$ 15000 tax credit - 3 most frequently asked questions

76 Comments so far

1. $15,000 Tax Credit Conundrum | Zillow® Blog on February 7, 2009 3:51 pm

   [...] More recent blog posts about the $ 15000 homebuyer tax credit: $ 15000 tax credit - 3 most frequently asked questions [...]

2. Proposed: $15,000 Tax Credit for Homebuyers | Zillow® Blog on February 7, 2009 3:52 pm

   [...] More recent blog posts about the $ 15000 homebuyer tax credit: $ 15000 tax credit - 3 most frequently asked questions [...]

3. More Details on $15,000 Tax Credit — It Does Not Have to be Repaid | Zillow® Blog on February 7, 2009 3:54 pm

   [...] UPDATE: More recent blog posts about the $ 15000 homebuyer tax credit: $ 15000 tax credit - 3 most frequently asked questions [...]

4. Arn Cenedella on February 7, 2009 5:08 pm

   Good info and good post.
   You are right to caution readers the $15K credit is NOT law. I had a rather lenghty twitter exchange with a well-known blogger who acted like the $15K was law and even advised buyers to delay close until the credit would apply. I pointed out as you did - until House and Senate agree on final form - we do not have LAW and we do not know details - retroactive? income limits?. I further suggested to this blogger that buyers can not just choose to delay close - that typically most contracts have a date certain and that both buyer and seller need to mutually agree to an extension. Her response was to pay the seller $100 a day - problem solved. I do not think so. This blogger is doing a dis-service to her readers by implying the $15K is law and also advising buyers to delay close - like it is no problem and that they are the only parties in the transaction. Your post provides a prudent cuationary note.

5. David Gibbons on February 7, 2009 7:51 pm

   Thanks Arn - I noticed the same confusion you did. Hopefully it will soon be true!

6. Real Estate on February 7, 2009 8:07 pm

   Don’t buy now. It is frugal to wait at least 1 week to see the details. $15,000 can go a long ways.

7. Wilbur N on February 7, 2009 9:19 pm

   The non-refundable nature really screws the pooch on the Senate plan. Even split up over two years, to pay $7500 in federal taxes, a married couple with a kid has to be making $77,000 a year. Which may sound like a lot to beltway people, but that’s more than 3/4ths of US households make. Median income households ($50k) pay around $3000 a year in Federal income tax per year.

   What it means is, if we’re bidding on the same house, a higher-earning couple is being given far more money by the FedGov in order to outbid me. Thanks.

8. Marco on February 7, 2009 9:31 pm

   Wilbur N, you are quite welcome old fellow, since the higher earning couple are paying more taxes than you it is only fair that they get a bigger credit or do you expect higher earning people to subsidize your home purchase, wait, that is altready happening isn’t it! Enjoy!

9. Larry on February 7, 2009 10:47 pm

   So if I already filed, and took the $7500, when the bill passes, can I do an ammendment for the additional $7500 for the total $15k. I’m still unclear on the “paying it back” part…..

10. Jennifer on February 7, 2009 10:53 pm

    Last month they came out with a $7,500 credit.

    This month they came out with a $15,000 credit.

    Best to wait another month or so for a $30,000 credit.

11. Ellen on February 8, 2009 8:59 am

    Not so fast Jennifer!

    Please note, that the $7,500 0% 15year Government loan was put into effect when the Bushes ran the Oval Office.

    Those current folks filled with sour grapes, heard the cries of “change”. Even, if it only sounded like false hope, the least one could do is wait for the new Administration and see if change would really come, regardless of gender in the prospective candidates.

    However, Jennifer would have substance in her comments, if she added that it would be best to hold off, due to job losses/home devaluations, as stated in original post. Being redundant, I say yes wait but understand why is one sitting on the fence.

    Mr. Gibbons:

    One might beg to differ and say there’s and all important 4th FAQ:

    For those who have and are still waiting, can they use the $15,000 toward down payment and or closing costs? Even if they have or will file their taxes before purchasing?

    A distant 5th question being debated in other blogs is:

    If one gets a FHA loan, are they still be eligible?

    And, an even farther 6th or even lower question would be:

    If one gets a 4-unit Multi-Family FHA loan, would they receive only the value of their one unit that FHA requires one to live in (assuming the each unit is less than $150,000)? Or would it cover the value of the entire 4Plex?

