News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%. Parent comment

Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by onlyrealcuzzo on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @02:10PM (#27438758)
A house someone held for 25 years, fundamentally, doesn't seem any different than stocks someone held for 25 years. I'm not sure why we're obsessed with the idea that non-homeowners should subsidize homeowner's housing.

If we really claim to live in a progressive society, shouldn't renters be getting the subsidy? I mean, sure, a small percentage of the population does have public housing. But that hardly compares to the amount of people saving $10k per year on taxes with the mortgage interest deduction on ~$1M homes in HCOL areas, and then another 15-20% on $250k ($37.5k-$50k) when they sell it.

This is more than the average household makes per year after taxes...

The long-term average for appreciation on housing is 2.75%. In the last 20 years, it's been well above that. But even still, the average home-owner with a $1M house is saving $20k+ in taxes per year.

I mean - I get it. The average person buying a million dollar home these days probably has a marginal tax rate of >40%, and houses are wicked expensive. It's nice to save some taxes. But is this really the group that should be getting the savings? And isn't it possible all this is just manipulating the housing market further?

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I'd rather my home be a place where I live than a meme-stock I speculate on.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by willseth on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @03:19PM (#27439596)
Housing benefits need adjustment so a larger share goes toward people who need it more, but overall home ownership encourages people to raise families and build communities, which acts as a compounding benefit to society. i.e. subsidizing renters will have a positive short term benefit, but long term it benefits landlords.
[ Parent | on HN ]