The Leather Couch, Kitchen Table, Bed, Television Stand, China Cabinet, Coffee Table, Grill, and Patio Set Subsidy
The $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers that was included in the stimulus package approved by Congress last February is scheduled to expire in late November. The National Association of Realtors wants to renew it, enlarge it (to $15,000), and extend it to all buyers. According to The New York Times, the group "estimates that about 350,000 sales this year would not have happened without the lure of the tax credit."
Would not have happened? At all? That interpretation—which suggests that someone who is not in the market for a house can be convinced to put down, say, $50,000 to $100,000 and borrow hundreds of thousands more by the promise of getting $8,000 back—strains credulity, to put it kindly. It's somewhat more plausible that the tax credit, like the cash-for-clunkers subsidies, might encourage some people who are already in the market to buy sooner rather than later, but that doesn't mean it will cause a net increase in sales. A couple highlighted by the Times paid $171,000 for a two-bedroom condominium in Dallas last spring, then used their $8,000 refund to buy furniture. "We did exactly what the government wanted us to do," says the wife. "We stimulated the economy."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
""That interpretation-which suggests that someone who is not in the market for a house can be convinced to put down, say, $50,000 to $100,000 and borrow hundreds of thousands more by the promise of getting $8,000 back-strains credulity,""
Sure the numbers are bigger, but the government just got a bunch of people to hook themselves up to a car loan for $4,500.
Sooooooo many suckers.
Might I point out that $8,000 is 5% of $ 160,000, which will get you a really nice condo even in upscale Denver suburbs or even a decent stand alone home in Dallas. Some of the condos in my development are going in the $80's, so the subsidy would represent almost 10% down. It's a dumb idea, but it will probably get people at the lower end to snatch up bargains in a buyers' market like this. The really absurd part is the arbitrary dates on this bit of pork. Why have it go for 11 months, especially when some people have to wait and see if they are getting a bonus in December before making a decision on buying a new home?
I'm sure this stimulated some sales that otherwise would not have happened anytime soon, mainly to marginal buyers who are at risk for foreclosure.
Good jorb, congresswallahs!
the group "estimates that about 350,000 sales this year would not have happened without the lure of the tax credit."
We are in the "pull numbers out of your ass and hope nobody calls you on it" era. I would call these people liars, but when they in turn call me a racist, I feel bad.
At Calculated Risk, he's run the numbers, looking at reasonable guesses of what the increase in house sales are as a first-order proxy for what sales might have been caused by the 8k stimulus. Works out to about $40,000 per "stimulated" house. That is, taxpayers pay 40k to get people to take an 8k bribe at the margin.
I'll take two!!
Of course, in our new "created or saved" world, you could say that house sales would have dropped to zero, had it not been for the 8k bribe, and therefore we all made money -- and, it's for the children!!!
But back in the reality-based world, that $40,000 per stimulated purchase should go up to $65,000, at least, if they juice the bribe to $15,000.
Can't we just raffle off houses? Think of the furniture people could buy with the savings.
"We did exactly what the government wanted us to do," says the wife. "We stimulated the economy."
"It's Shake-n-Stimulate, and I helped!"
If these realtors don't realize that sales are also being driven by extremely low interest rates and plummeting prices, they may be in the wrong line of work. More, likely, they just want a plausible sounding argument for the feds to offer incentives to increase their sales.
Speaking for myself, I had been planning to buy a home in a year or so. The current incentives simply made me accelerate my plans.
BTW, I have no problem with a credit that reduces my tax bill but I refuse to take a refund that is more than what I paid. That is simply welfare.
It is important to keep a steady stream of first time buyers in the housing market. Without them, housing prices would drop to the point where first time buyers could afford them.
The thing that infuriated me the most is that they act like this money is just coming out of the ether. Instead of being part of a massive debt binge that the country will be paying off for generations - if we don't suffer a catesrophic financial collapse first.
"We just got the sixth offer on our house for $120,000. It's so frustrating because the house is worth $200,000!"
Steal from the poor and give to the middle class.
Moreover, if the realtors really want to sell houses, they could just offer an $8,000 discount themselves!!!
Or, they could let home prices fall by $8,000.
All this really does is give a free eight grand to realtors and sellers.
Just like the cash for clunkers program was free money to dealers and automakers.
It saves them from having to cut prices to attract buyers.
