$15,000 Rebate Checks For All Home Buyers???

edited March 2008 in Housing Bubble
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15575616/detail.html

Sorry if this is posted somewhere else but I didn't see it so I was wondering what everyone thought. I actually think it's a good idea as it may slow down price declines which helps current owners and sellers and it give prospective buyers incentive to enter the market. I am looking in the 250k area in Thurston county and this would be a significant insurance policy for me, giving me some wiggle room for price depreciation.
I see a couple of negatives in that it wouldn't help with affordability by propping up prices and an estimated cost of 15 billion over 2years will cost everyone in general with taxes going to pay for it. It seems cheaper than if we have to bailout more banks because we let the home market totally die though. I liked that it's not just a bank and big business handout but helps buyers and sellers. Combined with stricter lending requirements, this may motivate qualified buyers to jump in. I know the rebate wouldn't be too much of an insurance policy with Seattle's median being so high but in the lower end areas it might work. Thought and comments? What am I missing other than the affordability and the tax payer contribution. Or is this some bogus article since I haven't heard about it at all until I noticed it today on another site.

Comments

  • This is a terrible idea.

    A) Many parts of the country saw no/little bubble. These are the cheaper parts, and this plan would immediately inflate prices in those areas by 10%-15%. This just spreads the bubble more.

    B) Areas that did bubble are so highly priced that this will do little. In Thurston (your example), it is 7% of total price. But prices in Thurston County are likely to fall over $50k (my guess).

    C) It creates moral dilemma. Do this and how do you not retroactively bailing out previous buyers?

    D) The poor still can't buy. You are stealing from them to give to the upper middle class.
  • It doesn't help at all with the problem (affordability), but since it helps you out to the tune of $15k you think it's a good idea. You could just wait about 6 months and pay $15k less and it won't cost the taxpayer a dime.
  • I know without even looking that this is a Republican-posed idea. It's like how they compensated 9/11 victims' families, and then they retroactively paid off the Oklahoma City bombing victims' families too. All with borrowed money of course. What a joke. Hey, let all us taxpayers give fat checks to car accident victims too, and $100 to anybody who stubs their toe. Idiocies like this have run the country into the ground in just 7 years. Just more proof that Republicans love welfare and couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag.
  • Markor wrote:
    I know without even looking that this is a Republican-posed idea. It's like how they compensated 9/11 victims' families, and then they retroactively paid off the Oklahoma City bombing victims' families too. All with borrowed money of course. What a joke. Hey, let all us taxpayers give fat checks to car accident victims too, and $100 to anybody who stubs their toe. Idiocies like this have run the country into the ground in just 7 years. Just more proof that Republicans love welfare and couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag.

    Out with it Markor. Which district are you running for as a Democrat? Both parties are eager to put their stamp on every bailout that comes along. Take the tax payout that sailed through a Democrat controlled congress and was signed immediately by a Republican president. That is also paid for on borrowed funds.
  • </politics>
  • Out with it Markor. Which district are you running for as a Democrat?
    You're missing something important. If Republicans announce that they're going to give $600 to millions of Americans, can the Democrats vote against it without committing political suicide? No. Is giving $600 to millions of Americans a smart idea? No. If Democrats vote against it and consequently lose their seats to Republicans, will the country be worse off? Yes. Then who is to blame for the fallout, even if Democrats vote for it? Only Repubicans are to blame. Whichever party proposes it is to blame. To not understand that dynamic is to be unworthy to vote, IMO.
  • deejayoh wrote:
    </politics>
    This is a political topic. The news item is clearly political. Agree or not, the whole housing bubble topic is political, since political decisions are obviously one of its root causes.
  • Markor wrote:
    deejayoh wrote:
    </politics>
    This is a political topic. The news item is clearly political. Agree or not, the whole housing bubble topic is political, since political decisions are obviously one of its root causes.

    $15,000 Rebate Checks For All Home Buyers??? -> Markor makes republican bashing post(s)

    Always intersting to read the foreign press about US finance -> Markor makes republican bashing post(s)

    Wisdom wanted on savings -> Markor makes republican bashing post(s)

    Poll: How often do you visit Seattle Bubble? -> Markor makes republican bashing post(s)

    Propaganda, Debt Bites Back, Foreclosures, and More -> Markor makes republican bashing post(s)

    So basically any topic that even remotely is related to politics we get the same tirade. But it's okay because the topic is related to politics. And since the whole housing bubble is political we're going to see it on every single housing bubble related post too.

