The Corner

Santorum on Housing: Privatize Gain, Socialize Loss

In the economic agenda he announced today online and in the Wall Street Journal, Rick Santorum says that to “revive” housing, he would “phase out within several years Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” He would also “allow families whose homes are ‘underwater’ to deduct losses from the sale of their home in order to better get a fresh start.”

The first proposal is at odds with Santorum’s goal of “reviv[ing] housing.” That’s a problem not with the proposal, though — getting rid of Fan and Fred is a good idea — it’s a problem with the goal.

When people can borrow more mortgage money more cheaply than they otherwise could, thanks to Fan and Fred’s government backing, that money pushes up housing prices. It has nowhere else to go. Conversely, getting rid of Fannie and Freddie would push down housing prices, as houses would lose a big part of their government subsidy. 

That would be just fine. But it illustrates that Santorum can never get rid of the housing giants unless he gets rid of the idea, too, that government should “revive housing.” Beyond that, Santorum doesn’t offer guidance on the precise timeline he means by “several years.”

The second proposal — to allow homeowners to deduct home-sale losses against their taxes — is at odds with, well, a lot of things.

It’s at odds with simplifying the tax code. The average homeowner can’t deduct a capital loss on the sale of his house from his taxes for a good reason: the tax code also exempts him from paying capital-gains taxes on the gain from his house if he sells it at a profit (of less than $500,000).

If Santorum wants to blunt the impact of home-sale losses, he should similarly blunt the impact of home-sale profits by ending their exemption from capital-gains taxes.

But that is not what he has proposed. His proposal would just pile a new distortion in the tax code atop an existing distortion.

It’s at odds with practicality. A family earning $75,000 with two kids at home pays about $4,440 in taxes. Sure, if the family sold a house at, say, a $10,000 loss, that $4,440 would certainly help (though it wouldn’t help the federal budget deficit!). 

But for a family whose home is many tens of thousands of dollars “underwater,” the tax break would be little more than an afterthought. It wouldn’t affect the decision either way, so why waste the money?

Anyway, what deters most families from selling their homes at a loss is not the idea of a loss, but the fact that it’s not their loss to take.

Homes are “underwater” not because the sinking value of the house has cost the family its own investment, but because selling the house would cost the lender a significant amount of money. Often, lenders don’t want to acknowledge these losses. So lenders don’t allow homeowners to consummate such “short sales.” Santorum’s proposal doesn’t address that issue, except by letting lenders know that, thanks to the tax break, a family has extra cash to give to the bank (or other lenders) to make up part of the “short sale” loss.

It’s at odds with Santorum’s opposition to bailouts. Santorum reminds voters every chance he gets that unlike Mitt Romney (and presidential candidate Barack Obama), he opposed TARP.

But allowing homeowners to deduct home-sale losses would be a massive bailout. If I don’t sell my home at a loss, I’m subsidizing the guy next door who does. I’m paying the taxes that he’s not paying. What’s worse, I’m likely subsidizing the guy next door and subsidizing his lender. People don’t like this stuff. 

— Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. 

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More
Elections

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More
U.S.

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More