Math, science, writing & reading activities.Our activities & worksheets can make learning fun.

Back to Results

Tools

Partner Tools


Why the home buyer tax credit is a bad idea

Profile picture for dacolan
Contributions: 475
Zillow All-Star

Since October 2009

The most cogent argument against the government providing expanded subsidies for its citizens to buy property in a sinking real estate market is that the cost per incremental home sale would jump to, by some estimates, almost $300,000.

You see, most people who took advantage of the first tax credit would have purchased a home anyway, so the government expense per "incremental sale" tends to soar.
...
The arguments for extending the home buyer tax credit program are universally the same. It supports a struggling housing market and, as we've heard many times before, until the housing market recovers, the broader economy will not recover.

Just once it would be nice to hear some policymaker or some real estate industry professional say that, in order for the economy to stabilize, home prices must revert to more normal levels - say, levels that are supported by wages or incomes - rather than the familiar refrain that home prices must simply stop falling.


link
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 22 - US

Replies (43)

Profile picture for White Picture
Contributions: 1982
Zillow All-Star

Since March 2009

$8k tax credit was not for support the real estate market, it is for economy purpose, more money flowing, more improvement of economy.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 22
Profile picture for dacolan
Contributions: 475
Zillow All-Star

Since October 2009

How does a $300K incremental cost to taxpayers for each extra house sale generated by the tax credit and $100s of millions in tax fraud directly as a result of this tax credit improve the economy exactly?
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 22
Profile picture for klarek the realist
Contributions: 6699
Zillow All-Star

Since September 2009

Oh please, white picture, it was a bribe for people to buy houses.  If the point was to get people spending, they could have given it to everybody, not just those people buying houses.  It was a blatant gift to the real estate industry and people clinging onto bubble prices.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 22
Profile picture for Caveat Emptor
Contributions: 5924
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

they would have purchased a home EVENTUALLY, but later and at a lower price... we would still be going at around march-april rates of sale if it werent for the credit which has us approaching bubble-era euphoria. therefore making the statement that they would have "bought anyway" implies that the credit was merely a bonus for following through with their original plan, not changing their behavior.

at the same time, its disingenuous to believe that encouraging people to buy a home was the only goal of the tax credit. giving money to people who "will spend it" is generally looked down on by the populations. subsidies to poor, or young people, welfare, etc. helicopter money is the term that is given to stimulus that generates spending, without causing a public uproar. the government masks its intention to give you money by "requiring" a token of some kind... the hope was clearly that people would buy the house and either spend the 8k to add skylights and paint or go to aruba, rather than saving it, paying off debt or levying the money against the mortgage itself, but even if it did, the money that is paid back can then be lent out again somewhere else.

the actual per capita cost of this legislation is far less than 30,000 or even 3000, and while i dont agree with the legislation, as it is clearly designed to be just another populist congressional ploy to win favor, it is clear that the govt is doing what it can to stave off deflation in the general market... its also clear that its only half working
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 22
Profile picture for dacolan
Contributions: 475
Zillow All-Star

Since October 2009

the actual per capita cost of this legislation is far less than 30,000 or even 3000

While the true per capita cost may not be close to $300K (another estimate pegged the incremental cost at $43K+), it's nearly impossible to believe the figure is less than the actual credit itself.

Even the NAR and NAHB have conceded there were a significant # of consumers whose decision to buy were uneffected by the tax credit, who ultimately submitted their paperwork and collected anyway.

Throw in the $100s of millions in tax fraud (one filed on behalf of a four-year-old being one of the most blatant) and it's not difficult to see how such a poorly targeted, near universal housing welfare has cost taxpayers dramatically more than projected.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 22
Profile picture for Caveat Emptor
Contributions: 5924
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

per capita means per person in the country so, the max is 8,000 and that is only with every single in the person in the country took advantage... i remeber reading 1.4B somewhere, feel free to correct me, but the per capita cost would be roughly 10 dollars per person including administration and such... not such a big expenditure when put next to PPIP, TARP, or the whole "recovery act" and a drop in the bucket next to the monetary incentives banks have to borrow low interest money.

