Buying a more expensive house as a tax shelter (larger interest deduction)?
No. This logic is dangerous.  The apples to apples comparison between renting and buying should be between similar living arrangements. One can't (legitimately) compare living in a 600 sq ft studio to a 3500 sq ft house.  With the proposal you offer, one should get the largest mortgage they qualify for, but that can result in a house far too big for their needs. Borrowing to buy just what you need makes sense. Borrowing to buy a house with rooms you may never visit, not a great idea.  By the way, do the numbers. The 30 year rate is 4%. You'd need a $250,000 mortgage to get $10,000 in interest the first year, that's a $312,000 house given an 80% loan. On a median income, do you think it makes sense to buy a house twice the US median?  Last, a portion of the tax savings is 'lost' to the fact that you have a standard deduction of nearly $6,000 in 2012. So that huge mortgage gets you an extra $4000 in write-off, and $600 back in taxes.  Don't ever let the Tax Tail wag the Investing Dog, or in this case the House Dog.  Edit - the investment return on real estate is a hot topic. I think it's fair to say that long term one must include the rental value of the house in calculating returns. In the case of buying of way-too-big house, you are not getting the return, it's the same as renting a four bedroom, but leaving three empty.  If I can go on a bit - I own a rental, it's worth $200K and after condo fee and property tax, I get $10K/yr. A 5% return, plus whatever appreciation. Now, if I lived there, I'd correctly claim that part of my return is the rental value, the rent I don't pay elsewhere, so the return to me is the potential growth as well as saved rent. But if the condo rents for $1200, and I'd otherwise live in a $600 apartment with less space, the return to me is lost. In my personal case, in fact, I bought a too big house. Not too big for our paycheck, the cost and therefore the mortgage were well below what the bank qualified us for. Too big for the need. I paid for two rooms we really don't use. Two points You don't really get the full 10,000 annual interest as tax free income.  Well you do, but you would have gotten a substantial amount of that anyway as the standard deduction. ...From the IRS.... Standard deduction The standard deduction for married couples filing a joint return is at $11,900 for 2012. The standard deduction for single individuals and married couples filing separate returns is $5,950 for 2012. The standard deduction for heads of household increases by $50 to $8,700 for 2012. so If you were married it wouldn't even make sense to claim the 10,000 mortgage interest deduction as the standard one is larger. It can make sense to do what you are talking about, but ultimately you have to decide what the effective interest rate on your mortgage is and if you can afford it. For instance.  I might have a 5% mortgage.  If I am in a 20% tax bracket it effectively is a 4% mortgage to me.  Even though I am saving tax money I am still paying effectively 4%.  Ultimately the variables are too complex to generalize any hard and fast rules, but it often times does make sense. (You should also be aware that there has been some talk of eliminating or phasing out the mortgage interest deduction as a way to close the deficit and reduce the debt.) Depending on the state you live in paying interest on a mortgage opens up other tax deduction options: Real estate taxes, Car tax, donations. See schedule A http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sa.pdf The shocking bottom line is that it never works to your advantage in the short term. Owning your house: But there are big risks, ask anybody stuck with a house they can't sell. But it doesn't scale. You spend 10K more to save 2.5K in taxes. Buy because you want to, not to reduce taxes.
