I still don't understand your argument at all. Your claims of this:
the govt doesn't spend trillions to finance 90% of renters as it does for homebuyers.
is, I believe, based on the tax advantages of homeownership.
As I pointed out, the same tax advantages apply to rentals, with even additional advantages, namely the depreciation of the structure as well, something which does not apply to home ownership. These two advantages apply independent of the size of the rental operation, be it DIY mom and pops with a couple of rental houses or hugh corporations.
These government subsidies of rental property, which as I note, are in excess of the governmental subsidies of homeowners, do indeed impact the price of rent in a competitive market place, since they lower the cost of rentals vs homes.
In fact, there are even more tax subsidies for renters. Most things done to maintain the facility, including such things as landscape and grounds care are also deductible, at least over time. Does a homeowner get a tax deduction for the cost of putting in landscaping or the on going cost of yard care? Why should a renter get it? The fact that the rental owner skims off some profit for providing this wholesale conversion of taxable activities to tax deductible activities does not change the fact that non-renters are in fact subsidizing, on a grand scale via taxation, the lifestyle of renters.
Perhaps I have this wrong, but I'm both a homeowner and I have a rental, and thats what I see of the tax code. If you could provide some details on why you think the above is incorrect I would like to look at it some more. TIA for any comments!
PS: Perhaps you have in mind the exclusion on gains for selling a house you've lived in for the last two years (now once in a lifetime event?? I don't keep up on how that ones has changed). If so, that is indeed a major distortion which renters don't have an equivalent to. |
