Those of you who call yourself progressives, how can you support the mortgage interest deduction?

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

Tom mentioned a few in the second post of the thread. There's also the idea that homeowners feel a greater attachment to the community and, consequently, get more involved in making it a better place.

Why does everyone believe the b.s. story that the deduction is meant to encourage home ownership? One of the great American myths.

Google origin of the mortgage interest deduction and do some reading...

There are no inherent benefits of home ownership. It is essentially a religious myth that there is. 

What are the societal benefits of ownership? Europeans have far lower ownership levels than here, and I am not sure it shows up in the sociology.

Considering how much more generally f***ed up America is compared to Europe, I'd have to say that home ownership certainly hasn't helped us be a better society.

If there are no inherent or societal benefits to home ownership, then what are the societal detriments? 

Certainly the two things can't be equal -- a society of renters and a society of owners. 

What's the case for encouraging renting over owning? 

drummerboy said:

Why does everyone believe the b.s. story that the deduction is meant to encourage home ownership? One of the great American myths.

Google origin of the mortgage interest deduction and do some reading...

From what I've read, mortgage interest deduction was not created to encourage home ownership -- at creation, all forms of interest were deductible -- but, when other interest deductions were eliminated in the 1980s, that was a reason given for retaining it.

There are a lot of "benefits of home ownership" pages on realtors' sites, but here's one from The Economist. 

The origin of it is interesting, but shouldn't be determinative of its present-day value. 

tom said:

What's the case for encouraging renting over owning? 

Mobility? More income freed up from lower monthly payments? (Play it right, and you could recapture more over time than you'd gain in equity.)

DaveSchmidt said:

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

Tom mentioned a few in the second post of the thread. There's also the idea that homeowners feel a greater attachment to the community and, consequently, get more involved in making it a better place.

Having gone back and read that post, I can say that I'm not that attached to supporting Home Depot, et al (although I suppose I should dump my HD stock if their demise seems imminent at some point.)  And I really think that it is artificial that we consider homeownership somehow superior to renting.  I think that I would be just as solid a citizen of this community if I rented my home rather than owning it and those who know me know that I haven't really done very much about home improvements in the last 20 years (although that may change in the next year or so.)  Someone mentioned that European countries have much lower home ownership rates and higher proportion of renters and their society seems to be doing fine.  Seems to me that it is more a matter of expections rather than reality.  I certainly benefited personally from the mortgage interest deduction for many years, but I also think it is discriminatory against renters who are often lower income, more likely to be minorities, etc.

@sac:  is it really "discriminatory"?

sac said:

DaveSchmidt said:

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

Tom mentioned a few in the second post of the thread. There's also the idea that homeowners feel a greater attachment to the community and, consequently, get more involved in making it a better place.

Having gone back and read that post, I can say that I'm not that attached to supporting Home Depot, et al (although I suppose I should dump my HD stock if their demise seems imminent at some point.)  And I really think that it is artificial that we consider homeownership somehow superior to renting.  I think that I would be just as solid a citizen of this community if I rented my home rather than owning it and those who know me know that I haven't really done very much about home improvements in the last 20 years (although that may change in the next year or so.)  Someone mentioned that European countries have much lower home ownership rates and higher proportion of renters and their society seems to be doing fine.  Seems to me that it is more a matter of expections rather than reality.  I certainly benefited personally from the mortgage interest deduction for many years, but I also think it is discriminatory against renters who are often lower income, more likely to be minorities, etc.

RealityForAll said:

@sac:  is it really "discriminatory"?

dis·crim·i·na·tion dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. "victims of racial discrimination" synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. "discrimination between right and wrong"
See https://www.google.com/search?...

sac said:

DaveSchmidt said:

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

Tom mentioned a few in the second post of the thread. There's also the idea that homeowners feel a greater attachment to the community and, consequently, get more involved in making it a better place.

Having gone back and read that post, I can say that I'm not that attached to supporting Home Depot, et al (although I suppose I should dump my HD stock if their demise seems imminent at some point.)  And I really think that it is artificial that we consider homeownership somehow superior to renting.  I think that I would be just as solid a citizen of this community if I rented my home rather than owning it and those who know me know that I haven't really done very much about home improvements in the last 20 years (although that may change in the next year or so.)  Someone mentioned that European countries have much lower home ownership rates and higher proportion of renters and their society seems to be doing fine.  Seems to me that it is more a matter of expections rather than reality.  I certainly benefited personally from the mortgage interest deduction for many years, but I also think it is discriminatory against renters who are often lower income, more likely to be minorities, etc.