12. Angel on February 8, 2009 9:10 am

    Will this loan be available if you are a first time home buyer but are buying thru owner financing or is it for just people who finance thru an actual bank. Many peoples credit have bee shattered due to the market and owner financing is the light at the end of the tunnel for some of us.

13. charlene on February 8, 2009 9:17 am

    I do not understand what is to be gained
    by delaying settlement. The new law will
    supposedly be for any house purchased in 2009
    i cannot see why fha would not be eligible.
    is this money in addition to you usual tax return?

14. charlene on February 8, 2009 9:19 am

    I do not understand what is to be gained
    by delaying settlement. The new law will
    supposedly be for any house purchased in 2009
    i cannot see why fha would not be eligible.
    is this money in addition to your usual tax return?

15. Esko on February 8, 2009 12:25 pm

    David,

    The details are still to be worked out, true, but the $15,000 tax credit number alone is drawing a lot of attention. And it should. The real estate and mortgage markets have been dragging along for too long and this will seemingly bring them new hope. It probably won’t solve all the housing market’s woes in one shot, but it will give it new energy to rely on and aim ever higher.

16. MATTHEW C MCGUIRL on February 8, 2009 7:28 pm

    I’ve learned you need to have a down payment of at least 5%, but somewhere I found some concerning information, “People who purchase a home from a MRB loan agency, or rual home agency DO NOT QUALIFY. This is explicitly stated in the bill.”

    I’m planning on doing an FHA loan, will that restrict me from this credit? If so, I’ll definitely try and figure something else out to get my hands on that 15K.

    Thanks for any help!

17. 15000 Tax Credit on February 9, 2009 3:33 am

    Good article but it seems the most articles on tax credit are missing the most important point which i covered on my blog (http://www.tipsity.com/taxes/2009/%2415000-tax-credit-first-time-home-buyers-irs). The point is that this is just a loan not a credit as they say, this credit needs to be repaid to the govt over 15 yrs. This was originally planned during the #7500 tax credit discussion. Now lets wait and see what comes up when the bill gets approved.

18. co on February 9, 2009 8:09 am

    I bought my house in Aug 08 and do not qualify for either, going by the law in its present form. WHy? Because of the language for the $7500 credit. Even though I am a first time buyer, I owned a home with my ex husband (I’m not on the mortgage) until Sept 06 when I moved out. Since then I rented, and bought in August. The law needs to be more inclusive. A first time homebuyer is a first time homebuyer. I also will miss out on the new bill in its present form because they are not making it retroactive. Can anything be done about this? It discriminates against all those people who, despite the odds, managed to buy a house in a terrible market, many after a divorce. I have recieved nothing from the previous home that I ‘owned’ and bought my house completely on my own. Thanks for listening!

19. Ellen on February 9, 2009 8:25 am

    Dear Mr. 15000 Tax Credit,

    According to many who allegedly know what they are talking about you are giving OLD/INCORRECT information.

    If you are correct and it is just a 0% 15year U.S. loan as originally planned, then you are well deserved of an apology and many should flock to your blog.

    But, if you are incorrect then, you are: pardon my French-a Stupid American-for telling the masses old and wrong information. And, i’m sure your blog will have zero traffic as it appears to have now, lol!

    Please, don’t create confusion by giving out OLD Bush Administration News.

    Again, if your right, we owe you.

    But, be wrong and please make your blog go away or at least apologize to everyone on your own page.

20. john on February 9, 2009 9:33 am

    If I applied for thr 7500 tax credit than this new 15k credit is passed. Can I file an ammendment claiming the additiona 7500 or am I screwed now? I bought in Jan 09.

21. Sadie on February 9, 2009 10:30 am

    So what if you do owner financing with no down payment? Where does that leave me? Thanks

22. Frugal Joe on February 9, 2009 1:02 pm

    Informative site! We all have 15k questions and no answers for this “new” 15k credit. I bought in Oct 08 and will wait until the bill comes out showing all the facts before I file. people, understand that we are all anxious for more money but need to wait until the bill passes.

    The unclear wording has many in a frenzy, “Sunset the 7,500″ seems to be that this new 15k would take the place of the 7,5k, I will hop that is the case so I can deepen my pockets.

23. summer vang on February 9, 2009 1:38 pm

    The $15,000 tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit meaning if you owe less than $15,000 of taxes, you won’t get the full benefit.

    This will only benefit taxpayers with a tax liability of at least $15,000. Highly doubt there are many people in that group.

24. MDA on February 9, 2009 2:02 pm

    Summer Vang: But under the senate version you can split the credit over 2 years - $7,500 each year.

25. ken on February 9, 2009 3:41 pm

    I will be closing on a house within a month….I’m a first time buyer…My question is I make about 50,000
    a year and I have 4 kids …I get back more money back than I put in taxes because of my deductions…Will I get the full benefit of 15,000 tax credit?

26. Garfield on February 9, 2009 5:58 pm

    You know this really makes me mad! i bought my house in oct. of 07 an im screwed out of this…were the ones who are suffering..now the new home owners i bought my house an 3 days later found out im getting layed off an had to take a 4 dollar pay cut at a new job just to struggle to make the bills. This is not fair..the people who are buying now can obviously afford it why do they get money interest free. this makes me so mad…who will help me when i get in trouble an loose my house..no one ..someone who gets the interest free money will prolly come buy it for half of what i loose it for . THIS IS A LOAD OF CRAP!

27. LARY on February 9, 2009 7:54 pm

    The REAL problem with the stimulus is that IF it does encourage people to purchase homes it will be people who do not understand overall financial responsibility (because the people who are responsible with their money and understand it, would probably not be swayed to buy a home based on a mere $15,000 tax credit, although they may take advantage of it should they qualify) It seems that it will encourage more irresponsible home buying while increasing our debt as a nation as well as cost EVERYONE more money in the long run (especially those of us who actually pay taxes.)

28. Sean on February 9, 2009 8:10 pm

    I really believe it should be retroactive, I bought in May 2008 one month after the 7500 bill was active and my home has lost at LEAST 7500 in value since, I think that is the main point people should make when talking about fairness.

29. mary on February 9, 2009 9:20 pm

    when I was a little girl I saved all my money and purchased a bike for $200. A few weeks later my sister wanted a new bike too, but she didn’t have enough money because she spent all her allowance on candy. My mom wanted to encourage her to exercise because she was fat from eating so much candy, so my mom offered to give her $100 to buy a bike that she didn’t have to pay back if she promised to exercise. So my sister took the $100 and bought the same bike that i did on sale for $75, and rode the bike to the store where she spent the other $25 on candy. When I asked my mom if I could also have $100, she said “you’re not fat”

    Moral of the story…live large, don’t work too hard, get fat…if you’re in a bind don’t try to fix it yourself, that’s what the government is for.

30. Chris on February 10, 2009 5:14 am

    I BOUGHT A HOUSE IN NOV. 08. I QUALIFY FOR 7,500 CREDIT. I’VE HEARD YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY THAT CREDIT BACK ANYMORE, BUT READ DIFFERENTLY. DOES ANYONE KNOW ANSWER’S? IF THIS NEW CREDIT “SUNSET’S” THE OLD CREDIT THAN THEY SHOULD RETRO IT TO THE ORIGINAL LAW OF APIRL 2008. I KNOW I HAVE A BIAS OPINON, AND I KNOW PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT RIGHT BEFORE APIRL 2008 ARE GETTING SCREWED. MY POINT IS THIS, IF WE HAD AN ORIGINAL LAW SET IN PLACE BY BUSH, AND OBAMA COME’S IN AND CHANGE’S IT…THAT HE SHOULD AT LEAST COVER THE TIME SPAN IN WHICH THE LAW WAS PASSED AT IT’S ORIGINAL DATE. DOES THIS MAKE SINCE?

31. Travis on February 10, 2009 7:19 am

    I THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE SIMPLE. IF THEY REVAMP THIS CREDIT IT SHOULD BE RETROACTIVE TO THE SAME BEGINNING DATE AS THE $7500 CREDIT. AS THOSE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT DURING THAT TIME FRAME WERE MAKING THE CONCIOUS EFFORT TO BUY AND IN TURN HELP THE STRUGGLING ECONOMY. WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING IS JUST EXTENDING IT FROM APRIL 9TH, 2008 TO THE END OF 2009. I AM IN A TOUGH SPOT NOW BECAUSE THEY EXPECT (I HOPE) TO SIGN THIS BILL ON THE 16TH OF FEB AND I’M EXPECTED TO CLOSE ON THE 18TH ON MY FIRST HOME THAT I BOUGHT A COUPLE MONTHS BACK WHEN THEY CAME OUT WITH THIS CREDIT. I LIKE MANY OTHERS WAITED UNTIL THERE WAS A CREDIT TO GET US TO BUY. WE MOVED ON IT WHICH IN TURN IS HELPING THE ECONOMY SO WE SHOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS AS GETTING A HIGHER CREDIT NOW WOULD DO EXACTLY WHAT IT IS INTENDED TO… GET PEOPLE TO PUT MONEY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY. MY WIFE AND I WILL DEFINITELY USE SOME OF THIS MONEY TO PAY BILLS OFF AND PURCHASE THINGS FOR OUR HOME. (WHICH PUTS MONEY BACK INTO THE SYSTEM!!!) THE BILL SHOULD BE RETROACTIVE TO REPLACE THE CURRENT BILL. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT BEFORE THAT TIME SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO SOME KIND OF CREDIT EVEN IF IT IS ONLY LIKE $1000 BECAUSE EVERYTHING HELPS AND THEY SHOULDN’T BE PENALIZED BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY WERE MOVING ON WITH THEIR LIFE AS MANY PEOPLE DO EVEN IN HARD TIMES. SOMETIMES YOU JUST DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO MAKE THINGS WORK EVEN IF THAT MEANS BUYING YOUR FIRST HOME WHEN YOU KNOW YOU’LL HAVE TO GIVE UP A LOT TO DO SO.

32. Bill on February 10, 2009 7:21 am

    Chris,

    I bought in Nov 2008 and I’m in the exact same boat as you and I’m wondering the same thing. I am unclear on a couple of things:

    1) If I file today and get the original $7,500 loan, is there any chance that I screw myself out of this new law if it passes?

    2) What does “sunset” the old law mean? If I wait to file this year and then this passes, does it overwrite the old law and I get nothing?

33. chris on February 10, 2009 8:30 am

    COPY AND EDIT THIS LETTER, SEND IT TO STIMULUS CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND PRESIDENT OBAMA (edit my info out before sending):

    Dear Senator :
    I write today to thank Congress for its hard work on a much needed stimulus package and to express my concern about the $15,000 tax credit for home buyers.
    Last week, Senator Isakson’s amendment to the stimulus replaced a $7,500 refundable tax credit with a $15,000 non-refundable one. The amendment is designed to encourage home purchases by higher-income households with a reduced risk of default. What the amendment fails to do is encourage purchases by those of us who are responsible and credit-worthy, but whose tax liability is nowhere near $15,000. Even the provision that allows tax payers to spread the credit evenly between two years is insufficient, as many of us have liabilities that are still only half the allowable credit. To make this incentive truly work for the American people and the American economy, the $15,000 credit must be made fully refundable to credit-worthy homebuyers at or above a certain income level.
    In my own case, I work in the education field, which is not well known for its high salaries. Despite this, I have waited and saved been frugal with my spending for some years so I might purchase a home. In March, I will close on a foreclosed property in my hometown. My new home will need much work, as many foreclosures do. In most cases, the purchase of a home is the largest investment an individual will make in his or her lifetime. The spending that goes with it – spending for furnishings, improvements, renovations, maintenance, and appliances – infuses the economy with thousands of dollars per home.
    Passage of the current bill will reduce my tax refund by $3,500 over the current incentive. That doesn’t make me excited to go out and spend. I could only dream of making enough money to recoup the entire credit in this bill, but what does it say to give a full $15,000 refund to someone making $122,000 a year, but less than a third of that amount to someone like me? Does that individual need the money more? Will they actually spend much of their refund? Is it sending the right message to the true middle class? I’m not sure I can answer those questions, but I know that if Congress gave $15,000 to an individual making $45,000 a year, they would put it to good use!
    By making the $15,000 credit fully refundable would allow me and others like me to stimulate the economy with purchases of furniture, equipment, hardware, and create jobs in areas like maintenance, pest control, landscaping, construction, plumbing, and contracting. In my home alone, there is a laundry list of improvements that need to be made, totaling nearly $17,000. By refunding Senator Isakson’s tax credit, the entire amount would be circulated into the economy. Without it, me and homebuyers like me will likely stash what little we qualify for away.
    Many see this credit as a windfall for undeserving or wealthy homebuyers. Currently, it is. By refunding the entire portion, it really becomes a windfall for the sectors of our economy that need it most. Help us to improve our lives while improving the economy by making the $15,000 homebuyer’s tax credit refundable.
    Thank you for your consideration,

34. Ellen on February 10, 2009 10:32 am

    Yelling = ALL CAPS.

    You won’t get very far that way. Nor will it be read.

35. Thomas on February 10, 2009 1:41 pm

    Is this $15,000 credit only for 1st time home buyer or is it for all home purchasers?

