Posts tagged as:

subprime

Remember that Staples ad where the parent runs down the aisle tossing school supplies into the cart while “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year” plays in the background. That’s how I feel about this time of year.

As the parent of three children, I love back to school. I crave the sense of normalcy and order that it brings to my house. Summer to me, is chaos. Just hot, sticky chaos. But back to school? There’s a schedule. Every day, there is a sense of purpose. My oldest daughter scrambles out of bed in the morning with a plan: get dressed, pick up the backpack and head out to school. And this year, my youngest daughter who very matter of factly accused me of keeping her out of school on purpose is starting preschool a few days per week. There are school events: picture day, picnics and dinners. It is a thrilling season.

Until the tuition bill comes.

As I might have mentioned once or twice before, I live in Philadelphia (get used to more references – football season is starting, the Eagles are playing and I have Donovan McNabb in my fantasy football league). For reasons that are more complicated than a blog post or two can cover, I choose to send my children to private school rather than public school. This is not an easy thing for us to do financially, and it will become more difficult as my children get older. It is, as I’ve posted about before, part of the difficulty of being middle class in America.

And each time I try to sort out whether this is the right thing to do, I realize that, as a nation, I still can’t figure out our priorities. The feds don’t give you any kind of break for private school tuition: if you pay for private or parochial school, no deduction. Yet, since I can keep my child out of school in the state of Pennsylvania until the age of 8 (!), if I paid for private childcare at home instead of school, that would be deductible. Oh yeah, you read that right: it’s better from a tax perspective to keep my child home for years and pay for childcare than to send her to private school. Is that smart tax policy?

And if I buy a more expensive home in a different school district, the interest from the mortgage interest is deductible. And how much “extra” home could I buy? The interest equivalent of tuition for my three children is about $450,000. Put another way, inflating the amount that I am willing to spend on my home by $450,000 results in additional annual mortgage interest equal to the cost of tuition for my children – and it’s deductible. How deductible? I can deduct the interest of a home worth up to a million dollars – a million. So instead of investing in education, I should invest in real estate according to current tax policy. Kind of makes you understand how we got into this sub-prime fiasco, huh?

Don’t get me wrong. I love my daughter’s school (I’d better, I signed up to be class parent this year). I value education. I make sacrifices so that my children can go to a good school (you will not be seeing me in these Jimmy Choo shoes anytime soon). But I just have to wonder about the direction our country is headed when we’re willing to subsidize houses, cars and even washing machines through tax incentives – but not education.

Well, the feds do offer some tax incentives for college. I guess that’s something.

{ 3 comments }

I have made no secret that I am not a fan of the McMansion. I have yet to figure out why many Americans feel the need to have enormous homes on tiny lots in the middle of nowhere. Even more confusing are the prices that folks are willing to pay. A friend of ours purchased such a home 10 years ago for nearly $750,000 – 10 years ago! Since then, prices have skyrocketed for the McMansion – in more ways than one. Our friend has since replaced many of the “features” of the home that were not as advertised. But in a sea of sameness, the developer cared more about volume than quality.

Owning that home may get even more expensive if Michigan Representative John Dingell gets his way. He is proposing a new law to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for homes larger than 3,000 square feet. Approximately 10.4 million homes in America measure more than 3,000 square feet, or about 15% of total U.S. housing stock.

Dingell claims that these large homes waste energy and contribute to climate change. And of course, as previously discussed, tax is really all about driving policy.

Dingell isn’t the only force driving a potential scurry from the McMansion. The free market is doing its share. Existing home sales have slumped to their lowest rate in 5 years (don’t I know it, as my house is currently on the market!). The prior increase in home sales has been attributed to low mortgage rates and subprime lending.

While I don’t necessarily agree with Dingell, I definitely don’t agree with Bill Killmer, a policy advisor to the Washington-based National Association of Home Builders, who stated “Home size is not a good indicator of the amount of energy a household would use.” He suggested that the number and types of appliances affected overall energy use. True. But, I don’t care how many Energy-Star washers you buy, it costs more – generally – to heat a 5000 square ft home than it does a 1500 square ft home.

The mortgage deduction costs US taxpayers U.S. Treasury an estimated $100 billion per year. That’s huge. And the elimination of the deduction is not a novel idea. In 2005, a Bush administration panel recommended a similar proposal which was tabled after an outcry by the housing industry. But that industry doesn’t have the clout it once did. Maybe the times are a-changin?

{ 0 comments }