"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the ""bank""). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house.  To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term." "There are way too many details missing to be able to give you an accurate answer, and it would be too localized in terms of time & location anyway -- the rules change every year, and your local taxes make the answer useless to other people. Instead, here's how to figure out the answer for yourself. Use a tax estimate calculator to get a ballpark figure. (And keep in mind that these only provide estimates, because there are still a lot of variables that are only considered when you're actually filling out your real tax return.) There are a number of calculators if you search for something like ""tax estimator calculator"", some are more sophisticated than others. (Fair warning: I used several of these and they told me a range of $2k - $25k worth of taxes owed for a situation like yours.) Here's an estimator from TurboTax -- it's handy because it lets you enter business income. When I plug in $140K ($70 * 40 hours * 50 weeks) for business income in 2010, married filing jointly, no spouse income, and 4 dependents, I get $30K owed in federal taxes. (That doesn't include local taxes, any itemized deductions you might be eligible for, IRA deductions, etc. You may also be able to claim some expenses as business deductions that will reduce your taxable business income.) So you'd net $110K after taxes, or about $55/hour ($110k / 50 / 40). Of course, you could get an answer from the calculator, and Congress could change the rules midway through the year -- you might come out better or worse, depending on the nature of the rule changes... that's why I stress that it's an estimate. If you take the job, don't forget to make estimated tax payments! Edit: (some additional info) If you plan on doing this on an ongoing basis (i.e. you are going into business as a contractor for this line of work), there are some tax shelters that you can take advantage of. Most of these won't be worth doing if you are only going to be doing contract work for a short period of time (1-2 years). These may or may not all be applicable to you. And do your research into these areas before diving in, I'm just scratching the surface in the notes below." "A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the ""renter"" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the ""landlord,"" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a ""lot"" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your ""rent"" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have ""portable equity"" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will ""get lucky"" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because ""sky rockets"" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house." "(Disclaimer: I am not an accountant nor a tax pro, etc., etc.) Yes, a Canadian corporation can function as a partial income tax shelter.  This is possible since a corporation can retain earnings (profits) indefinitely, and corporate income tax rates are generally less than personal income tax rates.  Details: If you own and run your business through a corporation, you can choose to take income from your corporation in one of two ways:  as salary, or as dividends. Salary constitutes an expense of the corporation, i.e. it gets deducted from revenue in calculating corporate taxable income.  No corporate income tax is due on money paid out as salary.  However, personal income taxes and other deductions (e.g. CPP) would apply to salary at regular rates, the same as for a regular employee. Dividends are paid by the corporation to shareholders out of after-tax profits.  i.e. the corporation first pays income tax on taxable income for the fiscal year, and resulting net income could be used to pay dividends (or not). At the personal level, dividends are taxed less than salary to account for tax the corporation paid.  The net effect of corporate + personal tax is about the same as for salary (leaving out deductions like CPP.) The key point: Dividends don't have to be paid out in the year the money was earned.  The corporation can carry profits forward (retained earnings) as long as it wants and choose to issue dividends (or not) in later years. Given that, here's how would the partial income tax shelter works: At some point, for you to personally realize income from the corporation, you can have the corporation declare a dividend. You'll then have to pay personal income taxes on the income, at the dividend rates.  But for as long as the money was invested inside the corporation, it was subject only to lesser corporate tax rates, not higher personal income tax rates.  Hence the ""partial"" aspect of this kind of tax shelter. Or, if you're lucky enough to find a buyer for your corporation, you could qualify for the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption on proceeds up to $750,000 when you sell a qualified small business corporation.  This is the best exit strategy; unfortunately, not an easy one where the business has no valuable assets (e.g. a client base, or intellectual property.) * The major sticking-point:  You need to have real business revenue!  A regular employee (of another company) can't funnel his personally-earned employment income into a corporation just to take advantage of this mechanism.  Sorry. :-/" 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 ... "Pre-edit, Pete mentioned that he feels real estate agents would (a) like you to buy as much house as you afford, and (b) would love to show you three houses and have you choose one.  As a real estate agent myself, I believe his warnings were understated. As with any industry, there are good and bad people. Agents are paid to move houses. If the median US home is under $200K, and commissions average say 5%, the $10,000 to be gained is split between the buyer brokerage and selling agent. The $5000 to each is then shared with 'the house.' So, this sale would net me $2500, gross. Move one a week, and the income is great, one per month, not so much. Tire kickers will waste an agent's time for a potential decision to wait another year and continue renting. Their obligation is to tell you the truth, but not to offer financial advice.  Remember the mortgage crisis? It seems the banks and brokers aren't watching out for you either. They will tell you what they'll lend you, but not what you can afford. These numbers are worlds apart.  