1400M
/ 300M
_______
~4 actually
since people are constantly quoting "future generations" burden you could consider a population far greater than 300,000,000 if you wanted

i tend to be critical of sensationalism, dont confuse that with complacency, i am wholly against this stimulus. what you are doing is akin to CNN news turning the entire country of canada bright orange after 4 confirmed cases of H1N1 flu. i find the debate to be penny wise and pound foolish when the TARP funds have already irrevocably lost 100 times this amount... its the difference between 10 dollars and 1,000.

and the difference between a handout to the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie... socialism, here we come.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 22
Profile picture for White Picture
Contributions: 1982
Zillow All-Star

Since March 2009

While it drags down the median home prices (result of more low-end price range to get sold then middle and higher prices range)
The effect of $8k tax credit is The Dow Jones hover around 10,000 last week and this week, by some estimates there are more than 60% of households in US own some kinds of stock (stocks or through the retirement funds).
When the people feel confident with their future, they will spend again (for their own or for their children).
Result:
More Spend -> more tax (not tax increase) -> more government's investment in school, freeway, street, etc... -> more jobs -> -> -> -> more Spend.
And that is not a welfare; it is "the tax money returns to the taxpayer".
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 22
Profile picture for BMFPitt
Contributions: 1135
Zillow All-Star

Since April 2009

NTETS - That's $1.4B in direct costs, figure double that for interest paid on the money borrowed for it, and 10X that for all the damage done to the economy by it.  I think only 10X may be pretty generous, given the fact that it will likely delay recovery by at least a year.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 22
Profile picture for klarek the realist
Contributions: 6699
Zillow All-Star

Since September 2009

White Picture, it's probably best that you stop talking about this and displaying your utter ignorance of financials and economics.  Better to keep one's mouth shut and let them think you're an idiot than to open it and prove you are.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 24
Profile picture for White Picture
Contributions: 1982
Zillow All-Star

Since March 2009

Hi Klarek,
Do you ever live in democracy country? what is your citizenship? Iran? Cuba? North Korea?
I think you need to learn more about "the democracy", even with the 3rd countries, the stupid people are still had the right to talk and vote, well... some of 3rd countries are none.

  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 24
Profile picture for Caveat Emptor
Contributions: 5924
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

right, 4 dollars, double for interest plus a little extra... as far as costs to the economy, as you said 80% of the buyers would have bought anyway and the price will eventually reach equilibrium...so the "cost" is time, which is valuable, but according to some theories, time is the ONLY thing that we need for recovery... and i dont think the CPS is nearly as high as you give it credit for atm.

0.02
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 24
Profile picture for cgbarfu
Klarek, I will see your Confucius quote and raise you another one:

"It is best not to wrestle with a pig, for you will just get dirty and the pig will thoroughly enjoy itself."

White Picture: Your arguments make no sense.  I suspect it is a language barrier issue.  You have good points, they just dont link well in a logical manner.

  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 24
I feel the government should focus on making mortgage money available to those who can handle the payments.  In my Southern California market, "jumbo" mortgages are too difficult to obtain, even for the most highly qualified buyers.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 26
Profile picture for Pasadenan
Contributions: 6842
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

Making jumbo mortgages too easy to obtain is what got us in this situation.

We don't "need" to re-inflate the bubble, no matter how much certain parties long for it.

Remember the movie "trading places"?  Remember at the end how the two wall street "owners" were just crying to "turn the machines back on"?

That is what I see.  Several that missed their chance to cash in on bubble equity transactions, and are just crying for it to "come back".

And those that did "cash out" are just relaxing "laughing" at them.

It doesn't matter what the "incentive" costs per person, per household, per "first time buyer", per "credit receiver", nor per household that was enticed to buy when they wouldn't have this year.  The politicians wanted to throw money at it, and they would have done so regardless.  Sure, in the long term it costs more than it brings in, but when have you ever known short term elected politicians to look at the long term?  They only look at the very short term, and this "giveaway" met their goal.

My estimate for this year?  $4 Billion spent total, for a offsetting short term revenue of $15 billion (including state taxes...).  Sure, many of the buyers would have bought anyway, but not this year.

Based on what?  Census demographics, Census housing transitions, IRS tax tables, Zillow trend charts, statistics on what was selling in January/February 09, and linear extrapolation.