36. Bill on February 10, 2009 2:40 pm

    Hopefully it becomes a refundable credit. Otherwise I would have done better with the current 7500 credit.

37. Chris on February 10, 2009 3:21 pm

    Thomas,
    A first time home buyer is somebody who hasn’t purchased a home in the last two years. From my understanding, if you are purchasing a second home you have to have 30% equity in your current home to qualify.

    Ellen,
    Sorry about the all caps, it’s a bad habbit.

38. Lisa on February 10, 2009 6:03 pm

    Will the ‘old’ $7,500 credit be amended to include all homebuyers (not just first time homeowners)?

39. Ellen on February 10, 2009 7:17 pm

    Chris,
    No worries on the all caps, just FYI.

    Also, you are incorrect on giving Chris advice on “last two years” it’s the last 3 years. That comes from the IRS site. You can even listen to it via the audio clip below:

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/marketing/first_time_homebuyers_credit_english_pod_final.mp3

40. George on February 10, 2009 8:33 pm

    Well, I just received my $7500 tax credit as I closed on my new home on December 22, 2008. I am afraid my timing was just a bit off, looks like I am going to miss out on $15,000 possible free credit…and have to pay back my $7500. I wish we could get that retroactive somehow in some shape or form. Even if we don’t ultimately have to pay back our $7500 from the Bush term. As a new homeowner there have been a lot of expenses and another $7500 would help out greatly… and that money would go straight towards furniture, ect…If I got 15,000 all of it would go towards stimulating the economy and straight into circulation towards furniture, home upgrades, etc.. I’m crossing my fingers something will work out for us 2008 buyers, if not..well at least I got something. They should let us refi at 4% with no closing costs! That would be cool.

41. Justin on February 11, 2009 5:00 am

    sunset law-A law that AUTOMATICLY TERMINATES the agency or program it establishes unless it is expressly renewed.

    The amendment would SUNSET the current $7,500 housing tax credit on the date of enactment.

    To sunset, would essentially mean to terminate. Now, this being said, we are speaking of the federal govt. If the old law is, “sunset”, than it will seize to exist on the date of enactment. My personal opinion is that they purposefully use words such as, sunset and within, because they are vague. They dont want anyone to remain on the fence. They want you to buy a house. Sunsets are also beautiful, except for yall 2008ers.

42. John Tran on February 11, 2009 8:17 am

    This is my attempt at understanding all this, please correct me if I am wrong.

    1. The current “law” gives new homeowners between certain dates a $7,500 tax credit that they have to repay over 15 years by paying $500/year.

    2. The proposed law, would wipe out the above law and replace it with a $15,000 tax credit for all homebuyers. Basically, you use that tax credit to pay for your federal taxes. For example, if you owe $7,000 in taxes this year it would wipe it out. If you have money withdrawn from your paycheck you would get a refund for what you have paid. You can apply the $15,000 tax credit one time if you owe a lot of tax or divide it into two years, at $7,500/year if you do not owe a lot. You do not get the difference in cash back (If you only owe $6,000 in tax and apply $7,500 tax credit, you do not get the extra $1,500 back).

    3. As of now it does not appear that the new law would be retroactive so if you close before the law is signed, you can apply for the #1 option, the $7,500 interest free loan. If you close after the law is passed then you can get the $15,000 tax credit, option 2 but not option 1.

    does that summarize correctly the current situation?

43. Pete Rivard on February 11, 2009 12:35 pm

    I am closing on my first house on President’s Day, the 16th. If the credit is signed into law that day, do I get it? Or, does the law go into effect on Tuesday the 17th?

44. Tim on February 11, 2009 1:33 pm

    Don’t worry about it. The tax credit was cut from the package. BOOOOO!!!!!

45. Kevin on February 11, 2009 1:49 pm

    I can’t believe they scrapped this $15,000 cut from the stimulus! This is probably the one measure that would have got all of those on the sidelines to start getting into the market. Since housing seems to be the the largest issue (or the one that caused the majority of the problems), you would think that the stimulus would address it!!

46. eric8452 on February 11, 2009 1:56 pm

    The 15K homebuyers credit was completely wiped out of the package. BUMMER!!!

47. Tim on February 11, 2009 1:58 pm

    The whole thing is a flat joke and will do nothing but hurt us over the long haul. They cut the only thing that would have benefited the people. We seem to penalize the people in this country that are responsible and bail out those that are not. Thats quite message to send isn’t it?

