this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
378 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19138 readers
3318 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Finally, paying your rent on time will have some kind of reward.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a band-aid that does nothing to fix the problem. This kind of "solution" was implemented in my country as well. The direct result was an increase in housing prices across the board.

The problem isn't that people are lacking the money for a downpayment. The problem is that volatility in the job market combined with ever increasing prices means you can't commit to buy a place of your own and pay it for the next 30 years, because the first time you lose your job you'll have lost all progress towards owning your home.

The fix you want is government-built housing. Make a neighborhood with government money. Sell the apartment for 1/3 of the price if the buyer is a teacher/fireman/doctor/other high-demand jobs in governmental employ. That way you fill the positions, the housing prices stop going up, and young people get to securely purchase a house before they're 50.

But of course, that's not the end-goal, is it? No the objective is to make more money for those who already own all the land and houses. And there's no need to spend time thinking about it, just make some fucking vouchers. We all know who'll end up cashing them in.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

This is a band-aid that does nothing to fix the problem. This kind of “solution” was implemented in my country as well. The direct result was an increase in housing prices across the board.

Does this not apply to student loan repayment as well?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How long would it take for the sellers to price in those extra 25k they can wring out of buyers?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Well before it's passed. Possibly even if it doesn't pass.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You said this last time when you ran with Biden.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

And? Was she some kind of dictator before and I missed it?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This isn't fair to people like me, who were fortunate enough to buy their first house without 25k from the government. Won't someone think about how disadvantaged I am!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

There are plenty of people that think this way. They'll happily slap a free glass of water out of a thirsty man's hand because they were there thirsty yesterday and no one offered them water.

Instead of being happy for the thirsty man getting some water, they'd rather he suffer the way they had.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I mean that means if you can find 10 best friends you can all pitch in to put 50% down on a 500 sqft condo in a major city, right? This means its essentially paying a 7x7 ft square of housing at the federal level. Realistically they'd need to start at 90k and state and local govs should pitch in another 90k each to make home buying in most cities affordable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Am I a first time home buyer if I moved for a job and have been renting at the new location for 3+ years?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I would take it to mean if you've never owned a home

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This is a band aid size solution on the gaping wound problem of housing shortage. She should really be putting her time into coming up with an answer to increasing housing supply

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Increasing housing supply is explicitly part of her announced plan. Are you under the impression that this was the entirety of her announced economic plan?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Are you under the impression that this was the entirety of her announced economic plan?

Welcome to the internet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Probably.

It's like how Biden's Student Loan plan was longer than the headline of "forgive x% of them" and people wrote paragraphs about how it also needed to do XYZ, without reading enough to see it did.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

I'd rather have a fix for our broken credit system. Denying someone a loan that will be a 2200$ house payment in an area where they will be lucky to get a 3k apartment is insane.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

This will just add to the house price inflation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Just build more houses. Costs are out of control. I'm in my 40s, and have a good down payment saved up, but prices and interest rates mean I'm still priced out of buying a home.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

She wants to build 3 million more houses too. but that's not exactly as good of a headline as "Hey first time home buyers! Vote for her and you'll get 25k"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Repeal environmental protection laws and build federally owned housing to compete in the market. Otherwise, there isn’t an incentive to increase housing supply.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Harris is basically become Frodo Baggins and Walz is all about the PO-TAY-TOES

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

It’s probably mostly going to be used by people buying second homes for renting out

Edit glad they’re thinking of doing it, but I think qualifying for the program needs to be made strict to ensure against first time home buyer fraud

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Not a lot of first time homebuyers buying second homes...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then let's enforce the law against fraudsters instead of advocating against financial assistance for working class Americans.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I wasn’t advocating against financial assistance, just stating what’s happened historically

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Helping with a down payment makes it easier for a homeowner to assume debt, but that doesn't make the houses cheaper.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This actually makes houses more expensive, because now buyers have more money to outbid each other.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So giving first time homebuyers cash assistance in buying a home is a bad thing, because letting millennial and gen-z Americans have spending power will just make things more expensive?

I don't buy it. How is $25k in cash assistance worse than no assistance at all? Would a $25k penalty be beneficial because buyers would have less money to outbid each other?

This just sounds like a boilerplate argument against helping the working class.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Consider how the federalization of Student Loans has contributed to the price of college outpacing inflation by many times, and income by a magnitude.

That's still only part of the problem, of course, hiring university leadership from the for profit business sector, privatizing loan servicing, etc. have all made college tuition skyrocket, but the loan program is a major issue.

A better option for college would be to subsidize universities directly with the requirements that their tuition stay within a linear relationship to inflation. Somewhat like state colleges offering low tuition for residents.

Housing needs more federal controls, which, to her credit she has explored in her platform along with disincentivizing, exploitative investment in private housing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The issue with housing is that the supply is limited. If you increase demand and not supply you just increase prices. Giving buyers $25k extra to spend means every home owner is now gonna jack up their selling price by $25k. This is, in the end, a subsidy for existing home-owners. Who already are doing pretty well, thank you very much.

Denying the existence of supply and demand always lead to policy failure. The way to address housing cost is to lower the cost of housing, not make housing more expensive by helping people outbid each others.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Its become a worldwide problem because airbnb brought in extra demand from the luxury hotel market. Even if you tripled the housing supply it might not make housing affordable given that like a security guard that wants to buy a house will never make enough to compete with like the millionaires going on vacation every other week.

There needs to a be a large tax on airbnbs in residential areas that helps pay for public housing.

load more comments
view more: next ›