Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2008 showed us one thing. You can't trust big banks to be responsible with the integrity of our financial system. You can't trust them not to give out loans to people who can't afford to pay them back. On the other side of that, we have a worsening homeless epidemic.
I have a solution for that. Lets have the government take over the housing market, and subsidize homes based on what people can afford. This would protect the consumer as well as solve the homeless epidemic in one swoop. Homeless people would get free government homes, likely bottom tier. Homes would be valued in tiers based on size, location, age, desirability, etc. The tier of home one could apply for would be based off their Pre-tax income and could be adjusted for inflation or deflation. That would keep a burger flipper from getting into a home valued in the millions under the current system. Things like family size would also be taken into account, with everyone getting a home fitting for the number of people living in it. Would this work? What could be the possible negatives of such a system?
Yea, lets vote for a mommy and daddy to tell us what to do. Obviously people like being treated like children or like they don't have common sense.
Greed got people in trouble... nothing more, nothing less.
Before the Great Depression, home buyers typically were expected to have a 50% down payment. The mortgage matured in 5 years at which point, the owner either paid it off, refinancid it at current interest rates or lost the house.
And still, about 50% of homes went into foreclosure during the Great Depression.
hell, why don't we just all put shackles around our ankles and chains around our wrist. The libs won't be happy until that happens and they control us with whips.
2008 showed us one thing. You can't trust big banks to be responsible with the integrity of our financial system. You can't trust them not to give out loans to people who can't afford to pay them back. On the other side of that, we have a worsening homeless epidemic.
I have a solution for that. Lets have the government take over the housing market, and subsidize homes based on what people can afford. This would protect the consumer as well as solve the homeless epidemic in one swoop. Homeless people would get free government homes, likely bottom tier. Homes would be valued in tiers based on size, location, age, desirability, etc. The tier of home one could apply for would be based off their Pre-tax income and could be adjusted for inflation or deflation. That would keep a burger flipper from getting into a home valued in the millions under the current system. Things like family size would also be taken into account, with everyone getting a home fitting for the number of people living in it. Would this work? What could be the possible negatives of such a system?
I happen to agree that the big banks skated despite the fact that their greed led to the destruction of the housing market starting in 2005-2006, NOT 2008.
However, I dont want to live in Section 8 housing, which is exactly what will happen if the Federal Government were to "take over" the housing market.
2008 showed us one thing. You can't trust big banks to be responsible with the integrity of our financial system. You can't trust them not to give out loans to people who can't afford to pay them back. On the other side of that, we have a worsening homeless epidemic.
I have a solution for that. Lets have the government take over the housing market, and subsidize homes based on what people can afford.
good post and I agree - housing should be socialised.
Not all houses, but low income ones.
this would do away with homelessness and the pernicious rent market that exists.
Why should one family live on the streets whilst another has 3 empty holiday homes?
good post and I agree - housing should be socialised.
Not all houses, but low income ones.
this would do away with homelessness and the pernicious rent market that exists.
Why should one family live on the streets whilst another has 3 empty holiday homes?
Not right.
This guy had a great response to your argument about 20 posts ago, maybe you missed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
I am going to quit my job that allows me to afford my current house. Get a crappy job that requires not skill and pays minimum wage and the government will give me a house. Then I'll have a bunch of kids so I can get a bigger house.
Tell me why you think this would work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