48. San on February 11, 2009 2:12 pm

    On the contrary, it is the best thing to have happened. The 15k credit would have made few people jump on without thinking, causing more pain in the future (more foreclosures, bailouts). Even in its current form the current credit would have helped few million transactions (remember the bill is for everyone who buys “not” first time buyer) over 2 years. Also, it was biased towards higher income group (people who already have homes and pocket decent salary). It would not have provided more employment over mass scale (except for few realtors and lenders). In fact that amount could be better used by providing more tax cuts, more support for lower income families etc. Right now what we need is more employment for people because if people are not employed, forget about buying nobody can even sustain rents, This 15k was always a poorly thought proposal .. another example of money poorly spent.

49. Jason on February 11, 2009 2:30 pm

    There is at least something still left in the plan. Personally I like it. Basically back to $7500 and no repayment. Whether its for all or first-time homebuyers is still to be determined.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123436825805373367.html

50. Bree on February 11, 2009 2:40 pm

    The 15k credit did NOT pass the finals, and I am PISSED. Out of all the things on the bill, that would have made the biggest impact to our economy. It’s silly to get mad that you can’t get it due to “Past homebuying” That’s just how the world works. I am not going to get it for the purchase I’m about to make, what makes me angry is that it could have easily FIXED this recession. Or at least come close. So now everyone can just be pissed altogether. House and senate both passed it, and then to “cut bill costs” That part was DROPPED. Just infuriates me! The jobs they’re creating may help, but not immediately like this bill would have. Everyone would have been buying up all the foreclosed homes!!!

51. tito on February 11, 2009 3:05 pm

    I dont get how something that was in the bill on both sides and agreed upon gets nixed in the negotiations. The foreclosed homes need to be bought up and this would definitely help. Apparently the big 3 auto makers kicked back a few extra bucks to those involved to get the car tax write off put in instead of the new home buyer credit. At least they could have amended the 7500 to include all new home purchases. This is bogus. Also a $400 tax credit for workers isnt going to do crap.

52. real estate questions? on February 11, 2009 3:13 pm

    Yea I really hope that this bailout isn’t just a huge huge waste of money but I think it could really be.

53. Flip on February 11, 2009 4:09 pm

    Oh well, atleast I got $7,500!!!!!!

54. Samantha on February 11, 2009 4:53 pm

    Did they really scrapped the tax credit? Shame, just the proposal alone was generating so much buzz from buyers. I know several people who was ready to go look at houses.

55. Ellen on February 12, 2009 12:54 am

    No worries. Take away the $15,000 and I take away my status on the housing market.

    I’m no longer shopping for a home. I will wait till 2010 or 2011, for the true bottom of home devaluations is reached.

56. tracey on February 12, 2009 8:27 am

    Look on the bright side guys. We are still going to save the mice in Nancy Pelosis state, we just handed over our medical treatment to bureaucrats, and we are going to spend 2million on lights for Vegas……because hookers really need to see where they are going. who needs a 15,000 credit.
    Tell me people, are you happy you made your decision to vote for BO……He is a Class A idiot.

57. John on February 12, 2009 8:49 am

    It is a little ignorant to judge OB after such a short time in office.

58. John on February 12, 2009 8:52 am

    BO*

59. jtk on February 12, 2009 8:58 am

    This has nothing to do with Obama, this was a Senate decision to wipe out the 15K credit. From what I’m reading, they won’t even make the original credit open to all home buyers. I don’t understand why this is just aimed at first time home buyers in the first place… we all know that if you currently own a home that its likely your under water AND if you were lucky enough to sell a home, you were lucky if you broke even… never mind make a profit. The 7500 credit should AT LEAST be open to all home purchases. Keep in mind that all these morons making these decisions all make $200+K per year, and have no concept of what its like to be middle class. They really think that $400.00 per person / $800.00 per couple is going to kick start the economy… WOW… we are all doomed folks. Prepare for Mad Max days. Stock up on water and bread.

60. shame on February 12, 2009 9:00 am

    This is whats wrong with America now, If it doesn’t benefit the individual, it’s wrong..

    IF you needed this to get a house, you probally can’t afford it.

61. jtk on February 12, 2009 9:09 am

    getting cash flowing again into the economy helps us all… not just one individual. Most dont need it to buy a house, its a stimulus to get people buying again and its a way to stop the free fall in home values. This was done already in 1972… a $2,000 tax credit (about 10,000 in todays dollars) was given, and a stale housing market was given new life. it was a success then.