Of course the politicians know they have to "phase it out", but I don't think they have the guts to do that.

And every "phased" increment will cause another "rush to buy" with inflated sales values resulting.

I still think they will settle on between $8k and $10k for 2010, with it available to a wider group of people.  But just the fact that they are discussing multiple options indicates they are getting quite a bit of opposition to some of the "handout proposals" from their "voters".  (Not "constituents" as they none of the voters ever gets "represented").

Besides, $43k per manipulated buyer is still NOTHING compared to the cost of the 10 TONS of NUKES that EACH person living in the U.S. has assigned to their name, and the support staff paid to keep them on "trigger alert" every year. 
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 26
Profile picture for Pasadenan
Contributions: 6842
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

Remember the "Gillette" business model that was recently adapted by the printer manufacturer industry?  Give way the razor  (or printer) and make up the cost on the locked in customer for the blades (or ink)?

The government is doing nothing different.  What they "give away" with one hand, they take back with the other.  And it certainly is good "propaganda" to other nations to show a very high "ownership" percentage.

But it is not really "ownership"; it is simply "rental" with all the maintenance and ownership costs transferred to the "tenant", and with taxes, fees, time and interest exceeding what they would have spent if they remained a renter.  And when they "die", the government gets it back anyway.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 26
Profile picture for Pasadenan
Contributions: 6842
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

Besides, governments are not "comfortable" with migratory people.  They would rather have them "pinned down".  If they remain renters, they move on an average of 3 years.  If they can get them to buy, they may stay for an average of 7.  But with Realtor costs, the "break even" point is now well over 12 years, and that doesn't take into account the dollar devaluation.

The U.S. is becoming much more migratory, and the government doesn't like that at all, which is why they are working so hard on tracking them electronically, including proposals for mandatory electronic health records that the government (CIA, FBI, military,....) can access.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 26
Profile picture for patsb
Contributions: 1
There is no evidence for this augument.  It's really the author's ideology
against any type of government intervention that is speaking. Ideology should reflect reality or it brings more harm than good.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 28
Profile picture for klarek the realist
Contributions: 6699
Zillow All-Star

Since September 2009

Yeah, maybe.  Or maybe it is an awful idea.  If you want to discredit the argument, feel free to present a contrary economic perspective. 
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 28
Profile picture for dacolan
Contributions: 475
Zillow All-Star

Since October 2009

The U.S. is becoming much more migratory, and the government doesn't like that at all

This strikes me as counter-intuitive, Pasa. Geographic mobility is a means of reallocating resources, labor in particular, to more efficient uses. Why would gov't be against this?
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 28
Profile picture for dacolan
Contributions: 475
Zillow All-Star

Since October 2009

There is no evidence for this augument.  It's really the author's ideology
against any type of government intervention that is speaking. Ideology should reflect reality or it brings more harm than good.


from a NY Times article:
Since it was enacted in February, only an estimated 15 percent of buyers who claimed the credit needed the money to make the purchase. It's not stimulus when you pay people to do something they would have done anyway. It's waste.

How do you interpret the author's argument based on the inequitable increased incremental cost as ideology rather than economic fact?
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 28
Profile picture for Pasadenan
Contributions: 6842
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

Governments like to know "where people are" in order to maintain control and minimize crime, treason or other rebellion efforts.  If they know where 90% of the people are, they only have to worry about 10% of the people that they don't know how to find nor what they are doing.

In the 1960's they could mostly rely on reverse phone books that had addresses and phone numbers (including unlisted numbers) for the majority of Americans, which remained fairly stable, and got updated frequently.

California added mandatory fingerprinting for driver's licenses and "State ID" cards over 2 decades ago.  Passport ID has become much more stringent.  It used to be you could walk down the street without any identification, but that is not considered acceptable any longer, and a "student id" for someone over 18 is usually not "acceptable" they want some form of "government id".  And whatever it is, it better have a photo on it.

So, with people moving more now, the government has pushed the cell-phone companies to provide tracking of the telephone locations through the cell tower signals, and triangulation between the phone and the towers.  And now they are using the media to try to convince EVERYONE to have cell phones so that the government can know where everyone is at all times.

