You can ignore authors, whether they are producing too much noise or being needlessly provocative, by clicking the yellow unhappy when reading their post.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 6
The most striking proposals were for ... a $25,000 subsidy for first-time home buyers...
...was the cost of every starter home going up by ~$22,000
--sutton
obviously going to vote for her, but geez
"“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years..." - possibly Alexander Fraser Tytler, ca. 1800. (Or maybe apocryphal ca. 1951.)
No. of Recommendations: 4
Yup. Dumb idea. Extremely dumb.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 13
sutton: The most striking proposals were for ... a $25,000 subsidy for first-time home buyers...
...was the cost of every starter home going up by ~$22,000
Really?
First, it's a four-year plan. Second, it would require construction of 3+ million new housing units -- a dramatic expansion of inventory. Third, it would be accomplished through an expansion of LIHTC and NHTC. Fourth, there are specific eligibility requirements. And fifth, a Harris-Walz administration cannot accomplish this without bipartisan conversations in Congress next year about ways to encourage, subsidize or directly finance more housing.
But, sure maybe Trump will have his own proposal in, say, two weeks.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Here in California where housing cost is a REAL problem we need to build about 3.5 million housing units just to catch up. Government bureaucracy is one of the biggest barriers to building more affordable housing here. Okay, maybe it is the local NIMBY contingent as well, but that is part of the bureaucratic process. I think building more units will go a lot further than attempting to give people enough money for a down payment.
No. of Recommendations: 1
First, it's a four-year plan. Second, it would require construction of 3+ million new housing units -- a dramatic expansion of inventory. Third, it would be accomplished through an expansion of LIHTC and NHTC. Fourth, there are specific eligibility requirements. And fifth, a Harris-Walz administration cannot accomplish this without bipartisan conversations in Congress next year about ways to encourage, subsidize or directly finance more housing. - co
----------------
Interesting word there, "require". That aside, there apparently is nothing in the plan to reduce construction costs in the first place.
"The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit provides a tax incentive to construct or rehabilitate affordable rental housing for low-income households."
Constructing more rental units is simply that but the proposal is promoted as providing the opportunity to own your own home.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Constructing more rental units is simply that but the proposal is promoted as providing the opportunity to own your own home.
Mike, are you taking into account the $25,000 for a mortgage down? Seems to me that a plan that gives you a $25,000 edge to take to the mortgage folks, and also - even if that won't work - there's more rehabbed housing. So the bulk of it is to help people get housing, those who can afford it get a $25k edge, those who can't afford it get a chance at rehabbed housing.
There are plenty of rental houses out there. You can make money if you bid on someone's unpaid debt like the fellow next door to me. We have Zillow and Redfin buying up houses and flipping them, so we get corps inserting themselves to make a good profit from flipping houses. I think this narrows the choices and young folks can rehab houses while they live in them.
Just the other day I talked a landscape corporation down to a reasonable price - I had them reissue a professional looking bill within the terms that the tech discussed with me at the time. They provided a good, but expensive, service, then overcharge and leave out material installed items that have warranties. So the initial bill is like a first offer.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yes, California has high density areas which need affordable high density housing. No one wants it nearby because it lowers the price of your house. The problem is the Musk requirement that you live withing commuting distance. Japan has fast bullet trains to help with that, but still, when you buy a house, the third generation may pay it off. And in the rural areas they are giving houses away. My wife lived downtown in a small city and paid $400 for a nice apartment in Japan. They make affordable studio apartments.
High density areas need high density solutions.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Agreed.
I'm for forgiving the student loans (at least a lot of them). But the first-time home buyers thing seems pointless. Education is an investment in the future of our nation. Home buying, not so much. Giving folks an education will make them more likely to be able to afford a home on their own (and generally raise their standard of living). The population statistics show that pretty consistently.
I also think her tax cuts idea is misguided. Sure, she's targeting the middle class. But it is more economically sensible to
raise taxes on the wealthy, though not as politically popular. She needs to bring the deficit under control since the last two Rep POTUSes blew it up. (As usual, the Dems have to clean up their mess.)
I was looking at my future IRMAA vs tax obligations, and I realized that above 47K the tax is 22%. Above roughly 100K it is 24%. A 2% increase. Really? That seems absurd.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-i...Of course, I don't really like the "brackets" at all. There should be no cliffs you can fall off into another bracket. I think it should be a formula, probably an exponential. It would asymptotically approach (but never reach) 90%, so the more you make the more you pay (relative to your income) to a point. Then the wealthy really pay for the society that enabled their wealth.
Yes, voting for Harris. Not even an option not to.
