The $8000 tax incentive for new home buyers is designed to help spur on the homebuilding and home sales markets. Unfortunately it misses the mark in several respects.
The biggest plug in the system are those who have homes, need to move for a new job opportunity, change in job status that could threaten their ability to pay the mortgage, want to move to a new school district or would like to upsize or downsize. A great many people have homes whose values in today’s markets are less than the amount of their mortgage. As a result they cannot afford to sell their current homes until home values increase.
I am certain that this is not a new idea, but if we really want to spur home sales, increase mobility for purposes of supporting job growth and opportunity, reduce mortgage defaults and foreclosures, and free up the system to get back in balance, the government should provide a tax credit to old home owners who:
1. Want or need to move;
2. Can show that the value of their home currently is less than the amount of their mortgage.
The government can “bail-out” regular people by providing cash to the banks for the difference between the home value and mortgage balance, up to $8000 or some other number. The purchaser’s of that home will finance it properly and will be able to sell it when they are ready. This stream of purchasers does not exist now, because they cannot afford to sell their current home.
If one wants to open the floodgates to a normal flow of home sales again, it is this stopper that must be unplugged.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Time to Stop Deciding Who “Won”
The one thing that is clear from the most recent elections and those that occurred a year ago is that the people of this country want our elected officials to stop playing the political game, to stop worrying about whether the Democrats or Republicans “won” or “lost” and start to solve the critical problems that they care about.
I for one abhor the constant discussion on TV, radio, blogs and in print about which side is winning on this or that issue, election or policy debate. The issues, I suppose, are too complex for the mainstream media to understand.
Mostly, though, I think it is just a lot more fun for the political reporters to pretend for a time that they are ESPN sports junkies reporting in SportCenter wittiness on wins, losses and the performances of the participants. Top plays. Web gems. Hilarious miscues, errors and bloopers.
Alas, whether or not the future of our country and the world depends on intelligent action in Washington, the discussion continues to center around whether each event was a win or a loss for Barrack Obama.
Sure we have an unwieldy federal deficit, millions of uninsured Americans, drug battles with Mexican kingpins, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an impending energy crisis, and the possibility of Global Warming creating tremendous human chaos, not to mention the economy and unemployment, but clearly the critical point is how each politician rates in terms of wins and losses.
And, of course, wins are not measured by whether we solve any of these problems. No, they are measured by rhetoric in the House, battles over details in the Senate, local elections, speeches, interviews, and whatever the pundits decide merit placement on the scorecard. And somehow, pushing these important policy issues forward seldom seems to make it on the list.
I wonder who really is causing the gridlock in Washington. I blame it all on ESPN.
I for one abhor the constant discussion on TV, radio, blogs and in print about which side is winning on this or that issue, election or policy debate. The issues, I suppose, are too complex for the mainstream media to understand.
Mostly, though, I think it is just a lot more fun for the political reporters to pretend for a time that they are ESPN sports junkies reporting in SportCenter wittiness on wins, losses and the performances of the participants. Top plays. Web gems. Hilarious miscues, errors and bloopers.
Alas, whether or not the future of our country and the world depends on intelligent action in Washington, the discussion continues to center around whether each event was a win or a loss for Barrack Obama.
Sure we have an unwieldy federal deficit, millions of uninsured Americans, drug battles with Mexican kingpins, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an impending energy crisis, and the possibility of Global Warming creating tremendous human chaos, not to mention the economy and unemployment, but clearly the critical point is how each politician rates in terms of wins and losses.
And, of course, wins are not measured by whether we solve any of these problems. No, they are measured by rhetoric in the House, battles over details in the Senate, local elections, speeches, interviews, and whatever the pundits decide merit placement on the scorecard. And somehow, pushing these important policy issues forward seldom seems to make it on the list.
I wonder who really is causing the gridlock in Washington. I blame it all on ESPN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)