Sure, the CIA and FBI ignore most of this information, and Federal Law "prevents" them from keeping it; but private investigators are not prevented from keeping it, and the government contracts with them to pull up the records they want.

Present "law enforcement" tries to be "proactive" and "strategic" based on current "trends"; but "predictive" enforcement is the "next generation" to be the norm within a few years.  This would be "fine" if was only about preventing "crimes"; but when it is used for political and economic control, that is something else entirely.  And when there is such a "database", it is very difficult to keep the major politics from having "access".

Even Exodus, Numbers and Kings in the bible record "census events", and the objection to such censuses.  The U.S. constitution has the census requirement mandatory every 10 years.  All that is "required" is # in household, age groups, whether a "citizen", and perhaps gender; but they collect much more than that for all kinds of other purposes.  If people stay an average of about 7 years in one location, the data can be very useful.  If they move every six months, the census data is not very reliable.

And if they move more than every 6 months, it is very difficult to maintain a stable tax base, and very difficult to provide any consistent level of any public services.

Businesses also used to like stable populations for "regular customers" and "dedicated employees".  But that has shifted in recent years as the business are no longer looking long term and only want to exploit any people that come their way.  And with "nationalized chains", they are more concerned with "brand loyalty" anyway since when they move, they will still shop those brands.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 28
Profile picture for Pasadenan
Contributions: 6842
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

(Remember, the census data collected and available for "down load" for anyone that wants it is available down to the individual "block" level for questions on the "short form" and down to the "block group" level for most of the questions on the "long form" (which goes to one out of every 6 households.).

Of course households that get the "long form" are not legally "required" to provide any information beyond that required on the "short form", but no one ever tells them that.

And the questions about "race" and "ethnicity" are NOT mandatory questions, but are required to be on the the form by congress for compliance with "affirmative action" and similar programs and grant opportunities.  Besides, the way those questions are worded, it is "what you consider yourself", not any actual measurable criterion, nor "qualification" for any handout program.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 28
Profile picture for amccollom
I think the $8,000. Stimulous package has helped the economy more than any of you realize. Complain all you want  It has helped and you will see that with in a year we will be on the road to recovery.  We've had more growth this month and it's getting better. Many people purchased reo's and short sales that had been sitting on the market for months. It's not welfare, it's first time buyers.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
October 31
Profile picture for Caveat Emptor
Contributions: 5924
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

why do you think that? because it became popular at around the same time that the economy started "perking up"?

its not nearly that simple.

the tax credit has NOTHING to do with the general economy. and honestly the 14 billion size and scope is so puny next to, for instance, manufacturing or retail, that it is quite obviously a coincident indicator.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
November 01
Profile picture for amccollom
You are absolutely right. those people pay their property taxes and buy items for their new homes. It gets people out in the stores and save jobs in those stores. the money was so tight before you could squese the head off the buffalo nickel.It has worked and will continue to work , if it passes in the House, this week. I'm all for it, more power to those who are working on this. I'm looking forward to those young people getting their first home. I hope they get it at a great price and then build equity, just like the rest of us have. It's the American way the first time buyer deserves a break. they have been out of the market way to long. Just the well off could afford to purchase a home before.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
November 01
Profile picture for Jason Bonas
Real Estate Agent
Contributions: 198
Zillow All-Star

Since November 2009

But, Last year if you bought a home as a 1st buyer, you were eligible to receive $7500 (repayable 15yr @ 0%). This year, it was $800 (forgiven after 3yrs). The only difference was this year, it was more agressively advertised. 
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
November 01
Profile picture for jkonstant
Real Estate Agent
Contributions: 1522
Zillow All-Star

Since May 2009

I have never been well off by most standards. I have done what was taught to me by family who understood responsibility and did not subscribe to the entitlement mentality. Home ownership is neither a right nor a requirement/need. It is a responsibility that requires smart financial decision making and an honest assesment that debt will be repaid. Any government incentive that is unfunded is foolish and bordering on criminal when by design it encourages personal debt. I might have been less bothered by a tax credit had it applied to those with good credit and 20% down. Anybody not seeing that a 3.5% FHA loan and the tax credit used to cover closing costs the buyer does not have only poses more risk.

