It’s taken a few weeks, but Dingell’s proposal about cutting off the mortgage-interest tax deduction for homes of more than 3,000 square feet, is starting to make headlines outside of Michigan. In the past few days, there were articles in both “Forbes” and the “Washington Post.” Here’s a clip from the former.
…According to the federal government’s American Housing Survey in 2003, the latest available, more than 8.6 million homes are 3,000 square feet or more in size nationwide. That number likely increased in the final two years of the real estate boom that ended in 2005.
The real estate industry has long opposed limiting a tax break that many homeowners, especially those looking to shelter higher income levels cherish.
The housing market’s downturn makes this an especially bad time to alter the interest deduction, industry officials say.
Changes to the interest-deduction tax break “would have repercussions for the housing market as a whole,” said Mary Trupo, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based National Association of Realtors trade group…
Consumer behavior, such as buying energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances, is more important than a house’s size, Bill Killmer, executive vice president for advocacy at the National Association of Home Builders, said Friday in an e-mailed statement. “Home size is not a good indicator of the amount of energy a household would use,” Killmer said….
Dingell, a longtime supporter of Detroit’s auto industry, insisted that the proposals are not an attempt to publicize the economic costs of fighting the impact of climate change.
“To those who have suggested this may be an attempt to sabotage climate change legislation: you are wrong,” said Dingell, a House member since 1955. “I’ve spent more than half a century in Congress, and I have never introduced legislation with the intention of seeing it fail.”
So, did you get the Republican talking points? The first one is that this is bad for the housing industry, which is already suffering. The second is that large homes are often more efficient than smaller homes. We’ll be hearing these over and over again these next few months, so prepare yourself. I personally don’t think that either holds a lot of water. I don’t think that this legislation, if it passed, would hurt the real estate market any more than it’s already hurting, and I doubt very seriously that a 3,000+ square foot home – regardless of what kind of light bulbs its owner buys – uses less energy than the average American home, which is probably about 1,000 square feet. I’m sure that you could find a 3,100 square foot home that consumes less energy than a 2,900 square foot home, but that wouldn’t prove much anything. Maybe Dingell just tossed this out to take the heat off the auto companies for a while, but I think it’s a damned good idea. Sure, 3,000 square feet is kind of arbitrary, but Americans need to start feeling the real costs of global warming, and they need to change their behavior accordingly. We can debate the number, but we have to draw a line somewhere. McMansions, like Hummers, are a bad thing for society and they need to be phased out.