My friend Barton asks an intriguing question:

1. If I understand the mandate correctly, I have to purchase something called “health insurance” that meets federal requirements for whatever ”health insurance” is and if I don’t, then I pay increased taxes.

2. So don’t I also have to purchase something called a “residential mortgage” that meets federal requirements for whatever a “residential mortgage” is and if I don’t, don’t pay increased taxes?

I suppose you can say “no” to the second question, since what I get in return for purchasing something called a “residential mortgage” is a ”break” on my tax bill.

But what’s the difference?

Under #1: I earn $100,000 and have to pay $30,000 in taxes if I buy health insurance, but if I don’t have have to pay $32,000 in taxes (I’m just using numbers to show the principle involved). Under #2: I earn $100,000 and have to pay only $27,000 in taxes if I buy a residential mortgage that costs me $10,000 in interest payments per year, but if I don’t – if I rent, live with my mom, live in a box or live in something that I’ve paid off or paid with cash – I have to pay $30,000 in taxes.

In both cases, aren’t I being required by the federal government to purchase something from a private entity and then being penalized by the tax system if I don’t? I don’t see why I should consider a tax deduction a “reward” (which would make it distinguishable) rather than considering the lack of a tax deduction a penalty (which would make it indistinguishable).

What do you think? I think Barton makes a good case, and that this strengthens the argument against the mortgage interest deduction.