[Notary Sojac]

Let's talk about two hypothetical taxpayers, John and Jack.

Each of them earns $180,000 a year and their family expenses are exactly the same, with one exception.

John bought a $200,000 house with a $140,000 mortgage.

Jack bought a $400,000 house with a $340,000 mortgage.

In my opinion, there is no reason why John should pay more in income taxes than Jack, just because John is more prudent and chose to take on less debt. No reason at all.

[Jacquerie]

Mortgage interest is income to the mortgagee. That income is taxed.

Why do you support multiple income taxation of the same funds?

[silverleaf]

So a million Jacks should take a pass on buying $400K houses

Let someone else buy them

That will sure make the sellers and builders happy and create more jobs, eh?

Instead of resenting Jack’s willingess to take on more debt because he can pay for it with a couple hundred extra dollars of income every month, ever think that this tax incentive may actually create a few jobs? More than might be created if Jack paid higher taxes instead?

I guess we may soon find out

[itsahoot]

Let's talk about two hypothetical taxpayers, John and Jack.

Lets talk about two families. One with sufficient tax deductions to itemize, and one that doesn’t.

[antceecee]

Who the heck on average earns $180K a year????? Your example makes no sense. There are contracts IN PLACE...that people entered into based on the RULES IN PLAY! What the heck don’t you understand about that?

[HereInTheHeartland]

“there is no reason why John should pay more in income taxes than Jack, just because John is more prudent and chose to take on less debt.”

Well maybe John lives in a town of 200 people in western Nebraska and his home is the most expensive in town.

And Jack may own a rat infested hellhole in east Los Angeles.

You can't just look at the price of a home. And other things like family size matter also.