I seriously doubt very many people would support a tax credit if, before it went into effect, we ALL received a bill from the IRS explaining to pay up today so we can make this credit available to those who want to buy something they don't have to buy. Who would gladly pay $50, $100 or more per household dependent, in advance, to support it?

It'
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
November 01
Profile picture for amccollom
It was advertised because we have a new President who cares about the economy.
The state of the economy was so bad in 2008, no one knew what to do. this is giving people hope.
I don't know where people get their information . Regarding the cost of the $8000. package. It's costing us only the $8000 and only in the beginning.. It will probably will be 0 cost as the new owners will now be paying into the Tax funds, the properties won't be sitting there empty causing blight and etc.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
November 01
Profile picture for sunnyview
Contributions: 10899
Zillow All-Star

Since January 2009

I guess I would have less of a problem with the buyers credit if I felt like the people using it were going to join the pool of responsible homeowners in America. The problem I see is that the buyers credit is encouraging people to buy with almost nothing down who have not got the financial skills to manage homeownership once they have it. Any bump in the road may cause that house to go right back into foreclosure pool.

Personally, I have someone in my family who should not buy a house. They have been on the brink of bankruptcy twice. They have intermittent trouble with the IRS due to pure irresponsibility. They are a first time buyer. They were super excited when they found out about the buyers credit. The phrase I heard over and over was " Well if they're giving money away, I might as well get in line. Haha." They should not buy a house in my opinion and home ownership with a marginal credit score and 3.5% down does not help the country build a strong foundation to move forward. Unfortunately, the government is willing to help my family member buy when no reasonable bank would ever lend him money.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
November 01
Profile picture for amccollom
I'm sorry to hear that. In our family it is the exact opposite. The ones that have purchased ,felt like it's a great way to get started. they had 20% down and can now afford the payments. they feel like the rebate, will help them have a cushion in case there is a job loss. Also it will help them fix the properties to make it into a home. I believe the majority of the buyers are thankful for the help. It certainly got people excited to purchase and have a home of their own. Here in Ca. it's not easy to buy a home. A lot of people are coming in with big down payments and sometimes even all cash. So many of the first time buyers have to make 8 to 10 bids before they get one.
  Flag content
Close
Report a Problem
Close
Content Flagged

We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.

Close
We're Sorry
This service is temporarily unavailable. Please come back later and try again.
November 01

Have a question? Ask it here.

What's this?
Close

By starting a discussion, you can expect more of an interactive, back-and-forth experience where the conversation can go in many different directions.

Or start a discussion

 
Most Active Real Estate Agents
Subscribe via RSS
  1. 438 listings
    Local Expert
  2. 297 listings
    Local Expert
  3. 219 listings
    Local Expert
  4. 179 listings
    Local Expert
  5. 143 listings
    Local Expert
Related Discussions
Discussion Denied financing due to home condition
  • Last reply by Pasadenan
  • 1 hour 21 minutes ago
Discussion Hi,My name is Nazma. I would like to know if home ID#2140086034 still on the market.
  • Last reply by Pasadenan
  • 1 hour 32 minutes ago
Discussion What should my offer be?
  • Last reply by Ron Scott
  • 1 hour 35 minutes ago
Discussion Slim chances of getting mortgage approval with not enough for full closing costs?
  • Last reply by Cindy LaPeer
  • 3 hours ago
Discussion Short sales - multiple contracts
  • Last reply by Cindy LaPeer
  • 21 hours ago
Current Last Week
Need a Mortgage?

Zillow Mortgage Marketplace

  • Competitive rates
  • Accurate, custom quotes
  • Thousands of lenders

... and, it's free and anonymous

Get instant mortgage quotes
Estimated purchase price Current mortgage balance Desired loan amount
98104

Learn about Zillow Mortgage Marketplace

Zillow Poll:
Suggested by PrjMgr
As an agent, you see a FSBO that is offering 2.8% co-op. What do you do?
Be A Good Neighbor

Zillow® Advice depends on each member to keep it a safe, fun, and positive place. If you see abuse, flag it. More on our Good Neighbor Policy

pageName