Here are two truths:

1. If I work hard at my job and get a raise, I keep about 50-60 percent of it after taxes. Even if I never get a raise (as is increasingly the case in the U.S.), about 30 percent of my income is taxed, give or take.

2. If, on the other hand, I do absolutely nothing but am fortunate enough to have bought a home at the right time, and the value of that home goes up, I keep almost 100 percent of it.

And two observations:

Home prices going up is basically a zero-sum outcome, where homeowners win and future buyers and existing/future renters lose by an equivalent amount through reduced affordability. Home prices going up faster than wages cannot persist indefinitely, because eventually there's no one left to buy them. People who work at a job self-evidently contribute positively to their communities, while homeowners earn money regardless of their individual contributions to a community or region. (See the $2.2 million teardown, above.)

Given these points, why do we have a tax code that so strongly advantages the passive accumulation of wealth over income earned through labor, by the sweat of one's brow?

There is some risk in purchasing a home, so perhaps there should also be some commensurate reward. But there's no justification for amplifying those rewards with public funds—most of which go to households earning over $100,000 a year—while lower-income households get barely anything, except suckered into bad deals, at the worst possible times, in the least desirable neighborhoods. Is this kind of policy actually an expression of our values?* I really hope not.