Is the Mortgage Interest Deduction Doomed?

By Andrew Jeffery  FEB 22, 2011 9:50 AM

While eliminating the MID may sound like a popular, hard-line approach to expensive government subsidies for the housing market, the reality is it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

 


It doesn't make nearly the headline fodder as revolution in Egypt (or Wisconsin), but the fate of the mortgage interest deduction, or MID, is a hot topic in housing finance circles this budget season. And while eliminating the MID may sound like a popular, hard-line approach to expensive government subsidies for the housing market, the stark reality is that the MID is not going anywhere anytime soon.

The new Obama administration budget calls for stemming the benefit homeowners get by writing off interest on mortgages. Specifically, the president wants to limit deductions for homeowners earning more than $250,000 in annual income. Meanwhile, deductions on up to $1 million in mortgage debt, loans on second and third homes, and home equity lines of credit would remain in place. The MID isn't the budget's largest line-item, but it is no small potatoes, either.

Estimates vary, but the consensus is that the MID is around a $100 billion per year budget item. However, only one-third of homeowners actually get to take the deduction because many homeowners don't itemize their deductions, missing out on one of the highly touted tax benefits of owning a home.

Lining up to defend the MID are powerful real estate and mortgage special interest groups, eager to promote home ownership (and of course member commissions). They argue that at a time when the housing market is already so shaky, removing this incentive to own real estate would undermine the feeble recovery that already appears to be faltering. Unsurprisingly, the National Association of Realtors, or NAR, the powerful real estate lobbyist group, is up in arms: "NAR opposes any changes that would limit or undermine current law."

On the other side are a smattering of economists who aren't sure the MID has much of an effect anyway. And if it does, the tax savings could be put to much better use. In a recent Financial Times piece, Robert Pozen pointed out that in Australia, Canada, and England, countries with similar demographics and legal structures to the United States, there is no MID yet home ownership rates remain higher than ours (which currently stands at its lowest in more than a dozen years).

Others believe that the MID and other subsidies via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- in addition to accommodating interest rate policy that has helped boost mortgage-lending profits at money center banks Wells Fargo (WFC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Citibank (C) and Bank of America (BAC) -- allocate too many precious public dollars to housing. Far better to invest in innovation, or pretty much anything that can't be boiled down to four walls and a roof.

Ultimately -- and unfortunately because much of the discussion over US housing policy falls into this same category -- the debate is futile in the near future. The MID in its current form reduces the cost of a home by about 20%. If this sounds astounding, do the math. The mortgage payment for a buyer putting down 20% to buy a $300,000 home and taking out a 5.0% mortgage is $1,288. The buyer gets to write off the $12,000 in annual interest paid, reducing his or her taxes by $3,000 assuming a 25% tax bracket. That's $250 per month, making the buyer's effective monthly mortgage payment just over $1,000 per month. The equivalent monthly payment pencils out to a home that costs around $240,000, or 20% below the original $300,000.

Current government policy states an explicit desire to prop up home prices, so expecting a policy that would almost immediately give property values a 20% haircut is untenable, at best. Even the current proposal will have a hard time surviving; a similar one last year got shot down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. Far better to focus near-term efforts on resolving the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle, as the only way the housing market can truly heal is with a functioning, liquid, private secondary market. As long as the zombie-like Fannie and Freddie are allowed to hang around, housing will remain in a painful limbo.


No positions in stocks mentioned.

The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opin= =3D =3D3D ion about the performance of securities and financial markets by = the wr=3D iter=3D3D s whose articles appear on the site. The views expresse= d by the wri=3D ters are=3D3D not necessarily the views of Minyanville Medi= a, Inc. or members=3D of its man=3D3D agement. Nothing contained on the web= site is intended to con=3D stitute a recom=3D3D mendation or advice address= ed to an individual investor =3D or category of inve=3D3D stors to purchase= , sell or hold any security, or to =3D take any action with re=3D3D spect t= o the prospective movement of the securit=3D ies markets or to solicit t=3D= 3D he purchase or sale of any security. Any inv=3D estment decisions must b= e made =3D3D by the reader either individually or in =3D consultation with = his or her invest=3D3D ment professional. Minyanville write=3D rs and staff= may trade or hold position=3D3D s in securities that are discuss=3D ed in = articles appearing on the website. Wr=3D3D iters of articles are requir=3D = ed to disclose whether they have a position in =3D3D any stock or fund disc= us=3D sed in an article, but are not permitted to disclos=3D3D e the size o= r direct=3D ion of the position. Nothing on this website is intende=3D3D d = to solicit bus=3D iness of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Mi= ny=3D3D anville mana=3D gement and staff as well as contributing writers wi= ll not respo=3D3D nd to em=3D ails or other communications requesting inves= tment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.