378
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nadram@lemmy.world 93 points 2 years ago

That's a terrible idea. The real life effect is that prices will simply go up. You need to force down real estate prices in general, and offer very low interest rates for first time buyers.

[-] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They did this in 2008-09 with an 8k payment to homebuyers that wasn't a loan and didn't have to be repaid. This enabled me to but a foreclosed house and make it livable, and I've been living in it since then. It didn't raise prices in my area, because no one was buying houses anyway because regular possible couldn't afford it.

I don't know if I would have been able to get so financially situated if that payment wasn't there. I could've bought the house, but I would not have been able to fix it enough to ever stay on top of the maintenance and bills.

Would this be exactly the same situation? I dunno. But I know a similar push sure worked in the past.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 years ago

Different situation, as that was after the market crash.

[-] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The argument isn’t that this payment won’t help people in the short term, it will. The problem is that if you have an extra 25k to spend and it’s given to every first time buyer, they’ll just shop in a 25k higher price range. And if the sellers know this, they’ll adjust the market for what everyone can afford now.

This is basic economics, you lower the quantity of available housing by allowing more people to afford it and the price will go up. There’s a reason our solution to every affordability problem works this way and breaks things. For student loans for instance, sure we can pay them off for you, but does that bring down the cost? No. It just means the government pays universities. Same thing here, the government is just letting you use your taxes to give to a real estate agent instead of addressing housing costs.

[-] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

And didn't advertise it well. I bought my house then and didn't know I had this until it was too late.

[-] gedhrel@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It does rather sound like proposing an immediate 25k hike in house prices, yeah.

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

It's not. First time buyers are a small portion of the market.

[-] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 23 points 2 years ago

The fact that it's limited to first-time house buyers will at least help mitigate some of the advantage that commercial real estate buyers have over ordinary folks that are just trying to get a roof over their heads.

[-] Crow_Thief@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

At worst, youre partially right. Maybe they'd go up 10K, but certainly not 25K. That's just not how markets work. It's the same argument as saying UBI will increase prices - yes, it will, but not by more than or as much as the UBI is. If everybody else sells their home at $25K more, you can sell yours in a month by going down to $15K more than before.

[-] nadram@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I agree, and i didn't say it will increase prices by 25k. Still think this can be tackled in better ways. Low interest rates over a 20-25 year loan can save you much more than 25k. Edit: let's ban corporate from buying up blocks of residential areas. It won't cost you any tax money and will immediately drop the prices

[-] Crow_Thief@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah, that's the real solution. We have to ban any one entity owning more than 2-3 residential properties. The $25K is simply a decent stop gap until we can actually make that law happen, because our capitalist overlords would never allow it.

[-] ECB@feddit.org 9 points 2 years ago

Yeah a similar policy in the UK (from 10ish years ago) is one of the biggest reasons for hugely inflated prices among small properties.

Obviously, the only real solution is to work to lower real-estate prices, but that would be unpopular with most home owners (who are a majority in the US).

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Most of the housing price increases are driven by investors, not first time home buyers. This will have its intended effect. Obviously we still have to build, but this is like claiming minimum wage causes inflation.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Require that homes that are not homesteads be sold within 6 months as a homestead or they're auctioned off to the highest bidder that will take it as a homestead.

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
378 points (96.3% liked)

politics

31213 readers
2655 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS