Why is mortgage interest deductible in the USA for a house you live in?
"Taxes are a tool for achieving social policy goals. While Americans consider ""Socialism"" to be a curse, the US is in fact quite socialistic. Mostly towards corporations, but sometimes even the normal people, not only the ""Corporation are people, my friend"" (M. Romney) get some discounts. The tax deduction on mortgage interest comes as a tool to encourage Americans to own their homes. It is important, socially, for people to own their home to be independent, and in general contributes to the stability of the society. As anything, when taken to the extreme, it in fact achieves exactly the opposite, as we've seen in 2008, but when balanced - works well. Capital gain is taxed in the US, because it is income. Generally, any income is taxed. However, gain sourced from the sale of primary residence is excluded, up to a certain (quite large) amount from this tax (if lived in the residence long enough - 3 of the last 5 years prior to sale). This, again, to encourage Americans to upgrade their houses and make it easier for Americans to relocate when needed (sell one house and buy another without losing cash on taxes). As to ""asset producing income"" - that is true in the US as well. You cannot deduct your personal expenses, in general. Mortgage interest on primary residence is a notable exception, because it serves a social cause. Similarly, medical expenses are allowed as a deduction, if they're above certain limit, and many other things (for example - if a US person totals his car, and insurance doesn't cover the loss - it is tax deductible, above certain limit, the higher the income - the higher the limit). These are purely social policy breaks. Socialism, something Americans like to have, and love to hate. Many ""anti-socialists"" in the US are in fact taking advantage of these specific tax breaks the most, because for rich folks these are limited or non-existent (mortgage interest limited up to 1 million, medical expenses are allowed only above certain percentage of income, etc)." Well quite a few countires have tax breaks on the first house you own ... this is typically to promote people to have atleast one house of their own ... having a house of your own provides lot more stability in the long run ... and without tax breaks it makes it difficult for quite a few to own a house ... the tax breaks form a motiviation as well ...  There are at times other effects of this breaks, people buying houses beyond their need [bigger house than required] or capacity [buying in a central / expensive location] by maximizing the breaks ... It's a scam pushed through to benefit the banking system. Tax payments become income for the banks. Any alleged benefits for property holders are ultimately reduced by increased property prices, capital gains tax and estate taxes
When over the long term housing costs in a area rise faster than wages rise, the demographic of who lives in the area changes. The size and income parameters change. A region that was full of young singles is now populated with couples with adult children, that means that the businesses and amenities have to change. At a national level it isn't sustainable unless other items change. The portion of monthly income that can be safely allocated to housing would have to change. One adjustment could be the the lengthening of home loan periods, thus dropping the monthly payment.  This has been seen with car loans, over the last few decades the length of loans has increased. In interesting related event could be the change in deduction of mortgage interest and property tax. If this was to change abruptly, there could be an abrupt change the estimated value of housing, because the calculus of affordability would change. This is one of those too good to be true things that is actually true. Why? Because only you can do this. Only you can deduct for primary home mortgage interest, only you can get a low cost mortgage (others would have to get investor mortgages at a higher interest rate). So its only a great deal for you. More people would do it if they could, but they can't, thats why you can and should do this. I have a similar setup and it is terrific. "Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question.  I will answer as ""what you should consider/think about"" as I don't think ""What should I do"" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes.  These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more.  Find out what the taxes are ahead of time.  Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand.  So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property.  You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot).   Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments.  When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent).  You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value.  Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves.  2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen.  If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent.  If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it.  Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month.  A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost.  We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap.  A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent." "I'm in the ""big mortgage"" camp. Or, to put this another way - what would you be happier to have in 15 years? A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank? I would much rather have the latter; it gives me so many more options.  (the numbers are rough; you can figure it out yourself based on the current interest rate you can get on investments vs the cost of mortgage interest (which may be less if you can deduct the mortgage interest))." In addition to the 10%/7.5% limitation mentioned in the answer by mgkrebbs (which means that very few people can take advantage of the deduction), itemized deductions reduce taxes only when the total of all the itemized deductions exceeds the standard deduction available to the taxpayer. People with mortgaged homes have a leg up on this because they can include the mortgage interest and property taxes on Schedule A whereas those who rent their living space cannot.  In other words, not having sufficient other itemized deductions can make the really ill person with medical bills large enough to exceed the 10% limitation suffer the double whammy of not getting a tax reduction for any part of the huge medical expense. This is exactly what needs to happen for the benefit of the country. Don't make this a republican vs democrat thing. The mortgage interest deduction causes artificially high home prices and discourages building small affordable homes. Home purchase prices falling means builders might start building smaller, cheaper homes again. If it causes a housing crisis, it will be for those who bought 3000 sq ft Mcmansions on what used to be farmland.   Removing the state and local tax deduction means there might finally be incentive for cities to consolidate local townships and increase overall efficiency again. The ultra-wealthy townships that keep poor people out through high taxes will decrease and join other larger local governments. This would be a huge plus as far as tax reform goes. "There's a significant difference between ""discount"" and ""surcharge"". For starters - legal difference. If you have a list price of $X - that's the price you're committed to sell regardless of the payment method. So it doesn't matter if I pay with cash or credit - I'll pay $X. However, it costs you more when I pay with credit - so you want to pass that cost on me. You charge me surcharge - an addition to the price. In some States in the US and in some other countries - that is against the law. You cannot add on top of the listed price any amount regardless of the payment method. However, you can say that the list price is $X, which includes the assumed credit card surcharge of $Y. And then you give discount of $Y to anyone not paying with credit card. The list price is still $X, regardless of the payment method. You don't have to give the discount, the discount is your cost of doing business. But that would be legal in some places (not all!) that forbid credit card surcharge. So the main difference from legal perspective is that you're not allowed to add to the list price, but you're allowed to discount from it. Regarding taxes - exemption/deduction is not a penalty for negative. Exemption/deduction is an implementation of a social policy. For example, it is for the public benefit for everyone to own a house. So the Congress comes up with a deduction of mortgage interest. However, you're not penalized if you don't own a house by paying higher taxes. Your tax rate doesn't change. You just don't get to deduct something that you might be able to deduct had you owned a house with a mortgage. This is, again - a discount of a list price, not a surcharge. You're not penalized if you don't have a house or don't have a mortgage, but if you do - you get a break. The author you're quoting claims that bottom line would be the same as if you considered the absence of a deduction as a penalty. But that's not true, because even if you do have a mortgage you may not be able to deduct it because your income is too high, the mortgage is for too much, or your mortgage is not on the primary residence. So mere existence of the mortgage doesn't directly correlate to the existence of the deduction. Similarly with credit card surcharges - you may get a cash discount, but you may get the similar amount of money back even if you use a credit card. Not as a cash discount but rather as rewards, cash-backs or points. However, if there's no cash discount, you won't be getting these if you're paying cash. So again - you're not penalized for having a credit card by not getting a discount, because you may still get it in a different way - and if you don't, you still may end up not getting it. So the quote is a rather simplistic and negative view and more of an opinion than stating a fact." This answer is specifically for the UK, but one building society has an account set up specifically for this. You actually refer your friend/family member to set up an account and then it can be linked to your mortgage. They don't get any interest for their account as it's all offset against your mortgage. If you then happen to give them a cash gift (up to £250 or possibly £3000 per year, I can't work out which is the reliable number, as of 2015) then it's all completely above board.