sf is not enough room to find any quite space to relax and unwind.
We live in a small house by the standards of my neighborhood.
So to answer your question I DO!
I am with you. I am right in the middle in my neighborhood at 4200 sq ft. Sad thing is, we need more room. :confused:
Just because my house is worth a good penny, that doesn't mean I take all the equity out of it. If you cant afford to repay the debt, none of it matters. My house payment is close to what people pay in a 2500 sq ft home.
Then, I have more trees than the average person trying to keep the air clean:D I am also producing fruit for less fortunate communities to enjoy. I have 22 orange trees, very large, and anopther 10 or so additional large trees. Good air around me. :D

[My Man's Sportin' Wood]

Other federal studies have documented that the benefits of the write-off are heavily skewed toward higher-income taxpayers who have larger-than-average mortgages.
Newsflash, those people also have higher than average incomes and therefore higher than average taxes due. :mad: The mortgage and write-off are all proportionate.

[My Man's Sportin' Wood]

Then, I have more trees than the average person trying to keep the air clean:D I am also producing fruit for less fortunate communities to enjoy. I have 22 orange trees, very large, and anopther 10 or so additional large trees. Good air around me. :D
Hey! Good point! I think we should get a credit or at least a deduction for having a lot of trees. I have over 100.

[Havasu1986]

I have 22 orange trees, very large, and anopther 10 or so additional large trees. Good air around me. :D
So the Dri Wash offsets what it takes to water all those trees. :D

[RiverDave]

I'm not one of Dem, but I think that thats not a bad idea.
Let's buy a bigger house as a tax dodge? More wood, more energy consumption, more waste.
Who really needs a 3000SF house...maybe the Brady bunch? Remember this doesn't affect the garage SF and that's the most important:D
I rent a duplex that's 2100 square feet, with myself, g/f, and one roomate.. Honestly I couldn't ever see living in anything smaller even if it was just me and my g/f. By the time you put the pool table in and all the things that go with that the whole dowstairs is for the most part gone..
3000 sq ft isn't as big as you think. Barely have a decent "game" room in a 3000 sq ft house.
RD

[Magic34]

So the Dri Wash offsets what it takes to water all those trees. :D
That's right. You see, I consume less water for the egotistical items that I have and then use that water I saved to help this planet somewhat react to a better overall environment around me. When you consume less water on your stuff, you really feel a peace over any and all that matters and you feel much better about yourself and your place in this world.

[2Driver]

Seems fair to me. Isn't everyone that's in a 3,000+ sf house just slurping up life on easy street? :rolleyes:
How do the jack asses come up those ideas?

[Freak]

We have 2300sf and want to go smaller. The last home was 1800 and that was just about right. Why you ask? Cause we hate all the time needed for cleaning/upkeep. F-it we would rather be doing something fun than cleaning bathrooms.

[Big Warlock]

It's just my dog and I and I won't say the size! LOL And the new place is bigger but we have "you know who" moving in with us!!! :D Life is going to be different. :eek:

[cdog]

Newsflash, those people also have higher than average incomes and therefore higher than average taxes due. :mad: The mortgage and write-off are all proportionate.
Don't kill the messenger.......:)

[cdog]

Tax exemptions for solar/alternate would still apply SF or not, correct? So a not an issue.
Solar tax deductions are only for 40% of the cost in CA. My next home in AZ will have them. AZ even waves the state sales tax on solar equipment. They are trying to slide this one in under the Carbon footprint BS. It's a slippery slope. Next will be your boat.

[Tom Brown]

This is just as bad an idea as the child sodomy program the Democrats proposed in '96. http://www.***boat.com/ubb/mad.gif

[Magic34]

Solar tax deductions are only for 40% of the cost in CA. My next home in AZ will have them. AZ even waves the state sales tax on solar equipment. They are trying to slide this one in under the Carbon footprint BS. It's a slippery slope. Next will be your boat.
It takes 14 years to break even on the upgrade to solar power, with the incentives.
This is a big debate in my hood right now.

[cdog]

It takes 14 years to break even on the upgrade to solar power, with the incentives.
This is a big debate in my hood right now.
What company are you looking at? Here's what I found.
http://www.americanpv.com/?OVRAW=solar%20power%20arizona&OVKEY=solar%20power&OVMTC=advanced&OVADID=6601463011&OVKWID=38382999511
We're looking at a 3700 sqft home that's 2 story's so the AC will be cranking in the summer.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I hope nobody on these boards is suprised by this proposal. It's right in line with the Democratic Party platform...When anyone votes for a democrat this is exactly the type of thing they are voting for.

[Flyinbowtie]

This has been what the whole sham has been about from the get-go, which is finding ways to increase revenue sources for the federal government. These people are all about controlling everything you do, and everything about your life. The way they do that is with money, and they get the money from the very people the are trying to control.
Us.
Think about this.
The government, which can't sponsor religion now decides what "sins" are, and taxes them.
The government now decides what an "expensive" car is, and taxes them.
The government now decides how much fuel a car can burn, and taxes the fuel, and then taxes the car if it burns more, while also taxing it if it costs more.
The government decides how much money your parents can leave you when they die, and taxes the rest.
If you win money legally gambling, the government decides how much of it youu should get, and taxes the rest.
Now, if you live iin a 3000 square foot house, they are going to tax it. However, if you can't swing the tax, and decide to sell it, you will be forced to pay taxes on any money you make if you don't spend it all on another house.
You folks are right, A 3000 square foot house is just the starter.
(I'd be wlling to bet they won't be offering additional tax credits for homes under some other arbitrary size.)
Next, it will be your boat, and your airplane, and your golf clubs, and your electrical bill will have a "excessive use tax", and McDonalds will have a "Poor choice tax" added to the Big Mac, and god knows what.
I'm tellin' ya, folks, the stuff I wrote up there makes that little deal they called the Boston Tea Party look like small time extortion being pulled by rookies.
The people that drafted and signed the Constitution, in that part where they reserved all powers not clearly reserved for the federal government, are reserved for the people and the states didn't have this shiznit in mind, and their words were written exactly to keep crap like this from happening.
These people, and their holier-than-thou attitude about taxing my life until I conform with what they hink is best for me pisses me off.
I believe that term limits is a big piece of the answer, those morons in DC, who simply couldn't care less what reality is like for the, "little people", would all benefit from them finding out what it is like to work for a living.:mad:
This country is in serious, serious trouble.
I bet they don't tax big screen TV's tho. That'd piss folks off. No American Idol in big screen?
Why that'd be un-American.:rolleyes:
They don't wanna screw with our TV's...might wake us up...:mad:
We might even show up and vote:mad: :mad: :mad: :rolleyes: