Skip to main content

Housing Prices | 3 Tax Breaks


The Trump Tax Cuts Were Supposed to Depress Housing Prices. They Haven't. 

The tax cuts were predicted to have big repercussions on the housing market, but as of yet, the effect hasn't been seen. The tax cuts did the following - limited the tax break on mortgage interest at debts of $750,000 or less, as well as capped state and local taxes that can be deducted from federal taxes to $10,000. There were predictions that home values would drop over 10% as a result. It coincides with a doubling of the standard deduction, which is predicted to drastically reduce the amount of people who claim itemized. Small changes have been seen in very expensive markets due to the change in SALT (state and local taxes), but most markets haven't seen a dent. Some economists say that rising incomes will counteract it, and some just say, it's a matter of time to really see.

3 Tax Breaks That May Be Better in the Long Run

Some analysts are worried that people may be getting ahead of themselves with the recent tax cuts, as they are not necessarily meant to become permanent. The article goes into three different breaks to talk about what's better now, and what's better later: estate taxes, capital gains tax, and charitable giving. The estate tax exemption doubled, and that is compelling, but the future is uncertain, especially with such large numbers. The capital gains tax was is in talks of being indexed to inflation, but has not yet been in place. Meanwhile, charitable giving may be eclipsed by the doubling of the standard deduction. Some advisers are saying that people should instead front load several years worth of donations, and do them at once. For now, people are just dwelling in the confusion and speculating on investments.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Opportunity Zones

A Big Tax Break for Socially Responsible Investing Opportunity zones have recently been pushed as a development incentive, hoping to spur capital investment in underserved areas. They work in an interesting way- investors use their "embedded gains" by reinvesting the profits into opportunity zone funds. The longer they maintain the investment the larger the tax break that they will receive- from 10%, to tax free if it lasts for 10 years. However, there are risks involved. Some investors hesitate, wondering if they would get money out of the areas in which it was placed. Additionally, there are concerns about tracking the progress in an initiative with no background. Others hesitate based on questioning how it will benefit the community. Those who seek to be socially responsible, in particular, want added layers of diligence in order to be sure that the area is truly low income, or will see a community change for the better. The regulations for these areas are not yet ...
Post a Comment
Read more

CRA Update | Flood Mitigation

It's Time to Rewrite Fair Lending Rules (Just Not Like This.) This discusses a potential change in the 40 year old Community Reinvestment Act, which originally helped to prevent discrimination in mortgage lending by requiring that low income households were served. However, the update proposed by the Trump administration is threatening to remove the nuances that make the CRA effective. The resulting changes would set concrete numbers, which make it easy for banks, but obscure the diverse needs of communities- and, importantly, in setting a uniform standard across different types of banks, many would get away with a lower standard of accommodation that allows for segregation patterns. As Jesse Van Tol is quoted - "Making a better mousetrap doesn't get around the fact that it's a mousetrap." Houston's Multi-Billion Dollar Bet to Survive the Next Harvey Houston is still reeling from the devastation from Harvey, especially when considering how to move f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Education Spending

The data I chose to look at referenced differences in K-12 education spending, an enormous $611 billion (2015) industry at the state and local level. It has been the largest sector dedicated to direct spending by such governments ever since 1977. There are also looming questions about not just the funding, but how the funding is being used, and its progressivity and “fairness.” To start, it helps to see the patterns of spending. In 1977, the state and local governments spent less than half of today’s spending. Even still, it’s lessened as an overall cost from 26% of direct expenditures to 22% in 2015, due to the excess of spending in other sectors outweighing any sense of growth. Today, about 40% of local funds are dedicated to education spending, and more interestingly- 99% of state and local K-12 spending comes out at the local level- only 5 states have state governments also provide for some of their total education spending. The federal government is also involved, but relative...
1 comment
Read more