Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Around the Block

Why the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Has Got to Go

The mortgage interest deduction costs the federal government much more than rental assistance for low-income people.

While the Trump administration pursues massive cuts to HUD that threaten urban neighborhoods, especially poorer ones, there's one form of housing assistance that the White House is much less enthusiastic about reducing: the mortgage interest tax deduction.

The mortgage interest deduction costs the federal government more than all rental subsidies combined, writes David Meni at Greater Greater Washington. And all that money promotes sprawl by encouraging people to buy more house, while transferring wealth to the upper tiers of the income ladder.

While there is bi-partisan support among think tanks for reforming this tax break, the politics of overhauling such a massive giveaway to the affluent are exceptionally difficult. Meni breaks down why the mortgage interest deduction is so regressive:

The MID is currently projected to be a $96 billion program by 2019. And as we recapped in that earlier post, nearly all of that spending goes to high-earners with large mortgages.

This staggering inequity is because of how the benefit is designed. You can only claim the deduction if you itemize your expenses, something that only those with higher incomes tend to do. As a result, the value of the benefit actually goes up as your income rises. This means that the MID actually incentives mortgage debt, rather than homeownership -- you get a larger benefit if you have a more expensive mortgage.

As a result of all these policy design choices, someone making millions of dollars a year -- even if they have multiple homes -- gets an average of $1,236 per month from the MID. That could cover most or all of a month’s rent for low-income households, whose average share is just eight cents, if they can get the benefit at all.

For someone with a $1 million mortgage, the MID means that the federal government gives you back about $22,000 a year -- enough to push a family of three above the poverty line.

More recommended reading today: Streets.mn says the focus on "distracted walking" is a distraction from the real threats that make walking so dangerous. And Bike Portland reports on some good news from Oregon state legislature which should clear the way for a 20 mph default residential speed limit in the city.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Friday Video: The Secret History of Amtrak’s Mardi Gras Service

...and what it means for new passenger rail service across America.

December 19, 2025

Friday’s Headlines Walk the Line

If you're a capitalist, the market says there's a premium for living in a walkable neighborhood. So why not supply more to meet demand?

December 19, 2025

Talking Headways Podcast: Fighting to Win

Carter Lavin talks with Jeff Wood about the necessity of messy politics in obtaining street safety.

December 18, 2025

Streetsblog’s ‘Car-Free Carolers’ Bring the Joy, Mirth and Ho-Ho-Hope to this Holiday Season

Streetsblog's singers are back, belting out their parody classics to make a serious point: New York's roadways don't have to be dangerous places for kids and lungs, but can be joyous spaces for people to walk around, shop, eat or just ... hang out.

December 18, 2025

Study: More Protected Bike Lanes = More Micromobility Users

This ought to silence doubters who claim that no one's using that shiny new cycle track.

December 18, 2025

Thursday’s Headlines Are Hot-Blooded, Check It and See

Hopefully the Earth won't have a fever of 103 when judges get done with the Trump administration's proposal to dismantle greenhouse gas regulations.

December 18, 2025
See all posts