    Maybe you can add this to your sig: "I hate all republicans past and present and blame them for all of the world's current and future problems." That would save you a lot of time and allow threads to stay somewhat on-topic.
  • Markor, your endless political rants are getting as tiresome as Ray's endless self promotion. And I'm not a Republican saying that.
  • edited March 2008
    Maybe you can add this to your sig: "I hate all republicans past and present and blame them for all of the world's current and future problems." That would save you a lot of time and allow threads to stay somewhat on-topic.
    OK, I'll tone it down and save my vitriol for Republicans elsewhere. But first:

    I admit I'm pissed that I have to make major changes in my life, to try to make lemonade out of lemons, just because the people around me vote ignorantly. I think it's silly to discuss a housing bubble without considering its root causes and what's significantly exacerbating it, esp. when that's something people can vote on. (Sure there's an Everything Else section here; that's like a forum on airplanes having an Everything Else section for discussing aerodynamics.) It's silly to pretend that a proposal to give $15,000 rebate checks for all home buyers has nothing to do with, or is only coincidentally connected to, a political party that consistently makes such decisions that just so happen to enrich their wealthiest supporters at the expense of everyone else. That's a major problem in our country: taboo to discuss politics, even though politics makes or breaks our lives, esp. financially. The taboo is by design, BTW, just like it's taboo to discuss biblical contradictions in church. It's all about making the dumb dumber, to gain money & power. And boy is it ever working!
  • Markor wrote:
    deejayoh wrote:
    </politics>
    This is a political topic. The news item is clearly political. Agree or not, the whole housing bubble topic is political, since political decisions are obviously one of its root causes.

    As perfectfire points out, you have a tendency to turn every thread into a political thread - even when there is no one there to disagree with you.

    toning it down would be great.
  • Wow, a simple post on the merits of the idea become a political debate. Well, I see both parties lining up with their patriotic plans to help homeowners so I agree it may be political but it's not just one party as the driving force.

    I still am not convinced that there isn't some merit in this idea. Sure it doesn't help affordability but it won't directly inflate prices 10-15%. I'm still going to be able to afford a maximum payment and if this is indeed a rebate I won't see that money until after the transaction. Now I'm sure some creative lender could do wonders trying to leverage that 15k but hopefully they squash any attempts at fraud using the 15k rebate as part of your original home purchase. Yes, it would help me currently, Perfectire, but there are lots of ideas out there. Most of the ideas hurt me and make it harder for me to get a home and this one would at least even the playing field a little bit as it would be an incentive that benefits buyers also. I also pointed out that at least the homebuyer can share in part of the "bailout" instead of it going only to banks and irresponsible borrowers. I would rather the market correct but as the evidence is starting to show, the government is going to only let things get so bad before they do something drastic. I would prefer that I can get some of the benefits at least instead of just being the taxpayer that helps people keep their houses. 15k in hand is more insurance adainst home prices dropping than I have now and better than the assistance prospective homebuyers were getting in any previous bailout plan. The way I see it there are going to be 2 choices down the road. Participate in the plans offered and hope you benefit or complain about how there should be no bailout while everyone else who can takes advantage of it
    . Both parties are talking about bailouts for homeowner so it seems inevitable that something will happen. I don't really see a scenario where something drastic isn't done. These guys are all clamoring for votes. I hope econimic sense prevails and the housing crisis is left to work itself out but I seriously doubt it. Logically, when presented with limited choices I would rather get some benefit out of this than to just be the contributor to the bailout funds.
  • Markor wrote:
    I think it's silly to discuss a housing bubble without considering its root causes and what's significantly exacerbating it, esp. when that's something people can vote on.

    I don't anybody really disagrees. The problem lies where someone comes into a thread thinking there will be discussion about $15,000 rebates for home buyers only to discover it has already become a discussion about how much Bush sucks. And this is the 10th time this has happened to them. And the "discussion" about Bush's suckage isn't really a discussion, rather a series of proclamations and insults.

