end home owner tas deduction

that's tax deduction.

Shame on you for wanting to raise taxes to support bigger government. Grover Norquist is going to be PISSED.

Socialist, if you want to be on the same level as Riversider in this debate, I'd encourage you to use bigger words like mal-investment and un-diversified. Be sure to add a hyphen where not required. And be sure to misspell 3 letter words to top off being a complete moron.
Just my strong suggestions.

"1) encourages the price to be higher than is natural"

Actually, it does not.

***

"2) encourages mal-investment"

That's debatable. Define precisely what you mean by "mal-investment".

***

"3) encourages un-diversified savings"

And renting doesn't?

) encourages the price to be higher than is natural"

Actually, it does not.

---
anytime you subsidize something it's price goes up. Basic economics.

No one is "subsidizing" anything.

Not allowing the government to take more of what is mine is not "subsidizing".

Home owners tax deduction should be capped at $500K, one primary residence only and terminated for families making over $1M/Year.

Personally, short of abolishing the unconstitutional tax on personal income altogether, I think ALL housing costs (the ENTIRE mortgage payment, maintenance, condo association fees, insurance, rent, etc.) should be deducted from "taxable" income.

I forget, tax deductions and credits are not subsidies....

Uh ... that's RIGHT.

Mike the Bully punches Kenny the Wimp in the face every day on the playground and steals his lunch money on Monday. He repeats the procedure on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. On Friday Mike stays home from school. Kenny gets to keep his lunch money.

This does not mean that Mike is "subsidizing" Kenny's lunch on Friday.

hmm, my mortgage is 2,000 a moth. the gov't agrees to give me back $600 of that $2,000 each month on my tax return to reduce my amount owed. It's a subsidy. and because I can now afford more mortgage payment I am in a position to buy more home. It's a subsidy.

"hmm, my mortgage is 2,000 a moth. the gov't agrees to give me back $600 of that $2,000 each month on my tax return to reduce my amount owed. It's a subsidy. and because I can now afford more mortgage payment I am in a position to buy more home. It's a subsidy."

No.

it's the government simply not taking more of your own money.

(continuing) A "subsidy" would be the government cutting you a check for EXTRA money that you didn't earn.

Option 1
Gov't let's me deduct $600
Option 2
Gov't cuts me a check for $600
---------
At the end of this process I have the same exact amount of money, yet one is a subsidy and one is not?

No.

The government LETTING YOU KEEP YOUR OWN MONEY is not a "subsidy."

The government, however, cutting you a check and giving you money that you did not earn yourself (the money for the check coming from other people), however, IS a "subsidy". Like welfare or food stamps.

I agree with Matt - it's not a subsidy. It's an incentive.
Allowing government make arbitrary changes ( see sledgehammer’s suggestion above ) will simply lead to poor unintended consequences. People dumping real estate at the same time would not create an affordable housing market ( look at Florida and Arizona - low prices don't translate into affordability ); however, it would have a negative influence on the economy and result in overall lower tax revenue collections. It would also lead to increase in rental prices, which would also negatively affect a large population because half of the country just got foreclosed and would not have a chance to buy anything for a long time. Maintaining a stable tax policy at least in the areas that affect such a wide group of population is essential for this country to get some traction... Medicare and social security tax policies are much more likely to be affected before the mortgage deduction will come into play.