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
Very simple. If it wasn't rented, it's deductible as a schedule A home mortgage interest. If it was rented, you go into Schedule E land, still a deduction along with any/every expense incurred. "As @BrenBarn points out, when people say ""they like having a mortgage because they get the benefit of writing off the interest"" they typically mean as opposed to renting. You can deduct interest and real estate (property) tax payments, as well as some closing costs in the year you purchase the home. You are also building equity (instead of helping your landlord build his or her equity).  Take for example a single person paying $1,000/month to rent an apartment. This is not deductible. He has $1,800 a year in other expenditures that would otherwise be deductible (charitable contributions, etc.), but he doesn't itemize because it isn't more than the $6,100 standard deduction, so it doesn't matter.  He takes out a mortgage for $150,000 at 6% over a 30-year term to buy a similarly-appointed home. His new mortgage payment is about $900/month, plus he puts $100/month into an escrow account for property taxes, roughly totaling his former rent payment. Over the first full year, he pays about $9,000 in deductible mortgage interest and $1,200 in deductible real estate taxes. And because he is now itemizing, he can also write off the aforementioned $1,800. At a top marginal tax rate of 25%, he shaved nearly $1,500 (.25 * (9000 + 1200 + 1800 - 6100)) off his federal income tax bill -- with the same living expenses! This is a simple example with some arbitrary numbers to prove the point, and there are a lot of other pros and cons to buying vs. renting. But again, this is probably what they mean when you hear this. Others have covered the overpaying angle, and there are a bunch of other Money.SE posts on the same or similar subjects." how much taxes would I pay on my income from the rent they would pay me? The same as on any other income. California doesn't have any special taxes for rental/passive income. Bothe CA and the Federal tax laws do have special treatment, but it is for losses from rental. Income is considered unearned regular income and is taxed at regular brackets. Would I be able to deduct the cost of the mortgage from the rental income? The cost of mortgage, yes. I.e.: the interest you pay. Similarly you can deduct any other expense needed to maintain the property. This is assuming you're renting it out at FMV. If not, would I pay the ordinary income tax on that income? In particular, would I pay CA income tax on it, even though the property would be in WA? Yes. Don't know how WA taxes rental income, but since you are a California tax resident - you will definitely be taxed by California on this, as part of your worldwide income. "I don't follow the numbers in your example, but the fundamental question you're asking is, ""If I can borrow money for a low cost, and if I think I can invest it and receive returns greater than that cost, should I do it?"" It doesn't matter where that money comes from, a mortgage that's bigger than it needs to be, a credit card teaser rate, or a margin line from your stock broker. The answer is ""maybe"" - depending on the certainty you have about the returns you'd receive on your investments and your tolerance for risk. Only you can answer that question for yourself. If you make less than your mortgage rates on the investments, you'll wish you hadn't! As an aside, I don't know anything about Belgian tax law, but in US tax law, your deductions can be limited to the actual value of the home. Your law may be similar and thus increase the effective mortgage interest rate." "First off, the ""mortgage interest is tax deductible"" argument is a red herring.  What ""tax deductible"" sounds like it means is ""if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes"".  If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means.  What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line ""income subject to taxation.""  Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something ""tax deductible"" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first.  It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan.  So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years.  The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that.  Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say ""5 years."" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose?  It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way." I think sometimes this is simply ignorance. If my marginal tax rate is 25%, then I can either pay tax deductible interest of $10K or pay income tax of $2.5K.    I think most americans don't realize that paying $10K of tax deductible interest (think mortgage) only saves them $2.5K in taxes.  In other words, I'd be $7.5K ahead if I didn't have the debt, but did pay higher taxes. "It very much comes down to question of semantics and your particular situation. Some people do not view a house (and most upgrades) as an investment, but rather an expense.  I certainly agree that this is probably the case if you pay someone else to make the repairs and upgrades.  However, if you are a serious DIYer, that may not be the case.  