Housing Interest Deduction Effects

There will be a pretty good national conversation on tax reform, simplification, obfustacation, and the means to the end of government. Some of it, as Brad DeLong illustrates, is juggling the feet of angels as they attempt to tapdance on the tip of a pin

Here is how the Wall Street Journal describes the panel’s home interest rate deduction change:

The panel suggests turning the deduction into a tax credit equal to 15% of eligible mortgage interest, which means the tax break for interest on a $100,000 mortgage would be the same for every taxpayer, regardless of income. It suggests lowering the $1 million ceiling to the size of an average mortgage, using Federal Housing Administration regional data…….

The change would mostly affect only taxpayers in higher brackets with above-average mortgages. Under current interest-deduction rules, a taxpayer in the 35% income bracket with a $500,000 mortgage at 6% in the country’s pricier urban corridors can reduce his or her taxes by just over $10,000. By contrast, under the new proposal, that same individual could claim a credit of roughly $2,800, according to Goldman Sachs.

Dr. Polley writes that this will be a fairly good long term change to the tax code as it will discourage overinvestment in housing, which as Calculated Risk at Angry Bear notes is an increasing portion of GDP.

Dr. Polley performs some very simple, back of the envelope calculations with standard interest rate assumptions and asserts that the net present value of the mortgage tax deduction for a top bracket individual buying a $500,000 house is roughly $100,000. Using an extraordinarily simple division, the net present value of the projected change in the treatment of home income tax deductions would be worth $20,000. Assuming that people are completely rational, or at least the market will force people to act as if they are rational, this change will decrease the value of a $500,000 house to somewhat above $420,000 as there will be some upbidding but the haircut is pretty large for someone trying to sell their house at the top of a bubble.

Kash at Angry Bear notes that the US savings rate is negative and has been negative for the past couple of months. More importantly, real income growth, and real disposable income growth has been extremely weak over the past five years. Additionally, what real disposable income growth is occurring is being eaten up by a combination of higher energy prices and increased debt and financial obligations.

Kash notes: “A negative savings rate is only sustainable for a short period of time, and depends on rapidly rising asset prices.”

Consumption,residential investment and export growth have been driving GDP growth over the past year as the following nifty chart James Hamilton shows. The tax policy change would have minimal to slightly positive impact on net exports as it should increase net savings by decreasing current consumption growth. However consumption is a much larger component of GDP growth than growth, so this change in tax policy is most likely leads to a reduction in current or short term growth instead of an acceleration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook