Sunday, March 1, 2009

This is probably not a welcome proposal for a lot of second homeowners in the Deep Creek area ..

but I can certainly agree with this proposal as it is currently structured. My opinion has always been that someone buying an expensive lakefront home shouldn't receive a free pass from paying their share of income taxes. I commented to that extent last year when another local blogger identified himself as the proud new owner of a pricey lakefront home which I'm sure reduced his tax liability substanially. Seems odd that someone living in such luxury should pay less than the rest of us who are living within our means don't you think? The danger of course is that politicians realize this is more free money for them and just keep lowering the bar to fund more and more pet projects, but at this point it looks like a solid and overdue correction to a flawed tax code.

The mortgage bailout plan on the other hand .. well don't get me started .. but again why should those who were being responsible and living within their means being subsidizing those who weren't? As far as I can tell no one is at risk of foreclosure as long as they continue to pay the mortgage they agreed to in the first place. And after 30 years of making those payments they'll owe exactly nothing .. just like they agreed to.

Don't forget to check back to Dan's Deep Creek Blog for future updates.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Under the current rules, you can only deduct mortgage interest on your primary residence (i.e. no second homes), and on investment properties that are full-time rentals. Wouldn't most lake people be unaffected by this proposed change? I guess some people buy properties to rent, but still, I don't see rental properties as necessarily belonging exclusively to the upper-class...

Dan said...

Thank you for your comments but I believe you are mistaken. See http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq/0,,id=199733,00.html

Dan said...

More still .. http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/home-ownership/5416.html

Makes you think that these properties are what some would call a tax avoidance scheme doesn't it?