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 love how statistics can show anything. Here's my math on how much money this will cost the taxpaying citizens of America:
$15B - cost of program
180M - US citizens 20-64 year olds (2006 census: The 2009 Statistical Abstract: Population)
144M - US citizens 20-64 year olds (2006 census) who actually pay taxes (estimated at 80%, keeping in mind unemployment rate is 9.5%)
This translates to roughly $100 per taxpaying citizen. The math stating this is "costing $43,000" is actually from another forum (Stats about all US cities - real estate, relocation info, house prices, home value estimator, recent sales, cost of living, crime, race, income, photos, education, maps, weather, houses, schools, neighborhoods, and more) and is also criticized there. That poster found the math from yet another website: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/. Again, once you can find it there, is also looking quite dubious. So, while it may be costing $43,000 per EXTRA house sold, that does not necessarily translate to how much EXTRA per taxpayer. In the end, isn't what we're all concerned about our own bottom line? How much will this effect ME? I still want to know where the $15 Billion figure came from. Who originated this number? I can find references to it on several websites, but without any background on it. I've also heard $10B, which would bring the cost down to $66/person. Of course, there's also the argument that less than 80% of Americans are also paying taxes... Pick and choose your numbers, statistics will always show what you want them to show.
In the end, is it worth roughly $100 of my hard earned money to go towards rebuilding the economy? Starting by boosting the real estate market? Sure. Do I want to pay it every year? No. But I'll do my part in helping to fix the problem.
Have fun y'all!
Actually, I don't remember anyone posting that the $43K was per taxpayer - it was the incremental cost per additional home sold.
BIG difference.
The way you sliced and diced it is a technique but irrelevant to this particular discussion.
I have heard talk that the first-time home buyer tax credit is likely to be extended for another 6 months (to possibly 12 months).
What is your opinion on this? Do you think it will drive up home prices and interest rates... leaving us exactly where we are now? Or do you think it will give the economy a much-needed bolster?
Here is an article that corroborates what I have heard:
I believe the current tax credit will get extended for another 6 months but that we will likely not see any expansion in who can qualify or in the amount of the credit.
I don't think we will see any plan such as geithner promised months ago ;so as long as the housing market is the same we may see even more not just first time buyers stimulus for housing.It could vaerywell get increased.
The extension is a terrible idea. But which government market intervention hasn't been?
Now, as many have already said on this thread, all that it has already done is artificially stabilize the market to the point where it is now entirely dependent on it. So if it is extended, which is likely, then what happens next year, and the year after that? I suppose we'll have to keep extending it forever, or else the housing market will collapse again. So, might as well make it a permanent credit. Hey, what's another couple of billion? Might as well keep printing money until the cows come home (there's no way we'll ever be able to pay off $12 trillion in debt anyway). Back to 2006 we go! Yeeeeeee haw!!!
If you can't beat em, join em! Buy Buy Buy!
(Just remember to have your finger on that sell button this time!)
I do not think the tax credit is a bad idea. But the "first time homebuyer" is someone who has not owned a home for 3 years. Frankly, I don't see the attraction of extening this credit only to those who have not owned a home lately.
Tax credits have been used by the gov. to jump start many segments of the economy over the years. i.e. When I started a business in 1980, I enjoyed a tax credit for the equipment I purchased to start up that business. It was very helpful and allowed me to purchase more equipment than I might have be able to otherwise. A tax credit may be very helpful but it's not cash- let's remember, I had to first produce a profit for the credit on the taxes then owed on the profits to be used. Still, it was helpful.
I think it would be helpful for a tax credit for the purchase of a home should be extended to any owner occupant buyer for a period of - perhaps 12 months. Rather than an $8,000.00 credit I think it could be a sliding scale.
I do not agree with the notion that it prompts those who can't afford to buy, buy. Again, it's a tax credit - not a credit towards purchase.
Just my thoughts - Cheers!
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.