Of course, if the house is a money pit and/or you were unfortunate to buy when prices where ridiculously high, you'll have a hard time making any money on this ""investment.""  To continue this game of semantics, you may also consider the value you extract from your home while you are living in it. On to the mortgage itself.  Chances are that it is a long term, relatively low rate loan and that the interest is deductible.  So, there are some disadvantages to paying it down early, even without early payment penalties.  Paying down early on the principal is a disadvantage from a tax perspective.  How much of a disadvantage hinges on the rate. Now, a debt is a liability on your personal balance sheet.  It drags down any returns you may have from investing.  However, a home lone is not generally subject to the cardinal rule of paying off your high interest debt before investing.  It should not be relatively high and it pays for something necessary.  It may be that any credit card debt you have may have paid for something considered necessary.  However, with the relatively high interest rates, you have to question just how necessary any credit card debt really is.  Not to mention that there is no tax advantage. So, it comes down to the fact that a home loan should be relatively low interest, paying for something you must have and that you hopefully have some tax advantage from the interest you pay on it." "Have you ever tried adding up all your mortgage payments over the years? That sum, plus all the money that you put as a down payment (including various fees paid at closing) plus all the repair and maintenance work etc) is the amount that you have ""invested"" in your house. (Yes, you can account for mortgage interest deductions if you like to lower the total a bit).  Do you still feel that  you made a good ""investment""?" Some of the other answers mention this, but I want to highlight it with a personal anecdote. I have a property in a mid-sized college town in the US. Its current worth about what we paid for it 9 years ago. But I don't care at all because I will likely never sell it. That house is worth about $110,000 but rents for $1500 per month. It is a good investment. If you take rental income and the increase in equity from paying down the mortgage (subtracting maintenance) the return on the down payment is very good. I haven't mentioned the paper losses involved in depreciation as that's fairly US specific: the laws are different in other jurisdictions but for at least the first two years we showed losses while making money. So there are tax advantages as well (at least currently, those laws also change over time). There is a large difference between investing in a property for appreciation and investing for income. Even in those categories there are niches that can vary widely: commercial vs residential, trendy, vacation/tourist areas, etc. Each has their place, but ensure that you don't confuse a truism meant for one type of real estate investing as being applicable to real estate investing in general. Think about how loans work for you personally.  When you charge a $50 dinner for two to your Visa card, you did not earn $50 in income.  You did not pay income tax on that $50.  The money you use to pay back that $50 at the end of the month is not tax deductible.    Interest on a loan is a business expense.    Repayment of principal is not a business expense, just as receiving the loan in the first place is not business income.   Effectively this means the LLC repays the loan with after-tax dollars.  Just like you do with your Visa card.  When I do corporate accounting, payment of loan interest shows up on the expense side of the Profit/Loss statement, and it makes the Balance Sheet net assets go down.   However payment of loan principal is effectively null.  It doesn't appear on the Profit/Loss at all -- and it's a wash on the Balance Sheet, as both Assets and Liabilities fall by the same amount. Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't. "This change doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Interest is an expense. Expenses are deductible. Yes, there are loopholes, but no matter what happens there will be loopholes. Seems like any easy ""no"" vote.     Sometimes it worries me that we have financially incompetent people in power." I'll preface this with saying that I'm not a finance or real estate professional, this is just how I understand the situation and what I'm doing:  We just got a 30year/FHA mortgage, there's no prepayment penalty, and no fees associated with paying it biweekly. In fact (Wells Fargo), while the payments get withdrawn biweekly, they don't actually post to the mortgage until there's enough for a full payment.  So essentially here are the benefits I'm realizing: It's rare that you'd start to itemize before you have a house and the property tax and mortgage interest that brings. If your state has an income tax, that's first, but then you'll usually need far more in deductions to be over that standard deduction. The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Your rent is not tax deductible because this expense is not used to derive your income. If however you were working from your home, example - you had a home based business, and you dedicated a part of your home for your work, say an office, then part of your rent may then become tax deductible.