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

politics

19120 readers
2113 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nadram@lemmy.world 93 points 3 months ago (7 children)

That's a terrible idea. The real life effect is that prices will simply go up. You need to force down real estate prices in general, and offer very low interest rates for first time buyers.

[–] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

They did this in 2008-09 with an 8k payment to homebuyers that wasn't a loan and didn't have to be repaid. This enabled me to but a foreclosed house and make it livable, and I've been living in it since then. It didn't raise prices in my area, because no one was buying houses anyway because regular possible couldn't afford it.

I don't know if I would have been able to get so financially situated if that payment wasn't there. I could've bought the house, but I would not have been able to fix it enough to ever stay on top of the maintenance and bills.

Would this be exactly the same situation? I dunno. But I know a similar push sure worked in the past.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 months ago

Different situation, as that was after the market crash.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

The argument isn’t that this payment won’t help people in the short term, it will. The problem is that if you have an extra 25k to spend and it’s given to every first time buyer, they’ll just shop in a 25k higher price range. And if the sellers know this, they’ll adjust the market for what everyone can afford now.

This is basic economics, you lower the quantity of available housing by allowing more people to afford it and the price will go up. There’s a reason our solution to every affordability problem works this way and breaks things. For student loans for instance, sure we can pay them off for you, but does that bring down the cost? No. It just means the government pays universities. Same thing here, the government is just letting you use your taxes to give to a real estate agent instead of addressing housing costs.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

And didn't advertise it well. I bought my house then and didn't know I had this until it was too late.

[–] gedhrel@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It does rather sound like proposing an immediate 25k hike in house prices, yeah.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

It's not. First time buyers are a small portion of the market.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 22 points 3 months ago

The fact that it's limited to first-time house buyers will at least help mitigate some of the advantage that commercial real estate buyers have over ordinary folks that are just trying to get a roof over their heads.

[–] Crow_Thief@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

At worst, youre partially right. Maybe they'd go up 10K, but certainly not 25K. That's just not how markets work. It's the same argument as saying UBI will increase prices - yes, it will, but not by more than or as much as the UBI is. If everybody else sells their home at $25K more, you can sell yours in a month by going down to $15K more than before.

[–] nadram@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I agree, and i didn't say it will increase prices by 25k. Still think this can be tackled in better ways. Low interest rates over a 20-25 year loan can save you much more than 25k. Edit: let's ban corporate from buying up blocks of residential areas. It won't cost you any tax money and will immediately drop the prices

[–] Crow_Thief@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, that's the real solution. We have to ban any one entity owning more than 2-3 residential properties. The $25K is simply a decent stop gap until we can actually make that law happen, because our capitalist overlords would never allow it.

[–] ECB 9 points 3 months ago

Yeah a similar policy in the UK (from 10ish years ago) is one of the biggest reasons for hugely inflated prices among small properties.

Obviously, the only real solution is to work to lower real-estate prices, but that would be unpopular with most home owners (who are a majority in the US).

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Require that homes that are not homesteads be sold within 6 months as a homestead or they're auctioned off to the highest bidder that will take it as a homestead.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

Most of the housing price increases are driven by investors, not first time home buyers. This will have its intended effect. Obviously we still have to build, but this is like claiming minimum wage causes inflation.