62. tito on February 12, 2009 10:04 am

    The thing is though the 7500 wasnt going to technically add any debt in the long run to the Feds since it was to be “repaid.” Heck we are ALL going to be repaying the 2 trillion that will eventually be given out till well after our kids are paying taxes. They need to do something to get the housing market rolling but putting limitations on the credit to first time buyers isnt going to soak up the glut of houses on the market. First time home buyers are not likely going to even be able to buy a house right now or even in the near future the way the mortgage industry is locked up. My wife and I just got a loan for a new home and it was literally a nightmare to get it even though we have excellent credit and more than sufficient income to purchase. I hope this stimulus will do something but it really looks like a bunch of welfare to me that is going to be much ado about nothing, just a deeper debt for generations to pay. This is a chance for our government to back our US born businesses and help overcome our trade deficit while putting our citizens to work but I sure dont see that happening with what is proposed. Washington is just throwing money they dont even have at problems they dont even know how to fix or even evaluate.

63. Md on February 12, 2009 10:20 am

    I am sorry in a way that this was junked. But I am with Garfield that posted a few days ago. My husband and I built our house early in 2007 with 2 very young children. We saved for years and put down 20% so we would not have mortgage insurance. We did not overextend ourselves on the house.We borrowed less than what the banks told us we could afford. We were being responsible. We assumed that both of us would make more in the years to come. Then a year later my husband takes a pay cut due to the economy. Now we are still okay but things are tighter. A month ago he has to take another 20% pay cut due to a sinking economy. I don’t expect any handouts from the government but I think things should be done fair for everyone as a whole.

64. Bree on February 12, 2009 10:32 am

    I don’t know if this will help or not, but I’m wondering why, rather than lose houses, why people don’t take on a roommate to help with the bills. Lots of people can’t afford their own apartment. General apartment rents where I am are $600+ and people are glad to pay $400-500 if it includes utilities. $400 + their share of utilities is good for them, and helps the people out. So I’m wondering why people don’t take a roommate rather than lose their house. I know that roommates are a pain, but so is losing a house and having credit scores lowered. If you have 2 extra rooms, you could almost have your mortgage paid for.

65. DavidM on February 12, 2009 2:02 pm

    The root of the problem is not how money has been handled. The root of the problem is that money is included in the method of trade. No money equals no crises. It’s very simple. Money is not a natural component of life. It does not make the “world go round.” A resource-based society would never endure any of these concerns facing us today. It’s time to grow up and lose the money-diaper and graduate into a resource-based society. More than half the crap produced today is just made to make a buck, and serves no real use to us. Our future selves living at our optimal level of existence belongs in a resource-based society. We’re just being tugged along with the swing of the fluctuating economy into a slow, gradual transition of policed slavery. Look around you. Read alternative news sources where reporters who actually investigate the issues reveal disastrous schemes that lead us into situations like the financial crisis we’re in now.

66. DavidM on February 12, 2009 2:06 pm

    Oh. By the Way…

    “[Update - Feb 12 2009] Congress and the White House have reached agreement on a $789.5 billion economic-recovery package, clearing the way for final votes late this week on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately certain tax breaks, including the homer buyer tax credit, were scaled back to $8,000 (from the proposed $15,000) to get sufficient support for the stimulus bill’s approval. This is $500 more than the current home buyer tax credit (outlined below), but will only be available for qualifying home purchases between April 9th 2008 and August 31st 2009 (dates still to be finalized).

    “However, the final stimulus plan did leave in the $3 billion provision that would eliminate the repayment requirement for the tax credit for first-time home buyers (this may also be available to those using or have used the current home buyer tax credit). This means that the home buyer tax break is a true tax credit and not a deduction, so will be an actual $8000 reduction on your next tax bill. If you don’t owe that much and purchased a house in the qualifying period, you get a check back from the IRS.”

67. Bree on February 12, 2009 2:10 pm

    YAY! This will still help to stimulate home buying. $8k is extremely nice when it doesn’t have to be paid back, and people will take that money to fix up their house, somewhat improving hurt neighborhoods. This is great news, I myself can use it, my closing is on March 19th. But even for the economy, this is good news. If people get $8k back, they are much less likely to foreclose, should some emergency happen in their lives. Yay for $8,000!

68. Shawn on February 12, 2009 4:16 pm

    This is $500 more than the current home buyer tax credit (outlined below), but will only be available for qualifying home purchases between April 9th 2008 and August 31st 2009 (dates still to be finalized).

