Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: bobcpg
Originally posted by: Phil21
WTF!? Prices are at all time lows right now
They are? Have a source for this? While this has been trumpted about a lot lately, I honestly am *not* seeing the "deals" that supposedly exist. Could just be my local market I suppose.
5-10% lowering of sale prices IMO is not "all time low". 30 to 50% and then I would consider housing to be in-line with what it probably should be (for this area).
I base this off of "percentage of income spent on housing". Has this really gone down a lot in the last year? At best, on a 15 year mortgage I can save about $40/mo from before the bubble burst.. Not what I would call "game changing" in any way for my financial situation.
So.. I really am interested - are there some areas where housing is depressed at an "all time" low (inflation adjusted of course!)? Sounds like there are some great investments to be had in such areas if so! The numbers for my local area don't even hit 10 year lows, from the limited data I've been able to find Not exactly really that interesting to me - 10 years is not a long time.
Please note again - I'm talking about housing in relation to buying power. Not new house sales, number of houses sold per month, etc. Yes, I would agree those are at or nearing historic lows. The price being paid for the houses that *do* sell however - not so much.
-Phil
I see that you live in Minnesota. I am also in the market for buying my first house in the Hopkins area and could not agree with you statement more.
Yes we see a little drop in housing prices but I am still looking for all these "DEALS" people keep taking about. All this especially in terms of Price vs. Buying power.
MN didn't bubble as much as other markets so it didn't crash as hard either. My wife and I are closing on a house at the end of this month and the sale price is around 88% of the estimated tax value and that's in Blaine. The further you get out from the cities the smaller the bubble was so the smaller the decline is price is.
I used to live in Hopkins by the way, a very good friend lives down there, I've spent a lot of time in those Main St bars.
Originally posted by: Zebo
You guys realize houses will go up by at least $15K right? What handout?
It's analogous to giving everyone $100,000 and expecting prices to stay the same. Why would someone need to go to their construction job with $100,000 in their pocket? You better pay a lot more than $12 an hour for every worker at the site to get them to show. The builder will also not settle for $30,000 profit but $130,000. and so on. Making that $100,000 handout quite worthless but of course adding to our debt burden and taxes raised.
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: bobcpg
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: winnar111
Buy your neighbors' house.
Sell him yours.
Profit!
i thoguht about this too but what about closing costs? and restarting your 15/30 year term all over again?
This would not work. You need to be a "First time home buyer" meaning you can not have owned a house in the last 3 years.
Then sell it to your 18 year old son or nephew.
You cannot sell the house for at least 3 years either and by that time it has already fulfilled its purpose of circulating money and stimulating the economy.
Then the 18 year old holds onto the house for 3 years.
If cutting checks to 6 figure families with college age dependents is a stimulus, might as well do that without the housing scheme. Tax dodgers are a lot smarter than the Democrats writing the tax code. Just look at Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner.
Welfare queens scam the government all the time; I'm sure someone will figure something out.
Originally posted by: winnar111
Then the 18 year old holds onto the house for 3 years.
If cutting checks to 6 figure families with college age dependents is a stimulus, might as well do that without the housing scheme. Tax dodgers are a lot smarter than the Democrats writing the tax code. Just look at Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner.
Welfare queens scam the government all the time; I'm sure someone will figure something out.
Originally posted by: Zebo
Exactly - you can 'gift' $26,000 to each child tax free, don't even have to file it. $26,000 is enough to buy many homes for someone w/o any liabilities with a co-signer...
Originally posted by: Zebo
You guys realize houses will go up by at least $15K right? What handout?
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Zebo
Exactly - you can 'gift' $26,000 to each child tax free, don't even have to file it. $26,000 is enough to buy many homes for someone w/o any liabilities with a co-signer...
But they still need great credit to get a loan. Beyond that, what you describe is a great thing. That is still money being spent on what it should be spent on. It is still circulating cash in this economy. How is that bad?
The only thing that can really go wrong here is if people find a way to get that 15k without someone buying a home first and keeping it for a little while (3 years in this case), but that appears to be impossible. That or if people simply do not buy homes regardless of their ability to get 15k in the process.
Originally posted by: Wonderful Pork
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Zebo
Exactly - you can 'gift' $26,000 to each child tax free, don't even have to file it. $26,000 is enough to buy many homes for someone w/o any liabilities with a co-signer...
But they still need great credit to get a loan. Beyond that, what you describe is a great thing. That is still money being spent on what it should be spent on. It is still circulating cash in this economy. How is that bad?
The only thing that can really go wrong here is if people find a way to get that 15k without someone buying a home first and keeping it for a little while (3 years in this case), but that appears to be impossible. That or if people simply do not buy homes regardless of their ability to get 15k in the process.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. If my dad "sold" his house to me (or my lil bro) for current market value, then I got the $15k and he still wrote the bank a check every month I don't see how its helping the economy. That's basically selling the house without selling it. It could be in my name for 3 years or 30 years. My family wouldn't move out of the house.
Now, if he sold his house, and then was forced to show a legal change of address or something for 2 years, I'd understand that. I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd understand it.