I strongly recommend a 20% downpayment. The FHA PMI calculator shows that a 90% LTV (i.e. a 10% downpayment) for a $100K house will cost you $1200/yr in PMI. Think about this. For the $10,000 that you didn't put down, you are paying an extra $1200 each year. This is on top of the interest, so even at 5%, that last $10,000 is costing nearly 17%. If you can't raise that $10K (or whatever 10% is on that house) in cheaper funds, you should hold off. Using the 401(k) loan for this purpose is appropriate, yet emotionally charged. As if suck loans are written by the devil himself.  ""Buy the biggest house you can""? No. I have a better idea. Buy the smallest place you can tolerate. I have a living room (in addition to family room) that has been used 3 times in 20 years. A dining room we actually use. Twice per year. When your house is 50% too big, you pay 50% more property tax, more utility bills, and more maintenance. Closing costs, commission, etc, isn't cheap, but the lifetime cost of living in a too-big house is a money pit." First, the single worst reason to do anything is because most people are doing it. The second worst thing is to take tax advice from a non-tax pro. (Ironic, I understand, but read on) Run through your 2015 tax return. Do you itemize already? If not, there's a reason, the standard deduction for a couple is $12,600 in 2016, so a renter isn't likely to have enough deductions to itemize, even with a high state tax.  For 2016, project your total interest from the mortgage, and the year's property tax, then add your state income tax, and last, any charitable donations. This total comprises the bulk of what people take on their Schedule A. Now, since your current withholding assumes the standard $12,600, subtract this number, and you're left with the amount your taxable income will be reduced for the fact that you have the house. Last, divide this number by $4000. The result is how many more withholding allowances you can claim. One personal exemption (a withholding allowance) is exactly $4050 this year.  For what its worth, median home price for early 2016 was $190K. After 20% down, a $152K mortgage would cost about $6000 in interest the first year, and maybe $3000 in property tax. The average couple, making $60,000 or so won't have a state bill much over $3000, so shy of some nice donations, it's easy to have a house, yet still not itemize.  Of course, if you have higher income and a more expensive home, the numbers will be different.  The best you can do is to get tax software or use an online service and estimate the 2016 return based on your numbers. If you wish to post numbers via an edit to your question, I'm happy to update my answer a bit to your situation.  Note - the form you'll use to adjust withholdings, the W4, offers a worksheet to perform the calculation.  It asks in line 1 for your total itemized deductions, then subtract the standard deduction, then divide by $4050. Pretty much what I suggested above. "Other people have already demonstrated the effect of compound interest to the question. I'd like to add a totally different perspective.  Note that the article says if you can follow this simple recipe throughout your working career, you will almost certainly beat out most professional investors [...] you'll likely accumulate enough savings to retire comfortably. (the latter point may be the more practical mark than the somewhat arbitrary million (rupees? dollars?) My point here is that the group of people who do put away a substantial fraction of their (lower) early wages and keep them invested for decades show (at least) two traits that will make a very substantial difference to the average (western) person. They may be correlated, though: people who are not tempted or able to resist the temptation to spend (almost) their whole income may be more likely to not touch their savings or investments. (In my country, people like to see themselves as ""world champions in savings"", but if you talk to people you find that many people talk about saving for the next holidays [as opposed to saving for retirement].) Also, if you get going this way long before you are able to retire you reach a relative level of independence that can give you a much better position in wage negotiations as you do not need to take the first badly paid job that comes along in order to survive but can afford to wait and look and negotiate for a better job.  Psychologically, it also seems to be easier to consistently keep the increase in your spending below the increase of your income than to reduce spending once you overspent. There are studies around that find homeowners on average substantially more wealthy than people who keep living in rental appartments (I'm mostly talking Germany, were renting is normal and does not imply poverty - but similar findings have also been described for the US) even though someone who'd take the additional money the homeowner put into their home over the rent and invested in other ways would have yielded more value than the home. The difference is largely attributed to the fact that buying and downpaying a home enforces low spending and saving, and it is found that after some decades of downpayment homeowners often go on to spend less than their socio-economic peers who rent. The group that is described in this question is one that does not even need the mental help of enforcing the savings. In addition, if this is not about the fixed million but about reaching a level of wealth that allows you to retire: people who have practised moderate spending habits as adults for decades are typically also much better able to get along with less in retirement than others who did went with a high consumption lifestyle instead (e.g. the homeowners again).  My estimate is that these effects compound in a way that is much more important than the ""usual"" compounding effect of interest - and even more if you look at interest vs. inflation, i.e. the buying power of your investment for everyday life.  Note that they also cause the group in question to be more resilient in case of a market crash than the average person with about no savings (note that market crashes lead to increased risk of job loss).  Slightly off topic: I do not know enough how difficult saving 50 USD out of 50 USD in Pakistan is - and thus cannot comment whether the savings effort called for in the paper is equivalent/higher/lower than what you achieve. I find that trying to keep to student life (i.e. spending that is within the means of a student) for the first professional years can help kick-starting a nest egg (European experience - again, not sure whether applicable in Pakistan)."