Article

2010-08-12 Home Front: Politix

Feds rethink policies that encourage home ownership

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2010-08-12 02:31|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Heck, maybe not even an interest deduction. Mortgage rates are set by how much people have left over. If taxes take a bigger bite, what is left over is smaller and mortgages will have to come down.

Posted by gorb 2010-08-12 02:36|| 2010-08-12 02:36|| Front Page Top

#2 Maybe government shouldn't "encourage home ownership". All that rent-prohibition achieves is less affordability.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-08-12 06:47|| 2010-08-12 06:47|| Front Page Top

#3 In the old Ottoman Empire, the Islamic model was that all land was owned by the Sultan, and there was no right of land inheritance. So if you wanted land, you worked for the Sultan.

Oddly enough, that is why they had little official bureaucracy. Because everyone worked for the government, everyone was a bureaucrat.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-08-12 09:46|| 2010-08-12 09:46|| Front Page Top

#4 Unfortunately the article didn't point out the inherent conflict between 2 governmental policies: (1) continuing & costly efforts to keep housing prices (for would-be homeowners and indirectly for renters) from falling to a level that matches family incomes. This policy has become a desperate one to prop up the failing economy and especially the insolvent banking system. (2) promoting home ownership. Just how does keeping housing ridiculously expensive promote home ownership? Buehler? Anyone?
How anyone can believe both policies are appropriate to pursue simultaneously is beyond me.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-08-12 10:52|| 2010-08-12 10:52|| Front Page Top

#5 How anyone can believe both policies are appropriate to pursue simultaneously is beyond me

I think the fractious nature of the Dem party is part of it. Some parts want this, some parts want that. The only way they can stay in power is to support each other's stupid ideas, and that's going to result in contradictory policies that only denial can allow them to carry them forward.

In some areas, all Dems move as one, though. None of them seem to get the idea of consequences, such as that of making credit for home-buying too affordable. It may have felt good, and probably bought them votes, but in the long run it didn't do anyone any good. Generally, but not always, there's a reason some people don't have money. And that has to be respected.

Posted by gorb 2010-08-12 11:22|| 2010-08-12 11:22|| Front Page Top

#6 How's this for a housing policy (from Karl Denninger):
Without that support prices collapse to affordable levels. A place where the average single earner in a household can afford to buy a house with 20% down and an 8% mortgage for 30 years.

A place where the market was in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

A place where the market can return to.

A place where housing becomes a thing defined by where you hang your hat and raise a family, instead of a speculative financial bubble where a handful of people make a fortune and half of America is bankrupted.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-08-12 11:47|| 2010-08-12 11:47|| Front Page Top

#7 It's like I tried to tell you, Bawney. The market is smarter than you are. Leave it alone.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-08-12 12:04|| 2010-08-12 12:04|| Front Page Top

#8 I think the fractious nature of the Dem ~~party~~ mind is part of it. Some parts want this, some parts want that

Fixed it for you.

Posted by Hellfish 2010-08-12 12:38|| 2010-08-12 12:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration will offer $1 billion in zero-interest loans to help homeowners whove lost income avoid foreclosure
The idiots and dam fools are in charge.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-08-12 16:57|| 2010-08-12 16:57|| Front Page Top

#10 Three groups of people should definitely never own homes.

-Those who cannot afford them without government intervention.

-Those who can but lack the money management discipline to own the house and not spend on other things.

-Those who can, but cannot manage the property in a usable state.

Since these numbers are a substantial chunk of the population, it seems folly to encourage them to own a house when renting is, in every way, a better deal for them, and somethig they can handle.

Posted by no mo uro 2010-08-12 19:00|| 2010-08-12 19:00|| Front Page Top

22:49 Willy
22:37 Redneck Jim
22:30 Pappy
22:22 Pappy
22:03 phil_b
22:03 Beavis
21:33 Frank G on the road
21:28 Free Radical
21:14 phil_b
20:48 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
20:32 tipper
20:28 Whiskey Mike
20:28 3dc
20:27 no mo uro
20:23 Thing From Snowy Mountain
20:23 phil_b
20:15 OldSpook
20:14 OldSpook
20:12 gorb
20:12 OldSpook
19:59 Besoeker
19:57 Broadhead6
19:44 Eric Jablow
19:41 Iblis