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.
I'm listening to a weekly real estate radio show produced by the NAR. Their incoming president says that Senators Baucus and Hatch want to rewrite the tax code from scratch - and, therefore, want supporters of existing tax breaks to justify them.
The NAR position is that the mortgage interest deduction is the most efficient tool to increase home ownership.
I say that eliminating - or at least reducing - minimum lot size requirements - can be even more effective in increasing home ownership while reducing government intervention and increasing liberty, and therefore the NAR position lacks proof and indeed is unprovable under current conditions.
What is the NAR not getting here, seems so obvious to me?
The NAR position is that the mortgage interest deduction is the most efficient tool to increase home ownership.
That just jacks up the house prices so the realtors could make more money because 5% of 200K is much more than 5% of 100K.
Mortgage interest deduction just reinforces this position that everyone should go in debt to pay for housing but it's okay because it appreciates @ 10%/year so no worries.
I'm listening to a weekly real estate radio show produced by the NAR. Their incoming president says that Senators Baucus and Hatch want to rewrite the tax code from scratch - and, therefore, want supporters of existing tax breaks to justify them.
The NAR position is that the mortgage interest deduction is the most efficient tool to increase home ownership.
I say that eliminating - or at least reducing - minimum lot size requirements - can be even more effective in increasing home ownership while reducing government intervention and increasing liberty, and therefore the NAR position lacks proof and indeed is unprovable under current conditions.
What is the NAR not getting here, seems so obvious to me?
The NAR is addressing federal tax breaks and you are talking about local city zoning codes. The NAR position is wrong because Canada has a higher home ownership rate than the USA -despite higher home prices - and doesn't provide for interest deductions in their tax code.
I'm listening to a weekly real estate radio show produced by the NAR. Their incoming president says that Senators Baucus and Hatch want to rewrite the tax code from scratch - and, therefore, want supporters of existing tax breaks to justify them.
The NAR position is that the mortgage interest deduction is the most efficient tool to increase home ownership.
I say that eliminating - or at least reducing - minimum lot size requirements - can be even more effective in increasing home ownership while reducing government intervention and increasing liberty, and therefore the NAR position lacks proof and indeed is unprovable under current conditions.
What is the NAR not getting here, seems so obvious to me?
As you know, lot sizes are a local decision.
I'm currently in an area where there are no zoning restrictions.
What a mess.
Move to an area that provides what you want.
Holey moley, you sure can blame everyone but yourself for not getting what you want.
Not everyone gets what they want.
Maybe you're just wrong and most people don't agree with you.
??? Whether I am right or wrong is...unprovable (under current conditions)!
It is indisputable that (a) the mortgage interest deduction increases home ownership, and (b) lower minimum lot size requirements increase home ownership.
So we can have both and be even better off than we are now.
On what basis do you say maybe most people don't agree with me? Do you have evidence that lower lot size requirements reduce home ownership?
??? Whether I am right or wrong is...unprovable (under current conditions)!
It is indisputable that (a) the mortgage interest deduction increases home ownership, and (b) lower minimum lot size requirements increase home ownership.
So we can have both and be even better off than we are now.
On what basis do you say maybe most people don't agree with me? Do you have evidence that lower lot size requirements reduce home ownership?
I can dispute your first claim, in fact I already have. On your second claim, Houston has no zoning requirements and has a slighter higher home ownership rate than Dallas, but median income per household is higher, homes are cheaper, and the poverty rate is lower in Houston. Zoning requirements don't seem to be a significant factor here.
Houston:
Poverty 21.5%
Median household income: $44,124
Median home value: $124,400
Ownership rate: 46.6%
Dallas:
Poverty: 23%
Median household income: $42,259
Median home value: $129,600
Ownership rate: 45.2%
The NAR is addressing federal tax breaks and you are talking about local city zoning codes. The NAR position is wrong because Canada has a higher home ownership rate than the USA -despite higher home prices - and doesn't provide for interest deductions in their tax code.
The NAR often acts as a general advocate for homeowner interests, e.g. they promote homeowner tax breaks generally, not only federal tax breaks, and there are many state and local tax breaks for homeowners. So there is nothing preventing them from speaking more broadly in support of home ownership, in the same way Jack Kemp did under Reagan.
I can dispute your first claim, in fact I already have. On your second claim, Houston has no zoning requirements and has a slighter higher home ownership rate than Dallas, but median income per household is higher, homes are cheaper, and the poverty rate is lower in Houston. Zoning requirements don't seem to be a significant factor here.
Houston:
Poverty 21.5%
Median household income: $44,124
Median home value: $124,400
Ownership rate: 46.6%
Dallas:
Poverty: 23%
Median household income: $42,259
Median home value: $129,600
Ownership rate: 45.2%
Not enough information for a general conclusion, don't know enough about demographics and local market conditions. I'm guessing Houston might have tighter private property restrictions than Dallas.
Not enough information for a general conclusion, don't know enough about demographics and local market conditions. I'm guessing Houston might have tighter private property restrictions than Dallas.
The demographics are the same. The only difference is Dallas has zoning laws and Houston doesn't. Dallas also has more of a banking, IT and professional services industry and Houston has more of a construction, gov, mining presence.
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.
