How Are Federal Housing Subsidies Defensible?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Without them there would be little new construction. Who do you think that would hurt? Who would it help?
This post was edited on 4/12 9:28 AM by TunzaHawk
This post was edited on 4/12 9:28 AM by TunzaHawk
Personally, I don't think we should ditch it. I don't mind the tax code being geared to encourage home ownership. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to recognize it as a subsidy - or the extent to which it favors the better off.
At a minimum I'd like to see a cap on the home ownership deduction, and it should only apply to the owner-occupied home. I mean why should the average American subsidize a mansion he can never hope to afford? Or a mansion and a beach house and a city condo? Let everybody deduct up to an amount based on the median home price, for their main home. Or something along those lines. So if the median home price is $200K, you can deduct interest on a primary household loan up to that amount - and so can Warren Buffett.
We should probably reconsider whether refinancing or the ubiquitous home credit lines should be deductible, as well.
I read an article a week or so ago where a couple of realtors in the Des Moines area were encouraging home ownership because young people can take a 3% down mortgage.
Now, I'd just like to point out that these realtors, the Federal agency that makes this possible, and the borrowers that might greedily (= stupidly) take them up on the offer are not "Wall Street", but that's who the OP will blame should the deal go pear-shaped.
Now, I'd just like to point out that these realtors, the Federal agency that makes this possible, and the borrowers that might greedily (= stupidly) take them up on the offer are not "Wall Street", but that's who the OP will blame should the deal go pear-shaped.
Yes I will. And the reason is simple. We need much better regulation to prevent what happened last time. But the corporate-owned (especially the financial-industry-owned) politicians in both parties won't pass them.
Blame government if you want - I won't disagree. But look behind the curtain occasionally to see why government is letting us down. This isn't a problem with government per se, or with liberals. It's your side that most strongly opposes the needed regulations and it's your side that wants to cut funding for enforcement of the regulations we do have.
Just to be perfectly clear, this situation is a microcosm of the left in general:
1) Start with a TOTALLY FLAWED principle, in this case, that anybody should be purchasing property using 97% leverage.
2) When something goes wrong, as it is almost sure to do, say that we need to REGULATE things so the flawed principle won't be as flawed in the future.
It would be funny it if didn't happen so frequently.
1) Start with a TOTALLY FLAWED principle, in this case, that anybody should be purchasing property using 97% leverage.
2) When something goes wrong, as it is almost sure to do, say that we need to REGULATE things so the flawed principle won't be as flawed in the future.
It would be funny it if didn't happen so frequently.
Well, it's a microcosm of something. Since nobody here is taking the position that 3% down is a wonderful idea, the microcosm seems to be how your side has blinders on and can only engage in debate after setting up a straw man.
Scroll up about 5 posts and tell me why you didn't respond differently?
Sigh... I can only "debate" with somebody who has a clue what they originally said to me.
Anyway, we MAY be making some progress. Since you seem to agree that loan-to-value matters when making (and accepting) loans, we might be getting around to something here. Think back to 2006ish. People were taking 100% loans. Why do you still focus a majority of the blame on "Wall Street" is my question? We've tried to discuss this several times, and my position has ALWAYS been that "we are all to blame for the 2008 financial crisis"... ALL OF US. That includes "Wall Street", which is never properly used here or in most circles, but investment banks certainly did some questionable things with packaging loans and then trading CDS on them - cough, Goldman Sachs, cough. But just as guilty in all of this are greedy buyers and sellers of homes, greedy mortgage brokers, greedy ratings agencies, greedy realtors, greedy pension funds that stretched for that extra yield a subprime security offered them, etc.
Sigh... I can only "debate" with somebody who has a clue what they originally said to me.
Anyway, we MAY be making some progress. Since you seem to agree that loan-to-value matters when making (and accepting) loans, we might be getting around to something here. Think back to 2006ish. People were taking 100% loans. Why do you still focus a majority of the blame on "Wall Street" is my question? We've tried to discuss this several times, and my position has ALWAYS been that "we are all to blame for the 2008 financial crisis"... ALL OF US. That includes "Wall Street", which is never properly used here or in most circles, but investment banks certainly did some questionable things with packaging loans and then trading CDS on them - cough, Goldman Sachs, cough. But just as guilty in all of this are greedy buyers and sellers of homes, greedy mortgage brokers, greedy ratings agencies, greedy realtors, greedy pension funds that stretched for that extra yield a subprime security offered them, etc.
I don't agree with you, but even if I did how would you determine that amount? Meaning interest rates are different for almost everybody and every bank. If it were fixed you would still be hosing those people you think are getting screwed as they would almost certainly pay more interest on any loan.
Way back when, say 1995, I was able to buy my house with a 100% loan. Without that loan, I wouldn't have been able to afford the purchase of my home for another 10 years or so. The result of that is that I now own my house without a mortgage. Is a 100% loan ALWAYS a bad idea?
I think it is always a bad idea, yes. Or at least that is not the process I would ever want to follow.
I have done many silly things in my life, and sometimes I had great outcomes, while other times I paid "tuition" for a real-life lesson.
The bottom line from me is I'd congratulate you on the outcome, but not on the process.
I think this is off point from OP but saw people last few posts debating whether 100% financing is always a bad thing in purchasing real estate. I will say no but only in unique situations. I am 25 years old, I 100% financed my purchase of 16 apartments about a year ago and am doing great. I did my homework, looked what surrounding properties and Apts were selling for per square foot, gave them a Competitive offer with financing I had already secured from a local bank. If the bank hadn't been willing to give me 100% financing It would have been bought by someone else. All I will say is these apartments are my "break" to get me ahead in life and have already helped me significantly. And I am extremely grateful to the bank to be willing to 100% finance me.
Think the answer to the question you guys are debating on is situational in nature
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Think the answer to the question you guys are debating on is situational in nature
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I could be wrong but I believe you only get to write off the mortgage interest on your first (or primary home, the one you live in). Any tax lawyers care to chime in here? TIA
