Fed Bailout Bill: Any Piece of That Pie for New Yorkers?
The Times has a piece today entitled “Housing Bill Has Something for Nearly Everyone” that talks about how the multi-billion (how much exactly? no one knows) housing bailout bill isn’t just pitched at people with mortgage woes and troubled lenders. Aspects of the bill will probably have modest benefits for New York-area borrowers who don’t…
The Times has a piece today entitled “Housing Bill Has Something for Nearly Everyone” that talks about how the multi-billion (how much exactly? no one knows) housing bailout bill isn’t just pitched at people with mortgage woes and troubled lenders. Aspects of the bill will probably have modest benefits for New York-area borrowers who don’t have mortgage trouble. The bill, for example, is supposed to help first-time buyers, who’ll be eligible for a federal tax credit of $7,500 or 10 percent of the home purchase price (whichever’s smaller). The catches: single people earning $95,000 or more, or married couples earning $170,000 or more aren’t eligible for the credit. Another break comes for people who take standard deductions on their taxes: They’ll be eligible for an additional tax deduction of $500, or $1,000 for married couples. The aspect of the bill that might have the most impact on pricey New York is the one that allows Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to buy bigger loans (none over $625,500, however) in areas with higher housing costs, a measure that’s aimed at lowering interest rates for people who take big loans.
Housing Bill Has Something for Nearly Everyone [NY Times]
Photo by Rikx
You could also make the case that tax payers have been subsidizing renters for over 60 years. All those renters with stabilized and rent controlled leases generate below market rent which means taxable income for property owners (and thus tax revenue for the government) is lower than it could be if rents weren’t held artifically low by rent regulations. Property tax revenues would likely be higher too, since properties would be worth more without regulated tenants.
considering the mess we’re in, I’m not sure we can afford to maintain the Bush tax deductions. Seems he never got the idea that you can’t spend more than what you’re got coming in. One way or another taxpayers are going to pay more, no matter what they choose to call it. Like all those lovely little fees credit cards slap you with while telling you how much better service they’re giving you. Maybe if they stopped mailing so much junk with my statement they could save money and a tree.
We need less spending and we need to maintain the tax redcutions that Bush made. So we really need a candidate in between. Mr. Perot, Forbes?
Mr. Joist- why do you think would Obama will make it worse? McCain’s economic policies (and he is the first to admit economics are not his forte) if anything will simply keep the Bush policies in place (at best) and screw us even more at worst. For all the conservatives talk of less government spending, and less government period, everything the present administration has done seems to have created an atmosphere of fiscal irresponsibility that we’re seeing the downside of now.
So please explain, if you would.
There are no nice ranch-style houses. Ranch style is a trailer with the wheels taken off.
Z said: “not true — you get an economy that isn’t in a total state of meltdown. the bailout definitely has a sour taste, but it’s a necessary evil and in everyone’s best interests.”
I’m a homeowner and I’m calling major bullsh*t on this comment.
The Fannie and Freddie bailout is a huge wealth transfer from all taxpayers (meaning mostly the middle class and wealthy) to the stockholders of financial institutions. The government “tax breaks” are another wealth transfer to primarily non-NYC citizens.
The only part of the “plan” that could have helped NYC residents was the new higher “conforming jumbo” limits and that had been a JOKE!
Gabby said: “The aspect of the bill that might have the most impact on pricey New York is the one that allows Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to buy bigger loans (none over $625,500, however) in areas with higher housing costs…”
This has been in place for months now with little or no effect. And don’t get me started on the “stimulus” payments only going to people making less than $87k or some nonsense.
The net is that New Yorkers, already subsidizing other poorer sates through federal tax transfers, get screwed again. No benefit, only costs. And, from a purely financial point of view, things will get MUCH worse for middle-class and above New Yorkers if Obama is elected. For the first time ever I may vote my pocketbook in the general election.
true, z and I did say everyone suffers. My point was to homeowners who put down renters- that’s been a recurring theme on brownstoner in the past- and seem to think renters make no investment in the community.
Hm. I should have done my research first. Here’s a charming place in Arkansas with central air, big yard, two-car garage and a barn for $16.5k…
http://fayar.craigslist.org/rfs/766083760.html
My head asplode.
“while we are helping pay for the bailout, we get nothing in return”
not true — you get an economy that isn’t in a total state of meltdown. the bailout definitely has a sour taste, but it’s a necessary evil and in everyone’s best interests.