    This isn't RCG. You can start your own threads. If you want to talk about a certain aspect of politics go ahead and start a thread about it. For instance, grugrind wanted to talk about the merits of $15,000 rebate checks for home buyers so he started a thread about it.
  • grugind wrote:
    I hope econimic sense prevails and the housing crisis is left to work itself out but I seriously doubt it. Logically, when presented with limited choices I would rather get some benefit out of this than to just be the contributor to the bailout funds.

    Though I rallied against the concept earlier in this thread, I agree whole-heartedly. If politicians insist on making a mistake, the least they can do is make sure it benefits me.
  • grugind wrote:
    I still am not convinced that there isn't some merit in this idea. Sure it doesn't help affordability but it won't directly inflate prices 10-15%.
    As sure as the sun rises daily, selling prices would inflate almost exactly $15K on average, less the average taxes that people pay on their rebate checks, if any. TANSTAAFL = "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Selling prices would inflate the moment it became news that the rebate was approved by Congress. It wouldn't work to your advantage, but it would certainly work to your disadvantage, by either raising your taxes or reducing your other services.

    Doubtless a for-profit vendor would be given a no-bid contract to distribute the checks, and we would find out months after the checks start printing that their administrative costs are something like $3K per check, and the CEO of the company is a major campaign contributor oops has just ordered the latest Gulfstream to go with his yacht.
  • The irony here may be that doing NOTHING will benefit us the most, across the board. I don't see the fundementals applying to a $15K rebate, just the consumerism that we were culturally raised to follow.

    Sure as individuals, that $15K is something. Collectively, it's still delaying the inevitable. So, those who have will continue to have, and those who don't can't take advantage of it. Throwing money at a problem with no real practical goal in mind never solved anything of magnitude.

    It may well prop up prices and/or allow someone to make 3-6 months of mortgage payments. Then what? Give another borrowed rebate? More of the same will not get us anywhere we need to go, IMO.
  • explorer wrote:
    It may well prop up prices and/or allow someone to make 3-6 months of mortgage payments. Then what? Give another borrowed rebate? More of the same will not get us anywhere we need to go, IMO.
    Yep. Reminds me of China prior to the Great Famine there, when they raised steel production dramatically by having everyone melt their pots and pans.
  • I really don't see the benefit of this. Borrowing $15k per house, which ends up costing taxpayers about $21-23k to repay, to accomplish what?

    It would immediately add $15k to the asking price, and the day after the tax was paid out, that $15k would fall off. No thanks.
  • It would immediately add $15k to the asking price, and the day after the tax was paid out, that $15k would fall off. No thanks.
    Yes, and the obviousness of that means that the proposer either is dumb or, much more likely, has an ulterior motive.
  • Markor wrote:
    Yes, and the obviousness of that means that the proposer either is dumb or, much more likely, has an ulterior motive.

    My guess is that it's just a popularity contest kind of move. One of the congress members whose seat is actually going to be contested needs to show they are 'looking out for the folks back home'. It's not uncommon for items to be brought up which have no chance of passing, but are intended to force members of congress to take a side.
  • Markor wrote:
    Yes, and the obviousness of that means that the proposer either is dumb or, much more likely, has an ulterior motive.

    My guess is that it's just a popularity contest kind of move. One of the congress members whose seat is actually going to be contested needs to show they are 'looking out for the folks back home'. It's not uncommon for items to be brought up which have no chance of passing, but are intended to force members of congress to take a side.

    Which is all fine and dandy until you get a majority scratching their heads and thinking they can't possibly vote against this... and it passes, and the US government is trying to borrow a few hundred billion more.
  • Why do anything?

    If you want more people to buy homes just lend them the money with no money down. If payments are hard to make, think of creative financing options....maybe interest only payments or low interest for a set time frame. I'm sure everyone will be making more money in 5 years so at that time a higher payment will be fiiiiiiiiine.

    If you REALLY want to increase home sales allow lenders to turn a blind eye to poor credit ratings and prior foreclosures, etc.

    Didn't we just do this?


    PS: Then of course......Ban Blogs.
Sign In or Register to comment.