Author: Ted Koester
Source: free-articles
the third largest tax reduction in our country's history. Since it is such a large tax cut, it will affect most Americans. The purpose of this article is to summarize the Act and examine its effects.
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (the "Act") into law. It has been reported that this Act is the third largest tax reduction in our country's history. Since it is such a large tax cut, it will affect most Americans. The purpose of this article is to summarize the Act and examine its effects.
Summary Of The Act
All of the tax cuts created by the Act involve income taxes. Transfer taxes, such as gift, estate and generation-skipping taxes, are not affected by the Act.
The Act changes the income tax system in several ways. First, the maximum child tax credit for 2003 and 2004 is increased from $600 to $1,000 per child. The amount of the increase ($400) for 2003 will be advanced to eligible taxpayers this year in the form of checks. However, in 2005 the child tax credit falls to $700 per child, as specified under the law prior to the Act.
Secondly, the Act lessens the effect of the so-called "marriage penalty." This is accomplished by making the standard deduction for jointly filing, married taxpayers twice the amount of the standard deduction for single taxpayers and by increasing the 15% tax bracket for jointly filing, married taxpayers so that it is double the 15% tax bracket for single filers.
A significant change made by the Act is the lowering of the four highest income tax rates. The 10% and 15% rates are not altered, but the 27% rate is lowered to 25%; the 30% rate reduced to 28%; the 35% rate goes down to 33%; and the 38.6% rate drops to 35%. The Act also provides some minimum tax relief to individual taxpayers.
All these amendments to the Internal Revenue Code, as they are significant, are only effective until December 31, 2010. After that date, the law in effect prior to the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 goes back into effect.
The Act also reduces the tax rate on capital gains and dividends received by individuals. The 10% capital gains rate is lowered to 5% and the 20% rate reduced to 15%. Dividends are no longer taxed at ordinary income tax rates, but will be taxed at the 5% and 15% capital gains rates. However, these changes aren't permanent, either; they will expire after December 31, 2008.
The Act also contains income tax benefits for businesses. Specifically, the so-called "Section 179" expense amount is increased from $25,000 to $100,000 for tax years 2003 through 2005. Further, certain computer software will now qualify for the Section 179 expense. In addition, the 30% "bonus depreciation" deduction is increased to 50% for qualifying property acquired after May 5, 2003 (but not under contract to be acquired prior to May 6, 2003) and before January 1, 2005.
Finally, the Act contains some provisions granting fiscal relief to states for Medicaid and other government services and pushes the due date for the 25% required installment of corporate estimated tax back from September 15, 2003 to October 1, 2003.
What Do The Changes Mean To You?
Obviously, the child tax credit advance checks many Americans will receive will be a welcomed change. The recipients will be able to use this money for any purpose. However, this author suggests that parents consider depositing this money into education savings accounts for their children, such as Section 529 Plans. These Plans offer many tax benefits to the contributors and the beneficiaries. Plus, Illinois' Bright Startยฎ Plan gives all Illinois contributors a tax deduction on their Illinois income tax return.
Another benefit the Act will provide is more take-home pay to working taxpayers. This will result from the decrease in the ordinary income tax rates, the increased standard deduction, and the, income tax bracket, larger 15% bracket for jointly filing, married taxpayers. The lawmakers believe that this will create more jobs by infusing more money into the economy. But as with most things, only time will tell if that is true. However, this author believes that if people have more money they will, as a whole, be more likely to invest that money - - especially given that the tax on investment returns (capital gains and dividends) has been lowered and the deductions allowed (50% bonus depreciation and Section 179 expense) for such investments have been increased. Of course, the investments made should be sound ones. Thorough analysis is important before making any decisions. Further, this author strongly recommends that the appropriate professionals be employed before making any investment decisions.
Remember that many of the tax cuts in the Act are only temporary and will expire in a few years. All taxpayers are encouraged to take advantage of them now, because the future is uncertain.
Showing posts with label rate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rate. Show all posts
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
History Of The Federal Income Tax
Author: Steve Austin
Source: articleage.com
The powers of Congress, and the limitations set upon those powers, are set forth in Article I of the United States Constitution. Section 8 specifies both the power to collect, "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," and the requirement that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
One of the major concerns of the Constitutional Convention was to limit the powers of the Federal Government. Among the powers to be limited was the power of taxation. It was thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the Federal Government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes on people (variously called capitation, poll tax or head tax) and property. (Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 227 F.2d 16, 19-20 (3rd Cir. 1960).) All other taxes, income tax bracket, are commonly referred to as "indirect taxes," because they tax an event, rather than a person or property per se. (Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937).) What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed either as a direct or an indirect tax.
In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government issued its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861 as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Other income taxes followed, although a 1895 Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held that taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and the like were unapportioned direct taxes on property, and therefore unconstitutional.
The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution removed the limitations on Congress, paving the way for the income tax to become the government's main source of revenue; it states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
A growing number of citizens seeks to challenge the power of the state to collect taxes by finding a way to discount the sixteenth amendment. The italicized paragraphs below are represenative of these attempts:
Lower federal courts sometimes refer to "unapportioned direct taxes" and similar catch phrases to describe the power of Congress to tax income. (See U.S. v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986). ("The 16th Amendment eliminated the indirect/direct distinction as applied to taxes on income.")) This, however, does not seem to be the stated position of the Supreme Court.
Yet, despite popular opinion, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing powers. In Treasury Decision 2303, the Secretary of the Treasury directly quoted the Supreme Court (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (240 U.S. 103)) in saying that "The provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation," but instead simply prohibited Congress original power to tax incomes "from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."
The closest the Supreme Court has come to saying that "from whatever source derived" in the amendment expanded the taxing power of Congress was in Justice Holmes' dissent in Evans v Gore (253 U.S. 245, 267 (1920). (Holmes dissent) (Partially overruled by U.S. v Hatter. 532 U.S. 557 (2001), with respect to the prior reasoning about the compensation clause.)). In that case, the Court was considering the effect the 16th Amendment had on the compensation clause, and specifically whether the compensation of judges was unlawfully reduced by the imposition of the income tax. Justice Holmes opined that under the 16th Amendment, "Congress is given power to collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived …[so] it seems to me that the Amendment was intended to put an end to the cause and not merely obviate" the result in Pollock. (Id.) Even in this case, though, the majority affirmed the more restrictive interpretation of the Amendment. (Id. at 262-263. (Majority opinion))
The federal income tax statutes echos the language of the 16th amendment in stating that it reaches "all income from whatever source derived," (26 USC s. 61) including criminal enterprises; criminals who fail to report their income accurately have been successfully prosecuted for tax evasion. Since the language of the amendment is clearly meant to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts, it is not immediately clear why the courts emphasize the words "all income" and ignore the derivation of the entire phrase to interpret this section - except to reach a desired political result.
Arguments about the meaning of the current income tax has continued for nearly 100 years. Courts are reluctant to support a literal reading of the tax laws in favor of potential taxpayers, since it can lead to tax avoidance. Professor Soled points out why judicial doctrines are used against tax avoidance strategies in general,
"The use of judicial doctrines to curtail tax avoidance is pervasive in the area of income taxation. There are several reasons for this phenomenon: central among them is that courts believe that if the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") were read literally, impermissible tax avoidance would become the norm rather than the exception. No matter how perceptive the legislature, it cannot anticipate all events and circumstances that may unfold, and, due to linguistic limitations, statutes do not always capture the essence of what is intended. Judicial doctrines fill the void left either by the legislature or by the words of the Code. Another reason for the popularity of these doctrines is that courts do not want to appear duped by taxpayers..." (Jay A. Soled, Use of Judicial Doctrines in Resolving Transfer Tax Controversies, 42 B.C. L. Rev 587, 588-589 (2001).)
Of course, if the intent of Congress was to actually reach all income then the simplest way to state s. 61 would be "all income ***however realized.***" Instead, s. 61 mentions sources and other sections of the federal tax code actually lists about 20 sources of income that are specifically taxed. (26 USC ss. 861-864.) A common rule of statutory interpretation is the doctrine inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. This doctrine means "[t]he inclusion of one is the exclusion of another…This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." (Black's Law Dictionary 763 (6th Ed. 1990).) Since particular sources are listed as taxable in the tax law, then it is reasonable to infer that other sources of income are excluded from taxation. This argument is called the "861 source argument" and the courts refuse to analyze the argument despite consistently holding against it, even going so far as to issue restraining orders against people who publish websites about it. (U.S. v. Bell, 238 F.Supp.2d 696, 698 (M.D. Pa. 2003).''