It favors those with higher incomes who are more likely to be able to purchase a home and have a mortgage payment and other deductions significant enough to exceed the standard deduction. Seems pretty discriminatory to me.

Now that it's been defined for us as "unjust treatment," that casts a whole new light on it.

Yes it actually is pretty much equal which is why there is no reason for government to favor one over the other. 

tom said:

If there are no inherent or societal benefits to home ownership, then what are the societal detriments? 

Certainly the two things can't be equal -- a society of renters and a society of owners. 

What's the case for encouraging renting over owning? 

There are financial benefits to owning over renting. If there were not, why would a landlord own a building in the first place? 

He is making money.

Same as leasing a car rather than buying. 

You get flexibility and other benefits by renting, but it is not financially smart for most. 

Of course there are exceptions, and of course the calculation changes if you eliminate the deduction. 

Home ownership is an investment plain and simple. So the only relevant question is how it compares to other possible investments like stocks, gold, commodities etc. On that scale it historically does not do so well. 

@sac:  renters receive a deduction against AGI without any documentation (and without having paid mortgage interest expense).  Renters deduction is in the form of the standard deduction despite having paid no interest expense.  To me it sounds like the homeowner has to suffer the payment of mortgage interest yet others get a similar deduction (called the standard deduction).  Essentially, the renter gets a benefit without paying such interest expense.  

Renter:  deduction of $12600 for a married couple without expending any funds  (deduction is roughly equivalent to the mortgage interest expense for year one on a $320,000 mortgage at 4% amortized over 30 years).

Home owner:  year 1 deduction for interest expense of $12,700 approximately which represents only a portion of the overall mortgage payment.  Homeowner's incremental federal benefit in year one is approximately $28=( ($12,700-$12,600) x 28%).#

# Assume highest marginal rate is 28% for couple.

No  race, age, or sex discrimination here.  Instead, a substantial burden for the homeowner while the renter gets a similar benefit (in the form of a deduction from AGI without expending any monies).  Who is being treated unfairly treated here? 

Homeowner couple expends $18,000 approximately in principal and interest in year one.  Yet ends up with essentially the same tax treatment  despite renter not making any mortgage payments.  Homeowner home owner has only paid principal down by $6000 (and obviously does not receive any deduction for principal payments) in year one.

PS Making false claims of discrimination are not helpful.

sac said:

RealityForAll said:

@sac:  is it really "discriminatory"?

dis·crim·i·na·tion dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. "victims of racial discrimination" synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. "discrimination between right and wrong"
See https://www.google.com/search?...

sac said:

DaveSchmidt said:

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

Tom mentioned a few in the second post of the thread. There's also the idea that homeowners feel a greater attachment to the community and, consequently, get more involved in making it a better place.

Having gone back and read that post, I can say that I'm not that attached to supporting Home Depot, et al (although I suppose I should dump my HD stock if their demise seems imminent at some point.)  And I really think that it is artificial that we consider homeownership somehow superior to renting.  I think that I would be just as solid a citizen of this community if I rented my home rather than owning it and those who know me know that I haven't really done very much about home improvements in the last 20 years (although that may change in the next year or so.)  Someone mentioned that European countries have much lower home ownership rates and higher proportion of renters and their society seems to be doing fine.  Seems to me that it is more a matter of expections rather than reality.  I certainly benefited personally from the mortgage interest deduction for many years, but I also think it is discriminatory against renters who are often lower income, more likely to be minorities, etc.

It favors those with higher incomes who are more likely to be able to purchase a home and have a mortgage payment and other deductions significant enough to exceed the standard deduction. Seems pretty discriminatory to me.

sac said:

RealityForAll said:

@sac:  is it really "discriminatory"?

dis·crim·i·na·tion dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. "victims of racial discrimination" synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. "discrimination between right and wrong"
See https://www.google.com/search?...

sac said:

DaveSchmidt said:

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

Tom mentioned a few in the second post of the thread. There's also the idea that homeowners feel a greater attachment to the community and, consequently, get more involved in making it a better place.

Having gone back and read that post, I can say that I'm not that attached to supporting Home Depot, et al (although I suppose I should dump my HD stock if their demise seems imminent at some point.)  And I really think that it is artificial that we consider homeownership somehow superior to renting.  I think that I would be just as solid a citizen of this community if I rented my home rather than owning it and those who know me know that I haven't really done very much about home improvements in the last 20 years (although that may change in the next year or so.)  Someone mentioned that European countries have much lower home ownership rates and higher proportion of renters and their society seems to be doing fine.  Seems to me that it is more a matter of expections rather than reality.  I certainly benefited personally from the mortgage interest deduction for many years, but I also think it is discriminatory against renters who are often lower income, more likely to be minorities, etc.