    DavidM– where did you get those dates?

    This site has different dates…

    http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2009/02/15000-first-home-buyer-tax-credit-in.html

69. Kris on February 13, 2009 12:45 pm

    there are a lot of complaining people on here, yes it might not be fair but like we tell our kids life is not fair. People want to gripe and complain about the things that they are not getting when others are able to. Why does everything always have to be a boo hoo why couldn’t I get anything too, people like that piss me off. But how ever this ends up working out it sounds like it will be a good deal for the short time, but our kids WILL have to pay this money back nothing is ever free.

70. bpmotoring on February 14, 2009 2:03 am

    Are you kidding me bree that 7500 is not free money you have to pay it back. I’m glad I have the loan though. If we didn’t get it I would be much worse off. As for “if we need this money to buy a house we shouldn’t buy one” statement….bull …I don’t agree….you must not live in CA. I used this credit to help purchase a home in a critical home buying climate for buers. I’m not sure about the rest but this helped me a bunch. The people who bought during the peak…I don’t feel too sorry for..I can appreciate their concerns and tough times…we’ve all had them…but I do not pitty them. Most of the forclosures were from buyers that were buying way outside their means. They should have either waited or bought way less home. This is the problem with our society…so vain…apt to keep up with the Jones’. Just be happy to survive. Live within your means…don’t purchase a home on a 7% 80 and 11% 20. Or have a payment over 70% of your income. It just does not make sense. You can’ blame it entirely on the banks.. really you must take some of the blame if yourself…. if you took such risk as to gamble with a high payment while walking into a declining market. Good luck to those though…It’s never too late to start over.

71. Bree on February 14, 2009 8:17 pm

    The 7500 was a loan. As far as I know, the bill Obama will sign on Tuesday will be free, no need to pay back. Of course, until it’s actually signed we don’t know for sure. I know the 15k was proposed to not be paid back. What he will sign on Tuesday, it seems like it is 8k free money, not a loan, and from what I understand, the people who took the $7500 loan will NOT have to pay that back. Again, all of this can change, up until he signs the bill. I’m glad I’m buying a house in a time where I can get assistance. This helps it be much less tight.

72. greg on February 17, 2009 10:17 am

    what if my wife and I closed on a new construction loan sept 08 and the house is scheduled to be finished in May 09? We have not locked in a 30 year note yet. This is not a first time home purchase for either one of us.

73. greg on February 17, 2009 10:37 am

    if my wife and I closed the new construction loan in Sept 08 and I already filed my 2008 taxes separate from my wife could this screw things up? Or can we file together next year for the 2009 taxes and still receive the 8k credit? If the official closing is considered when construction is complete (May 09), then we can file our taxes together next year and receive the 8k credit with no problem. I am worried about the possibilities of the new construction closing in May 08 would be the official closing and that I filed solo from my wife.

74. Bree on February 17, 2009 10:59 am

    I believe if EITHER of you have owned a home in the last 3 years, you would not be eligible for this, unless they end up changing it. If you file separately, I think you can only claim $4k, I think it was $4k per person, or $8k per couple.

    So it looks like maybe not, depends on if you’ve owned a home in the last 3 years, and when you close. If you close within the time frame, haven’t owned a home in 3 years, and file together, you might get the $8k. If you can afford new construction, you should consider yourself lucky even if you don’t get any incentive, very few people can actually get new construction homes, you’re lucky =)

75. Buy Your Stimulus House TODAY!!! Ten Tips to Home Buying in Today’s Economy | The Lie Politic on February 23, 2009 4:15 am

    [...] why do we mention this in the context of the stimulus package? This article pretty much sums it up. The bill has passed and has been signed by the President and this $15,000 credit was dramatically [...]

76. RANDY on June 21, 2009 1:18 am

    THIS IS GREAT FOR PEOPLE WHO WAITED LIKE ME, I WAS TOLD BY MY FRIEND WHO IS A ASSISTANT TO TWO SENATORS THAT THIS WILL PASS AS LAW. I THINK THEY WILL INCREASE IT EVEN FURTHER IN 2010. FOR RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF I THINK THIS IS A GOOD REWARD. FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT MORE OF A HOUSE THAN THEY COULD AFFORD, GET THEIR LOAN MODIFICATION AND PRINCIPLE FORGIVEN ON THEIR MORGTAGES, SO WHY SHOULDNT THE PEOPLE WHO WIATED TO BUY GET SOMETHING ALSO?