In 1913 the tax rate was 1 percent on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7 percent on incomes above $500,000.
During World War I the top rate rose to 77 percent; following the war, the top rate was scaled down (to a low of 25 percent).
During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again, reaching 91% during the war; this top rate remained in effect until 1964.
In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), and then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA).
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets).
During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.
In 2001 the top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the EGTRRA, or Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.
In 2003 the JGTRRA, or Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, was passed, expanding the 10% tax bracket and accelerating some of the changes passed in the 2001 EGTRRA.
For more free legal information on Tax Law, please visit Free Legal Information.
Source: articleage.com
The powers of Congress, and the limitations set upon those powers, are set forth in Article I of the United States Constitution. Section 8 specifies both the power to collect, "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," and the requirement that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
One of the major concerns of the Constitutional Convention was to limit the powers of the Federal Government. Among the powers to be limited was the power of taxation. It was thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the Federal Government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes on people (variously called capitation, poll tax or head tax) and property. (Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 227 F.2d 16, 19-20 (3rd Cir. 1960).) All other taxes, income tax bracket, are commonly referred to as "indirect taxes," because they tax an event, rather than a person or property per se. (Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937).) What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed either as a direct or an indirect tax.
In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government issued its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861 as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Other income taxes followed, although a 1895 Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held that taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and the like were unapportioned direct taxes on property, and therefore unconstitutional.
The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution removed the limitations on Congress, paving the way for the income tax to become the government's main source of revenue; it states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
A growing number of citizens seeks to challenge the power of the state to collect taxes by finding a way to discount the sixteenth amendment. The italicized paragraphs below are represenative of these attempts:
Lower federal courts sometimes refer to "unapportioned direct taxes" and similar catch phrases to describe the power of Congress to tax income. (See U.S. v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986). ("The 16th Amendment eliminated the indirect/direct distinction as applied to taxes on income.")) This, however, does not seem to be the stated position of the Supreme Court.
Yet, despite popular opinion, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing powers. In Treasury Decision 2303, the Secretary of the Treasury directly quoted the Supreme Court (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (240 U.S. 103)) in saying that "The provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation," but instead simply prohibited Congress original power to tax incomes "from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."
The closest the Supreme Court has come to saying that "from whatever source derived" in the amendment expanded the taxing power of Congress was in Justice Holmes' dissent in Evans v Gore (253 U.S. 245, 267 (1920). (Holmes dissent) (Partially overruled by U.S. v Hatter. 532 U.S. 557 (2001), with respect to the prior reasoning about the compensation clause.)). In that case, the Court was considering the effect the 16th Amendment had on the compensation clause, and specifically whether the compensation of judges was unlawfully reduced by the imposition of the income tax. Justice Holmes opined that under the 16th Amendment, "Congress is given power to collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived …[so] it seems to me that the Amendment was intended to put an end to the cause and not merely obviate" the result in Pollock. (Id.) Even in this case, though, the majority affirmed the more restrictive interpretation of the Amendment. (Id. at 262-263. (Majority opinion))
The federal income tax statutes echos the language of the 16th amendment in stating that it reaches "all income from whatever source derived," (26 USC s. 61) including criminal enterprises; criminals who fail to report their income accurately have been successfully prosecuted for tax evasion. Since the language of the amendment is clearly meant to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts, it is not immediately clear why the courts emphasize the words "all income" and ignore the derivation of the entire phrase to interpret this section - except to reach a desired political result.
Arguments about the meaning of the current income tax has continued for nearly 100 years. Courts are reluctant to support a literal reading of the tax laws in favor of potential taxpayers, since it can lead to tax avoidance. Professor Soled points out why judicial doctrines are used against tax avoidance strategies in general,
"The use of judicial doctrines to curtail tax avoidance is pervasive in the area of income taxation. There are several reasons for this phenomenon: central among them is that courts believe that if the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") were read literally, impermissible tax avoidance would become the norm rather than the exception. No matter how perceptive the legislature, it cannot anticipate all events and circumstances that may unfold, and, due to linguistic limitations, statutes do not always capture the essence of what is intended. Judicial doctrines fill the void left either by the legislature or by the words of the Code. Another reason for the popularity of these doctrines is that courts do not want to appear duped by taxpayers..." (Jay A. Soled, Use of Judicial Doctrines in Resolving Transfer Tax Controversies, 42 B.C. L. Rev 587, 588-589 (2001).)