It favors those with higher incomes who are more likely to be able to purchase a home and have a mortgage payment and other deductions significant enough to exceed the standard deduction. Seems pretty discriminatory to me.

Here's what's fundamentally wrong with this discussion. We're here debating whether or not to eliminate a deduction that directly benefits us in MW/SO -- the middle to upper middle class. We're having a reasoned discussion of how and when to inflict harm on ourselves. 

Meanwhile, plans are afoot in Washington to eliminate the estate tax, to protect the carried-interest loophole, hobble the CFPB, lower the rates on the top brackets. 

They've got us right where they want us.  

Everybody is eligible for the standard deduction, including homeowners who pay mortgage interest. Only homeowners with mortage interest expense can get advantage from the mortgage interest deduction.  And some of them still do better with the standard deduction.  So who gets benefit from the mortgage interest deduction?  I daresay majority upper income, white people.  So it seems discriminatory to me.  

Contrary to popular belief, not all of us advocate only for policies which benefit us on an individual basis. We should be advocating for policies that are in the best interest of society as a whole. (Idealistic, I know, but that's part of being progressive, isn't it?)

Home ownership is one of the most prevalent wealth generators in our society.  Home equity and 401k accounts are probably the largest reserves of wealth for most Americans that are not poor or rich.

Increasing home ownership could, in theory, reduce the burden on society to support citizens when they are older/retired.

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

yahooyahoo said:

Home ownership is one of the most prevalent wealth generators in our society.  Home equity and 401k accounts are probably the largest reserves of wealth for most Americans that are not poor or rich.

Increasing home ownership could, in theory, reduce the burden on society to support citizens when they are older/retired.

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

I think that a savvy investor could do just as well with putting their money into other investments (possibly including real estate that they don't live in.)  Of course, the percentage of us who are savvy investors is probably relatively low. That's also why 401k accounts are not as good a retirement support as defined benefit pensions, but the trend definitely seems to be toward the former and away from the latter.  So I do not see any evidence that this country is adopting policies in an attempt to "reduce the burden on society to support citizens when they are older/retired", at least not that don't also "yank the rug out" from them.

The standard deduction ("SD") was created so that those taxpayers with de minimis deductions could elect the standard deduction.  The SD rules allows these taxpayers to obtain the SD WITHOUT providing any documentation (the goal of many activists with regard to the Earned Income Credit).  The standard deduction is a WINDFALL for many median, and below median, taxpayers.  Additionally, many NJ homeowners end up paying the AMT when the joint return exceeds about $180,000.  NJ has the highest percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT at about 9.0%.  Those paying AMT receive no deductions for states taxes, personal exemption or a standard deduction.

It should be noted that the higher a taxpayer's marginal tax rate is then the more valuable a tax deduction is to that taxpayer.  For example, let's say two taxpayers have identical mortgage interest expense deductions ("MID") of $20,000 and both are NOT subject to AMT but TP1 (single) has a marginal federal tax rate of 35% and TP2 (MFJ) has marginal tax rate of 25%.

TP1 Tax Benefit="a"= $7000 ($20,000 x 35%)

TP2 Tax Benefit="b"= $5000 ($20,000 x 25%)

Same deduction is almost 50% more valuable to TP1 (40%="a-b"/"b").

TP1  Standard Deduction Hypothetical Benefit="c"= $2205 ($6300 x 35%)

TP2  Standard Deduction Hypothetical Benefit="d"= $3150 ($12600 x 25%)

TP1 Marginal Benefit from MID= $4795 ("a"-"c")

TP2 Marginal Benefit from MID= $1850 ("b"-"d")

In order to have $20,000 MID, the taxpayer would need an average mortgage balance of $500,000 at 4% interest rate.  $500,00 of housing creates jobs and tax base.  

Your claim of discrimination where renter group receives a windfall (deduction for expending no monies for mortgage interest) while the homeowners expends ten of thousands of dollars has no foundation in fact.  Enacting policies that enhance the economy and employment are viewed as a positive by many, including myself.  IMHO, claiming that any benefit for the middle class is discriminatory is at best a distorted way of looking at tax policy  especially in light of the WINDFALL provided for median, and below, taxpayers.

PS You seem to be implying that we should look at race, and perhaps gender, of beneficiaries of income tax provisions in order to determine whether they are good or bad.  Correct me if I am wrong.

