NYT didn't pull any punches: How Homeownership Became the Engine of American Inequality

[wildeyed]

19. The article suggests capping the deduction, not getting rid of it altogether.

I thought that was obvious in the article.

Capping the MID at $500,000 would have virtually no effect on homeownership rates. And according to the economist Glaeser, it would have only “modest effects on home prices” in supply-constrained cities like San Francisco and virtually no effect in cities with plenty of available land, like Houston. “Most homeowners wouldn’t even feel it,” Glaeser says, pointing out further that encouraging homeownership typically means moving people from multifamily buildings to single-family homes, which increases traffic congestion and pollution. But capping the MID at half a million dollars could cause properties in the $625,000 to $1.25 million range to drop in value.

Would we be O.K. with that? Would we support reform that provided desperately needed housing relief to millions of low-income Americans if it meant that the net worth of those who owned expensive homes took a hit? The answer is almost certainly no, at least for owners of houses valued north of $500,000. Wealth granted by a bizarre government subsidy is still wealth, and once people have it, they’d prefer to keep it. When it comes to public housing for the rich, it becomes hard to break the cycle of welfare dependency. It’s why some Democratic leaders who represent districts with high housing prices, like Representative Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco) and Senator Chuck Schumer (New York), have been outspoken critics of MID reform, even if they are consistent backers of other equality-promoting initiatives.