Of course, if the intent of Congress was to actually reach all income then the simplest way to state s. 61 would be "all income ***however realized.***" Instead, s. 61 mentions sources and other sections of the federal tax code actually lists about 20 sources of income that are specifically taxed. (26 USC ss. 861-864.) A common rule of statutory interpretation is the doctrine inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. This doctrine means "[t]he inclusion of one is the exclusion of another…This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." (Black's Law Dictionary 763 (6th Ed. 1990).) Since particular sources are listed as taxable in the tax law, then it is reasonable to infer that other sources of income are excluded from taxation. This argument is called the "861 source argument" and the courts refuse to analyze the argument despite consistently holding against it, even going so far as to issue restraining orders against people who publish websites about it. (U.S. v. Bell, 238 F.Supp.2d 696, 698 (M.D. Pa. 2003).''
In 1913 the tax rate was 1 percent on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7 percent on incomes above $500,000.
During World War I the top rate rose to 77 percent; following the war, the top rate was scaled down (to a low of 25 percent).
During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again, reaching 91% during the war; this top rate remained in effect until 1964.
In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), and then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA).
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets).
During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.
In 2001 the top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the EGTRRA, or Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.
In 2003 the JGTRRA, or Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, was passed, expanding the 10% tax bracket and accelerating some of the changes passed in the 2001 EGTRRA.
For more free legal information on Tax Law, please visit Free Legal Information.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Pros and Cons of an Interest-Only Mortgage
Author: Cheryl Kanekar
Source: articleage.com
So you've heard of the latest magic pill in the home financing world - the interest-only mortgage. And you love the idea of making a lower monthly payment, getting a bigger tax deduction and having all that extra cash now. Not to mention actually being able to buy your dream home.
Interest-only mortgages accounted for less than 2 % of all U.S. home loans as recently as 2001, but by 2005 had shot up to 23% nationwide and as much as 47% in the major cities. (Coy 2005, Downey 2005) And if aggressive marketing is any indicator, the trend is not going away anytime soon.
But remember all those television commercials of happy people running through meadows in spring, thanks to the latest wonder drug for acid reflux or arthritis? There's always the rapid voiceover at the end, "Possible, but rare side effects include death, blindness, permanent brain damage, limbs falling off…"
You don't want to be those rare statistics. So let's take a look at the good and bad side effects of this particular magic pill and who really needs to take it.
Firstly, like the cure for the common cold, the interest-only mortgage does not exist. What does exist is the interest-only-for-some-years mortgage.
"The mechanics of an interest-only mortgage loan are simple. For a set period (generally in the early years of a mortgage when most of the payment goes toward interest anyway), you pay only the interest portion of your monthly payment, freeing up for other purposes the amount that would normally go toward paying off the principal. At the end of the interest-only period, your loan reverts back to its original terms, with the monthly payments adjusted upward to reflect full amortization over the remaining years of the loan…" (MacDonald 2004)
So with an "interest-only" loan, you would be making lower monthly payments than those for a standard fully amortized loan of the same amount and duration, during the initial interest-only period. When the interest-only period ends, your monthly payments will rise to be higher than those for the standard loan. This is because you have the same balance you started out with, but now have only, say, 25 years to pay it off, as against 30 years for the fully amortized loan.
This is not a new idea. The heyday for interest-only mortgages was the 1920s flapper era.
"…Back in the Roaring Twenties, interest-only mortgages were commonplace. At the end of the term, homeowners typically refinanced. The system worked great unless your home lost value or you lost your job." (MacDonald 2004)
So what are the pros to this approach?
1. You have more immediate money at hand, which can be invested for higher returns or used to re-model the home and increase its value. "For this to succeed, their return on investment must exceed the mortgage interest rate, since that rate is what they earn when they repay their mortgage." (Guttentag 2006)
2. You can reduce your cash outflow temporarily, if a financial crisis strikes. For example, a person who's been laid off might find this useful.
3. Interest-only loans often have more flexible payment options than standard loans. Every month, you could opt to pay interest only, or pay towards the principal, or even pay off the principal quicker than the typical 30 years. If you have fluctuating income and are disciplined enough to voluntarily make higher payments when you can, these options might help you pay off your loan quicker and with less pain.
