Two Ideas for Harnessing Tax Reform to Affordable Housing Expansion

December 10, 2012

The Presidential campaigns primed us (again) for comprehensive tax reform. And now it’s reportedly on the table as negotiators try to forge a “grand bargain” that will pull us back from the so-called fiscal cliff.

Some key differences between Republicans and Democrats, as you undoubtedly know. But cross-party agreement on broadening the base — an oblique term for getting rid of tax breaks.

As I’ve mentioned before, the second largest tax break for individual filers is the home mortgage interest deduction. It cost the federal government an estimated $140.5 billion last year alone.

Chances Congress will get rid of this homeownership preference altogether are somewhere close to zero, I think.

But two organizations have ideas for changing it to address the affordable housing needs of low and moderate-income people.

Creating a Revenue Stream for the National Housing Trust Fund

The National Low-Income Housing Coalition would convert the mortgage interest deduction to a tax credit — thus making it available to all homeowners instead of only those who itemize.

The Coalition would also drop the cap on the mortgage value subject to the benefit from $1 million to $500,000. Same for the interest paid on home equity loans.

These changes, it says, would save the federal government at least $20 billion a year — maybe as much as $40 billion.

NLIHC wants at least some of the savings — actually additional revenues collected — to provide a funding stream for the National Housing Trust Fund.

Brief summary of my earlier post on why that’s needed.

Congress created the Trust Fund in 2008 to provide federal financial support for affordable housing construction and preservation — mainly rental housing that extremely low-income households can afford, i.e., those with incomes no greater than 30% of the median for their area.

To finance the Fund, Congress allocated a percent of the value of new business generated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Then the housing bubble burst. The agency that regulates Fannie and Freddie effectively declared itself their legal guardian because the risky loans they’d made put them at risk of insolvency.

And it told them to indefinitely suspend what, in ordinary times, they would have contributed to the Trust Fund.

So the Fund has remained one of those good ideas on paper only.

The NLIHC proposal is the latest of several to put some money into it — and so far as I know, the only one that would give it an ongoing revenue stream.

Creating a Renters’ Credit

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also begins with a revenue-raising conversion of the mortgage interest deduction to a tax credit.

In its proposal, some share of the savings would go to states in the form of tax credits they would then distribute to reduce rental costs for low-income families — mainly those classified as extremely low-income.

The credits would work somewhat like housing vouchers, though the way they’d compensate rental housing owners is different.

They’d generally ensure that beneficiaries paid no more than 30% of their income for rent — the usual standard for affordability. And state agencies administering the credits could do this in several different ways.

They could give the credits — or some of the credits — directly to renters, who’d then find suitable apartments (and willing owners).

The owners would then claim the credits on their tax returns, based on the difference between what the tenants paid and the units’ market rates.

Or they could pass the credits through to their mortgage holders, who’d claim the credits and lower mortgage payments accordingly. This, of course, only if the mortgage holders agree to such an arrangement.

States could also allocate some credits to specific affordable housing projects. In this case also, the owners would claim the credits or pass them through.

Finally, states could allocate credits directly to financial institutions, with the understanding that they’d reduce mortgage payments for owners who agree to rent at affordable rates.

If, as the Center suggests, the total cost of the credits were capped at $5 billion a year, about 1.2 million more very low-income renter households would have affordable places to live.

And the number who are now paying at least half their income for rent would be cut in half. An estimated 700,000 low-income families would no longer have to choose between a roof over their heads and other basic needs.

Like the NLIHC proposal, the Center’s is an innovative approach to our nationwide affordable housing problem — and the disproportionate financial assistance our system now provides to homeowners in the top fifth of the income scale.

As Will Fischer at the Center notes, Congress doesn’t have to choose one or the other. The two could work nicely together.

And with a proper cap on the mortgage interest tax credit, there’d still be money left over to help reduce the deficit that’s apparently top-of-mind for our federal policymakers.

National Housing Trust Fund Needs Funds

November 19, 2009

In 2008, the Congress established a National Housing Trust Fund as part of a large bill intended to address the emerging housing crisis.

The Fund was to provide grants to states, which they were to use to increase and preserve the supply of rental housing for extremely low and very low income households* and to help them become homeowners.

Ninety percent of the funds had to be used for rental housing, and at least 75% had to benefit extremely low income households. The initial goal was to fund construction and/or preservation of 1.5 million affordable rental units. The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates the shortage at about 2.8 million units. So the Trust Fund could make quite a dent.

However, the Trust Fund was to be financed principally by a percentage of the value of new business generated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their contributions were indefinitely suspended when they fell into financial distress. So we’ve got a partial solution to the affordable housing crisis on paper only.

President Obama’s proposed Fiscal Year 2010 budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development included $1 billion for the Trust Fund. Now two bills have been introduced that would give the Fund working capital in different ways.

Both would use funds in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)–the program that’s been buying up mortgage-backed securities and other “troubled assets” to stabilize financial institutions.

The Main Street TARP Act (H.R. 3766), introduced by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), would simply transfer $1 billion from the TARP account to the Trust Fund. It would limit what families have to pay for rent on units funded with Trust Fund money to no more than 30% of their adjusted income. This would ensure that the units remain affordable for the long term.

The Preserving Homes and Community Act (S. 1731), introduced by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), would transfer $1 billion of the revenues produced by the government’s sale of warrants, i.e., rights to purchase stock in the financial institutions it bailed out. NLICH says that sales of warrants have already brought in $2.9 million. So the funds to transfer should be available.

Neither of these bills would give the Trust Fund the long-term, assured revenue stream it will need to achieve the 1.5 million unit goal. But both could jump-start construction and renovation at a critical time.

The House bill current has twelve cosponsors. The Senate bill has seven. Both will need more to get them on the action agenda. NLICH has e-mails we can customized to help build support.

* Extremely low income households are those with incomes at or below 30% of the applicable area median income. The upper income limit for very low income households if 50% of the AMI. AMIs vary widely, both from state to state and within some states.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 184 other followers