EDIT: Just for the record, I don't live with my parents! It was a hypothetical.
Originally posted by: KentState
Originally posted by: Wonderful Pork
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Zebo
Exactly - you can 'gift' $26,000 to each child tax free, don't even have to file it. $26,000 is enough to buy many homes for someone w/o any liabilities with a co-signer...
But they still need great credit to get a loan. Beyond that, what you describe is a great thing. That is still money being spent on what it should be spent on. It is still circulating cash in this economy. How is that bad?
The only thing that can really go wrong here is if people find a way to get that 15k without someone buying a home first and keeping it for a little while (3 years in this case), but that appears to be impossible. That or if people simply do not buy homes regardless of their ability to get 15k in the process.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. If my dad "sold" his house to me (or my lil bro) for current market value, then I got the $15k and he still wrote the bank a check every month I don't see how its helping the economy. That's basically selling the house without selling it. It could be in my name for 3 years or 30 years. My family wouldn't move out of the house.
Now, if he sold his house, and then was forced to show a legal change of address or something for 2 years, I'd understand that. I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd understand it.
EDIT: Just for the record, I don't live with my parents! It was a hypothetical.
You now have $15,000 that you wouldn't have before to spend. If you truly went out and spent it, the economy would be benefit, and if saved, the banks would hopefully have access to more money to lend.
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
The effect I see?
Waiting to buy a house until the government decides how much money they'll pay me for it.
Why should I buy a house now, with a $7500 tax credit, when I could wait and buy one with a $15000 tax credit?
Nelson said he thought some money for education had been increased in the stimulus compromise, adding that lawmakers were scaling back money for tax incentives to encourage auto and home buying.
Originally posted by: Wonderful Pork
But the number of people abusing this would be much greater that actual first time home buyers. You might as well just give every family 15k, right? Wouldn't that just lead to inflation of everything?
Working to accommodate the new, lower overall limit of the bill, negotiators effectively wiped out a Senate-passed provision for a new $15,000 tax credit to defray the cost of buying a home, these officials said. The agreement would allow taxpayers to deduct the sales tax paid on new car purchases, but not the interest on loans for the same vehicles.
Originally posted by: sactoking
Stimulus Bills passes
Working to accommodate the new, lower overall limit of the bill, negotiators effectively wiped out a Senate-passed provision for a new $15,000 tax credit to defray the cost of buying a home, these officials said. The agreement would allow taxpayers to deduct the sales tax paid on new car purchases, but not the interest on loans for the same vehicles.
Edited to add: Looks like all the discussion was rather pointless now.
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: sactoking
Stimulus Bills passes
Working to accommodate the new, lower overall limit of the bill, negotiators effectively wiped out a Senate-passed provision for a new $15,000 tax credit to defray the cost of buying a home, these officials said. The agreement would allow taxpayers to deduct the sales tax paid on new car purchases, but not the interest on loans for the same vehicles.
Edited to add: Looks like all the discussion was rather pointless now.
How idiotic. The one thing that could really help they dumped.
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Wonderful Pork
But the number of people abusing this would be much greater that actual first time home buyers. You might as well just give every family 15k, right? Wouldn't that just lead to inflation of everything?
I really doubt you are going to see a lot of this kind of abuse assuming what you are talking about is even a doable loophole. Even if it is and you have some people taking advantage of it, then you still won't see inflation like you fear because not enough people will be able to take advantage of it like you are describing. That means some people will have 15k without a house really being sold and money being exchanged. From there, the only way that will not stimulate the econ is if people save that money instead of spend it which I do not believe will be the case.
This is especially true because I have been hearing news from sources I have in the banking industry that the phase out for higher income earners will not be ruled out and they are the ones which save more. Anything is subject to change of course, but we shall see.
Working to accommodate the new, lower overall limit of the bill, negotiators effectively wiped out a Senate-passed provision for a new $15,000 tax credit to defray the cost of buying a home, these officials said.
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Wonderful Pork
But the number of people abusing this would be much greater that actual first time home buyers. You might as well just give every family 15k, right? Wouldn't that just lead to inflation of everything?
I really doubt you are going to see a lot of this kind of abuse assuming what you are talking about is even a doable loophole. Even if it is and you have some people taking advantage of it, then you still won't see inflation like you fear because not enough people will be able to take advantage of it like you are describing. That means some people will have 15k without a house really being sold and money being exchanged. From there, the only way that will not stimulate the econ is if people save that money instead of spend it which I do not believe will be the case.
This is especially true because I have been hearing news from sources I have in the banking industry that the phase out for higher income earners will not be ruled out and they are the ones which save more. Anything is subject to change of course, but we shall see.
Cutting checks to people is what W did, twice. Kind of amusing to see you advocate that approach.
WASHINGTON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - Congressional negotiators are close to agreeing on a $7,500 tax credit to encourage home sales, instead of the larger, $15,000 credit that was in a Senate-passed economic stimulus bill, Senator Joseph Lieberman said on Wednesday.
Lieberman said, "Yes, definitely," when asked by Reuters whether the negotiators were leaning toward the smaller credit for first-time homebuyers that was in a House-passed bill.
Separately, during a Senate committee hearing, Senator Bill Nelson said the $15,000 credit is "likely ... to be cut down to a $7,500 credit" for homes bought after Jan. 1, 2009.
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Wonderful Pork
But the number of people abusing this would be much greater that actual first time home buyers. You might as well just give every family 15k, right? Wouldn't that just lead to inflation of everything?
I really doubt you are going to see a lot of this kind of abuse assuming what you are talking about is even a doable loophole. Even if it is and you have some people taking advantage of it, then you still won't see inflation like you fear because not enough people will be able to take advantage of it like you are describing. That means some people will have 15k without a house really being sold and money being exchanged. From there, the only way that will not stimulate the econ is if people save that money instead of spend it which I do not believe will be the case.
This is especially true because I have been hearing news from sources I have in the banking industry that the phase out for higher income earners will not be ruled out and they are the ones which save more. Anything is subject to change of course, but we shall see.
Cutting checks to people is what W did, twice. Kind of amusing to see you advocate that approach.
Why don't you understand the difference between just cutting a check to someone and giving them a tax incentive after they choose to spend a shit load more money first on the part of our economy which is hurting us the most?
At least it looks like people will have the 7500 to act as a stimulus that doesnt need to be paid back:
Source
WASHINGTON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - Congressional negotiators are close to agreeing on a $7,500 tax credit to encourage home sales, instead of the larger, $15,000 credit that was in a Senate-passed economic stimulus bill, Senator Joseph Lieberman said on Wednesday.
Lieberman said, "Yes, definitely," when asked by Reuters whether the negotiators were leaning toward the smaller credit for first-time homebuyers that was in a House-passed bill.
Separately, during a Senate committee hearing, Senator Bill Nelson said the $15,000 credit is "likely ... to be cut down to a $7,500 credit" for homes bought after Jan. 1, 2009.
That suggests that the remaining line items are still in effect. No telling for certain though.
Originally posted by: winnar111
Because of the potential for rampant abuse? I think you underestimate the number of people that will use this 'loophole'.
As Senate and House negotiators hash out the details of a compromise on the economic stimulus bill, there?s no question that now in jeopardy are a few very popular items that popped up as amendments along the way.
For one, we?re told that the homebuyers? amendment approved by a bipartisan voice vote last week may be out already. Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia proposed a $15,000 tax credit for buyers of new homes within a year or so of the bill taking effect. Initially, the cost was estimated at $18.5 billion, but has now been recalculated by the Congressional Budget Office at about $35.5 billion.
That?s far more than the estimated $2.6 billion estimate for a provision in the House bill that would provide a $7,500 refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers through July 1, 2009. Under the House plan, individual homebuyers earning up $75,000 and couples earning up to $150,000 would qualify. A reduced credit would be available for those individuals earning up to $95,000 and couples up to $170,000.
Just this morning, at a short news conference with senators about the economic plan, Vicki Cox-Golder, president-elect of the National Association of Realtors, held up the Isakson amendment as something her association believed would help the housing market. She called it ?an important housing component, that will help shrink housing inventory, bring stability to home values and move the country closer to an economic recovery.?
In addition to the higher cost estimate, Mr. Isakson?s amendment also had been faulted because it could have fueled ?house-flipping? despite requiring the purchased home to be a principal residence.
And, lastly but not least, Mr. Isakson voted with all but three of his Republican colleagues against the $838 billion stimulus bill that passed the Senate yesterday.
Don?t plan on spending that $15,000 tax credit.
Congress seems to be near a final stimulus bill that will slash a Senate provision to give home buyers a 10% tax credit up to $15,000. Instead, Congress appears likely to eliminate a repayment requirement on a more modest $7,500 credit.
The House and Senate had to reconcile their differing $819 billion and $838 billion stimulus packages, respectively, and were simultaneously looking to reduce the final price tag to less than $790 billion. The tax credits to goose home sales had earlier emerged as one possible place to reduce the bill?s overall price.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman told Reuters that negotiators were leaning towards modifying the smaller $7,500 tax credit for first time buyers. Unlike the Senate provision, the existing credit carries income restrictions; it begins to phase out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples. Eliminating repayment provisions would cost the government between $2 and $3 billion, while the larger $15,000 credit would cost an additional $35.5 billion.
Senate Republicans pushed for the $15,000 credit last week, but didn?t appear to deliver any extra votes. Georgia Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson introduced the measure but voted against the entire bill, saying it was too expensive, and the final package won just three Republican votes. That means that dropping the more generous housing credit wasn?t likely to harm the political chances of the bill.
If the final tax credit gets pared back, it would represent a blow to the Realtors? and homebuilders lobby that have aggressively championed the credits as a means to boost sales.
Real-estate professionals have looked at sharp home price declines for clues that a rise in home sales isn?t too far off, but more sobering news greeted that optimism Wednesday. The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that mortgage applications fell last week to their lowest level since November. Also, the MBA index that measures new home loan purchases fell to its lowest level since December 2000.