4. You can borrow more money at the same initial monthly payment as that for a smaller standard loan, allowing you to buy a more expensive home than you would have been able to with the standard loan.
And the cons?
1. You can borrow more money at the same initial monthly payment as that for a smaller standard loan, allowing you to buy a more expensive home than you would have been able to with the standard loan.
You are more in debt and might own a home you can't afford. This is the grasshopper philosophy of not saving up for a rainy day, on the assumption that your home price and/or income will rise. And summer will never end.
History, that harsh teacher, has a different lesson. Remember what ended the glory days of the1920s? The Great Depression with its stockmarket crash and massive job losses. No prizes for guessing what happened to all those interest-only homes. Foreclosure.
In more normal times, while nationwide average home prices have been rising, home prices in any given market go up and down. If your plan were to re-finance or sell your house after the interest-only period, your home price would have to rise enough to cover the sales costs, since not paying off the principal gives you little equity. Even in the most desirable home markets, that does not always happen.
2. You pay more in interest as compared to a standard loan. For a $120,000 loan, an interest-only payer would pay about $8000 more than a fully amortized payer over 30 years, because the interest-only balance tends to remain higher. (Hsh.com 2005)
3. Lenders also usually charge higher rates for interest-only loans, since these loans, with their larger balances, are considered riskier.
"…fixed-rate interest-only mortgages typically carry a rate that is one-eighth to three-eighths of a percentage point higher than the rate on a traditional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage." (Simon 2006)
4. While interest-only payments are 100% tax deductible, the money saved will still be taxed, whether it's put in the bank or invested. "Suppose you are in the 39.1% tax bracket. Then your 6.25% mortgage costs only 3.81% after taxes, but a 4% CD yields only 2.44% after taxes." (Guttentag 2002)
To sum up, interest-only loans save you money temporarily, but are more expensive and more risky long-term. If you desperately need those temporary savings, or are wealthy enough to bear the risks, or are financially disciplined enough to pay off the balance when you can, then these loans might be for you. But if losing the gamble might mean losing all your savings, then it's probably a game you don't want to play.
Cheryl Kanekar is an experienced free-lance writer who focuses on mortgage refinance and equity credit lines. You can read more refinance related loan articles at http://www.mortgageloanoutlet.com/ and get more information about, income tax bracket, home equity loans and mortgage refinancing.
Guttentag, Jack Interest-Only Mortgage Tutorial. Mortgage Professor's Web Site from http://www.mtgprofessor.com/Tutorials2/Interest_Only.htm
HSHฎ Associates The Principal Facts of Interest-Only Mortgages from http://library.hsh.com/?row_id=58
Max, Sarah Mortgages: Beating Higher Rates from money.cnn.com Moyer, Liz. Beware The Interest-Only Mortgage from forbes.com Downey, Kirstin Many Buyers Opt for Risky Mortgages. Washington Post
2006 Copyright MortgageLoanOutlet.com
Source: articleage.com
So you've heard of the latest magic pill in the home financing world - the interest-only mortgage. And you love the idea of making a lower monthly payment, getting a bigger tax deduction and having all that extra cash now. Not to mention actually being able to buy your dream home.
Interest-only mortgages accounted for less than 2 % of all U.S. home loans as recently as 2001, but by 2005 had shot up to 23% nationwide and as much as 47% in the major cities. (Coy 2005, Downey 2005) And if aggressive marketing is any indicator, the trend is not going away anytime soon.
But remember all those television commercials of happy people running through meadows in spring, thanks to the latest wonder drug for acid reflux or arthritis? There's always the rapid voiceover at the end, "Possible, but rare side effects include death, blindness, permanent brain damage, limbs falling off…"
You don't want to be those rare statistics. So let's take a look at the good and bad side effects of this particular magic pill and who really needs to take it.
Firstly, like the cure for the common cold, the interest-only mortgage does not exist. What does exist is the interest-only-for-some-years mortgage.
