No contradiction at all--I repeatedly said the government shouldn't distort the free market with subsidies, with the exception of compelling FEDERAL level public interest. I then pointed out some examples. I don't, however, understand your two statements as they self-contradict
1. We should not subsidize anything!!!
2. Mortgage deductions are SMART.
Huh? Tax deductions that apply only to certain groups or actions *are* subsidies.
- No home = no deduction.
- Paid off home = no deduction
- Bigger loan at higher interest = bigger deduction.
That's dis-incentive to make a large down payment on a home you can easily afford, take a conservative loan, and pay it off early. And that's exactly how people reacted, and it played a part leading us into the mess we're in now. So the government incentive (distortion of the free market) worked! Perfect execution. As a bonus, we need to import more gas from countries that hate us since we live more spaced apart and have to drive more.

And along the way, we destroyed the global financial system in the process, set the stock market back 5 years (and counting), but *WE* did it. USA #1!

Ask the 50% of America (I'm having to guess at this as the number peaked at 60% home ownership a couple years ago, including people with paid off homes) who do not get deduct mortgage interest how they feel about subsidizing your home for you. (Full disclosure: I do own a home and claim the interest)

I googled your "credit for rent paid" deduction as I have never claimed it. Some caveats:
- It is not a FEDERAL law (which is what we were discussing), but a state rebate in Michigan, Maryland, and Missouri. Perhaps others, those were all I found.
- There is an income level associated with it. I am unaware of any income limit on the federal form for mortgage interest. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You seem to unaware there is a vast difference between a NYC (with tons of skyscrapers) and Dallas (with tons of 3 to 5 story apartment developments, including The Village). Bigger than 5 would be too congested for me. Please re-read, I never said we had to build 100+ story skyscrapers and force everyone to move in.

I also never said you can't move to your 5-acres. If Americans lived denser, on average, then you would actually have more land available to you. And I agree with your 2nd sentence--no subsidies. You should pay full market price, to include full taxes. (No federal deductions aka subsidies.) You should bear the true market value without government market distortion.
Note: I would argue different if it was a home business, aka a farm.


I would hope it's self-obvious that if you build two structures to an equal standard, then 12 houses each with four walls and a roof exposed to the elements would absorb/radiate more energy than a condo where each side only has one side exposed, and only the top units are exposed to the roof. It should be self obvious. If not:
- Freeze two blocks of ice with equal volume. Use tupperware.
- Take them outside at the same time
- Set one down gently
- Smash the other into small pieces
- See which lasts longer. Should answer your question.

Again, I'm not *forcing* you to do anything. I'm for removing federal distortion of the free market as a way to buy votes or curry favor, especially when it's counter-productive to things like our long-term security (energy independence). The federal government should only use subsidies to further long-term strategic goals for the security of the country.
- Mass transportation (reduce dependence on foreign oil)
- Education
- Basic science research (look up how the boost here after Sputnik drive American economy until the mid 80's, now look where the Nobel's are going)
- etc