PPS You may want to take a look at virtue signaling with regards to your statement "Contrary to popular belief, not all of us advocate only for policies which benefit us on an individual basis."  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Although, I agree with your statement: "We should be advocating for policies that are in the best interest of society as a whole."  IMHO, MID is a policy that is in the best interest of society as a whole.

sac said:

Everybody is eligible for the standard deduction, including homeowners who pay mortgage interest. Only homeowners with mortage interest expense can get advantage from the mortgage interest deduction.  And some of them still do better with the standard deduction.  So who gets benefit from the mortgage interest deduction?  I daresay majority upper income, white people.  So it seems discriminatory to me.  

Contrary to popular belief, not all of us advocate only for policies which benefit us on an individual basis. We should be advocating for policies that are in the best interest of society as a whole. (Idealistic, I know, but that's part of being progressive, isn't it?)

between owning housing as a business and owning housing as a roof over your head.

How can you compare the two?

jimmurphy said:

There are financial benefits to owning over renting. If there were not, why would a landlord own a building in the first place? 

He is making money.

Same as leasing a car rather than buying. 

You get flexibility and other benefits by renting, but it is not financially smart for most. 

Of course there are exceptions, and of course the calculation changes if you eliminate the deduction. 

yahooyahoo said:

Home ownership is one of the most prevalent wealth generators in our society.  Home equity and 401k accounts are probably the largest reserves of wealth for most Americans that are not poor or rich.

Increasing home ownership could, in theory, reduce the burden on society to support citizens when they are older/retired.

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

sac said:

yahooyahoo said:

Home ownership is one of the most prevalent wealth generators in our society.  Home equity and 401k accounts are probably the largest reserves of wealth for most Americans that are not poor or rich.

Increasing home ownership could, in theory, reduce the burden on society to support citizens when they are older/retired.

sac said:

And what are the societal benefits of home ownership?  I AM a homeowner, and I see plenty of disadvantages as well as advantages.  If you have the same house or apartment, why is it any different to society if the person living in it owns it vs paying rent to the owner? 

I think that a savvy investor could do just as well with putting their money into other investments (possibly including real estate that they don't live in.)  Of course, the percentage of us who are savvy investors is probably relatively low. That's also why 401k accounts are not as good a retirement support as defined benefit pensions, but the trend definitely seems to be toward the former and away from the latter.  So I do not see any evidence that this country is adopting policies in an attempt to "reduce the burden on society to support citizens when they are older/retired", at least not that don't also "yank the rug out" from them.

Home ownership is a very concentrated (you are buying one specific property) and leveraged (you only have to put down 20% on your investment) investment so it is a high risk investment. Investment theory says that high risk should on average bring high return. But on one single investment it can result in a burn out. If someone put their down payment and the equity portion of the monthly payment into a diversified index fund or into a diversified group of investment types their risk adjusted return would be at least as high. So you do not need to be savvy. Nor is home ownership in anyway an easier path to wealth buildup. Ask all the people in the country who lost their home or are still underwater. 

"You seem to be implying that we should look at race, and perhaps gender, of beneficiaries of income tax provisions in order to determine whether they are good or bad.  Correct me if I am wrong."

For better or worse, this is often the litmus test for discrimination.  And, regardless, it is clear that there have been decades of discrimination against people of color in housing.  And it wasn't so long ago that there were similar obstacles for women.  Up until relatively recently, even those who did have the income necessary to become homeowners often faced discriminatory barriers.  While that is certainly no longer legal, I'm not convinced it doesn't still exist.  And, regarding those who do not have the necessary income, it becomes harder and harder as property values escalate.  We can argue the definition of discrimination all day long and I doubt we will resolve it.  But it does seem to me that the mortgage interest deduction doesn't provide that much help to those who are only just barely (or not quite) able to afford to become homeowners because they are still likely to take the standard deduction, being at the low end of interest paid amount.  So, this deduction is basically helping people like you and me to afford more house than we otherwise could.  That doesn't increase the rate of home ownership, except to the extent that some of us might decide that we don't want to be bothered with the negatives of home ownership if we can't also get the deduction.  So, whether or not the deduction is considered discriminatory, I'm not convinced that it is a policy with an overall benefit to society.

The deduction mostly helps well-off white people. And it has no societal benefit.

That's pretty much the definition of discrimination - intentional or not.

It needs to be balanced. The obvious, simple solution, is to give a tax benefit for renting. And then raise the taxes on the wealthy (put an income limit on mortgage deduction? no second homes?) to pay for it.