"The mechanics of an interest-only mortgage loan are simple. For a set period (generally in the early years of a mortgage when most of the payment goes toward interest anyway), you pay only the interest portion of your monthly payment, freeing up for other purposes the amount that would normally go toward paying off the principal. At the end of the interest-only period, your loan reverts back to its original terms, with the monthly payments adjusted upward to reflect full amortization over the remaining years of the loan…" (MacDonald 2004)
So with an "interest-only" loan, you would be making lower monthly payments than those for a standard fully amortized loan of the same amount and duration, during the initial interest-only period. When the interest-only period ends, your monthly payments will rise to be higher than those for the standard loan. This is because you have the same balance you started out with, but now have only, say, 25 years to pay it off, as against 30 years for the fully amortized loan.
This is not a new idea. The heyday for interest-only mortgages was the 1920s flapper era.
"…Back in the Roaring Twenties, interest-only mortgages were commonplace. At the end of the term, homeowners typically refinanced. The system worked great unless your home lost value or you lost your job." (MacDonald 2004)
So what are the pros to this approach?
1. You have more immediate money at hand, which can be invested for higher returns or used to re-model the home and increase its value. "For this to succeed, their return on investment must exceed the mortgage interest rate, since that rate is what they earn when they repay their mortgage." (Guttentag 2006)
2. You can reduce your cash outflow temporarily, if a financial crisis strikes. For example, a person who's been laid off might find this useful.
3. Interest-only loans often have more flexible payment options than standard loans. Every month, you could opt to pay interest only, or pay towards the principal, or even pay off the principal quicker than the typical 30 years. If you have fluctuating income and are disciplined enough to voluntarily make higher payments when you can, these options might help you pay off your loan quicker and with less pain.
4. You can borrow more money at the same initial monthly payment as that for a smaller standard loan, allowing you to buy a more expensive home than you would have been able to with the standard loan.
And the cons?
1. You can borrow more money at the same initial monthly payment as that for a smaller standard loan, allowing you to buy a more expensive home than you would have been able to with the standard loan.
You are more in debt and might own a home you can't afford. This is the grasshopper philosophy of not saving up for a rainy day, on the assumption that your home price and/or income will rise. And summer will never end.
History, that harsh teacher, has a different lesson. Remember what ended the glory days of the1920s? The Great Depression with its stockmarket crash and massive job losses. No prizes for guessing what happened to all those interest-only homes. Foreclosure.
In more normal times, while nationwide average home prices have been rising, home prices in any given market go up and down. If your plan were to re-finance or sell your house after the interest-only period, your home price would have to rise enough to cover the sales costs, since not paying off the principal gives you little equity. Even in the most desirable home markets, that does not always happen.
2. You pay more in interest as compared to a standard loan. For a $120,000 loan, an interest-only payer would pay about $8000 more than a fully amortized payer over 30 years, because the interest-only balance tends to remain higher. (Hsh.com 2005)
3. Lenders also usually charge higher rates for interest-only loans, since these loans, with their larger balances, are considered riskier.
"…fixed-rate interest-only mortgages typically carry a rate that is one-eighth to three-eighths of a percentage point higher than the rate on a traditional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage." (Simon 2006)
4. While interest-only payments are 100% tax deductible, the money saved will still be taxed, whether it's put in the bank or invested. "Suppose you are in the 39.1% tax bracket. Then your 6.25% mortgage costs only 3.81% after taxes, but a 4% CD yields only 2.44% after taxes." (Guttentag 2002)
To sum up, interest-only loans save you money temporarily, but are more expensive and more risky long-term. If you desperately need those temporary savings, or are wealthy enough to bear the risks, or are financially disciplined enough to pay off the balance when you can, then these loans might be for you. But if losing the gamble might mean losing all your savings, then it's probably a game you don't want to play.
Cheryl Kanekar is an experienced free-lance writer who focuses on mortgage refinance and equity credit lines. You can read more refinance related loan articles at http://www.mortgageloanoutlet.com/ and get more information about, income tax bracket, home equity loans and mortgage refinancing.
Guttentag, Jack Interest-Only Mortgage Tutorial. Mortgage Professor's Web Site from http://www.mtgprofessor.com/Tutorials2/Interest_Only.htm
HSHฎ Associates The Principal Facts of Interest-Only Mortgages from http://library.hsh.com/?row_id=58
Max, Sarah Mortgages: Beating Higher Rates from money.cnn.com Moyer, Liz. Beware The Interest-Only Mortgage from forbes.com Downey, Kirstin Many Buyers Opt for Risky Mortgages. Washington Post
2006 Copyright MortgageLoanOutlet.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)