Seems to me some politician could run on that issue.

sac said:

"You seem to be implying that we should look at race, and perhaps gender, of beneficiaries of income tax provisions in order to determine whether they are good or bad.  Correct me if I am wrong."

For better or worse, this is often the litmus test for discrimination.  And, regardless, it is clear that there have been decades of discrimination against people of color in housing.  And it wasn't so long ago that there were similar obstacles for women.  Up until relatively recently, even those who did have the income necessary to become homeowners often faced discriminatory barriers.  While that is certainly no longer legal, I'm not convinced it doesn't still exist.  And, regarding those who do not have the necessary income, it becomes harder and harder as property values escalate.  We can argue the definition of discrimination all day long and I doubt we will resolve it.  But it does seem to me that the mortgage interest deduction doesn't provide that much help to those who are only just barely (or not quite) able to afford to become homeowners because they are still likely to take the standard deduction, being at the low end of interest paid amount.  So, this deduction is basically helping people like you and me to afford more house than we otherwise could.  That doesn't increase the rate of home ownership, except to the extent that some of us might decide that we don't want to be bothered with the negatives of home ownership if we can't also get the deduction.  So, whether or not the deduction is considered discriminatory, I'm not convinced that it is a policy with an overall benefit to society.

drummerboy said:

between owning housing as a business and owning housing as a roof over your head.

How can you compare the two?

jimmurphy said:

There are financial benefits to owning over renting. If there were not, why would a landlord own a building in the first place? 

He is making money.

Same as leasing a car rather than buying. 

You get flexibility and other benefits by renting, but it is not financially smart for most. 

Of course there are exceptions, and of course the calculation changes if you eliminate the deduction. 

Nope. I'm comparing it from the point-of-view of the home dweller only. He/she can either put the delta in his/her own pocket or into the landlord's.

It is an investment. Others have rightfully pointed out that the money could be invested elsewhere, but how many really have the sophistication and discipline to calculate what the delta is and then to wisely invest it?

It surprises me a bit that the value and benefit of lower turnover and greater stability associated with home ownership in our community is not valued more.

@DB, you allege the following:  "The deduction mostly helps well-off white people."  You provide no citation for this assertion.  The mortgage interest expense deduction ("MID") does not have a racial litmus test.  I believe we can reduce your allegation to the following:  any tax policy that provides opportunity on a racially neutral basis is discriminatory.  Please correct me if I misunderstand the meaning of your posting.

The MID is NOT a race-based barrier to opportunity. 

PS By the way, we can have more median, and below median, taxpayers benefit from the MID simply by eliminating the standard deduction.

PPS Your argument that "[MID]" has no societal benefit" depends on the MID providing not even one iota of societal benefit.  Thus, if even one carpenter is hired to build a house made feasible by financing  now available because of the existence of the MID then your premise is proved false.  You may want to rethink this premise or help me to understand what you are trying to communicate here.

drummerboy said:

The deduction mostly helps well-off white people. [emphasis added] And it has no societal benefit.


That's pretty much the definition of discrimination - intentional or not.

It needs to be balanced. The obvious, simple solution, is to give a tax benefit for renting. And then raise the taxes on the wealthy (put an income limit on mortgage deduction? no second homes?) to pay for it.

Seems to me some politician could run on that issue.

sac said:

"You seem to be implying that we should look at race, and perhaps gender, of beneficiaries of income tax provisions in order to determine whether they are good or bad.  Correct me if I am wrong."

For better or worse, this is often the litmus test for discrimination.  And, regardless, it is clear that there have been decades of discrimination against people of color in housing.  And it wasn't so long ago that there were similar obstacles for women.  Up until relatively recently, even those who did have the income necessary to become homeowners often faced discriminatory barriers.  While that is certainly no longer legal, I'm not convinced it doesn't still exist.  And, regarding those who do not have the necessary income, it becomes harder and harder as property values escalate.  We can argue the definition of discrimination all day long and I doubt we will resolve it.  But it does seem to me that the mortgage interest deduction doesn't provide that much help to those who are only just barely (or not quite) able to afford to become homeowners because they are still likely to take the standard deduction, being at the low end of interest paid amount.  So, this deduction is basically helping people like you and me to afford more house than we otherwise could.  That doesn't increase the rate of home ownership, except to the extent that some of us might decide that we don't want to be bothered with the negatives of home ownership if we can't also get the deduction.  So, whether or not the deduction is considered discriminatory, I'm not convinced that it is a policy with an overall benefit to society.