I'm in a quandary. On the one hand, this is my money being taken from and given back to me later, so I might say I have a right to it. On the other hand, I'm against stupid government subsidies like this. On the other hand (the original hand) if I don't do it, someone else will, and me protesting by not taking part in this will not really change anything. So the question is, what's important: my ideals or my pragmatism to get $8,000-$15,000 for buying a house?
Wrong, Hazel. 2012 is almost here. Good thing those Mayan's warned us ahead of time.
Crap. That was aimed at your 2:05 comment.
After we kill the lawyers, we'll do the realtors.
I bought a house I was going to buy anyway, and the $8000 is looking like a timely windfall. Obama's gone full retard, and there's one black lady on the block, so I have to buy a horse.
I helped pay for your house.
I helped pay for your car.
I will now help pay for the bullet for the self-inflicted gunshot wound to your head.
""It's Shake-n-Stimulate, and I helped!"
I remember that goofy looking kid.
You're much more principled libertarians than I am about free money from the government...
It is important to keep a steady stream of first time buyers in the housing market.
Simply make home ownership mandatory.
Phantom Limb, actually the money is being taken from your progeny, not you. Your money has already been spent.
Anyone seen those ARRA signs they put up to mark road projects that are being paid for by stimulus money? I feel like making up a sign to accompany that one that says, "Got grandchildren? Thank them for us. They're paying for this."
"We did exactly what the government wanted us to do," says the wife.
Yes. Now bend over.
o put down, say, $50,000 to $100,000
You're so 20th century, Sullum.
I just closed on an apartment this week and that was the first I'd heard of the $8,000 tax credit. There are so many convoluted tax incentives associated with housing, does anyone really think we're going to keep track of that and adjust our behavior accordingly?
I mean, the $8,000 is nice and all, but it had nothing to do with my purchase. I, for one, will be using the tax credit to build up the savings we depleted to cover the 20% down-payment. I guess I will be doing exactly what the government does not want.
There is an income cap on eligibility for the program as well. My wife and I are just above that cap, so we did not receive our 8k furniture subsidy, but our (imaginary) neighbors who happen make slightly less than us did. We were buying no matter what, but if you're going to take our income and redistribute, at least cut us in the deal. At the very very least, adjust the program so that the credit amount and income cap are based on geographic realities. I guess we could move to Topeka to get more bang for our purloined buck.
Or, better yet, cut the whole thing and let the market regain its sanity and equilibrium.
I bought a new house because of the $8,000 credit that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. Borrowed $8K for a down-payment from a relative, bought the house, paid back the $8K. Other people did this exact same thing.
Phantom Limb passes up a good chance to use a "gripping hand" reference.
What is the deal with schools these days? What the hell are they teaching?
An overwhelming portion of this article is racist.
The previous tax credit was cooler. The current one really is a $8k tax credit. The previous $7500 "tax credi" as actually a 15 year interest free loan. You got the $7500 credit the year after you bought the house. For the next 15 years, an additional $500 in taxes were added on.
This caught a bunch of people by surprise when they didnt get the refund they were expecting or owed money.
That is, taxpayers pay 40k to get people to take an 8k bribe at the margin.
I'll take two!!
What we lose on margin we'll make up for with volume!
"That interpretation-which suggests that someone who is not in the market for a house can be convinced to put down, say, $50,000 to $100,000 and borrow hundreds of thousands more by the promise of getting $8,000 back-strains credulity,"
With an FHA loan, the $8,000 is close to the downpayment amount. The FHA downpayment is 3.5%, which means that we're talking about a $250,000 house. Nobody is putting $100,000 down on a $250,000 house.
As for me, the $8,000 would have been tempting, but I make too much money. More importantly, the real estate market did not fall as much as it should have due to the government's efforts to prop up housing values. So while the $8,000 is an incentive in theory, other actions have kept house prices more than $8,000 artificially inflated. So I agree that it's a bad deal.
What this program does is get people who haven't saved enough for a down payment to commit to a mortgage.
What could possibly go wrong?
Hey. Smart moves like this are why they get the big bucks, Pro. Just like those analysis on Wall Street.
You know, the ones they rescued from the consequences of their actions and have been bagging on ever since.
New house payment. Check
New car payment. Check
New furniture payment. Check
Few more college loans. Check
Sustaining inflated values for everything from leather couches to college. Check.
God help us if this train comes to a sudden stop.
Nothing beats pushing the opportunity cost of a retarded program down the time line until it gets so fucking massive that just the contemplation of it such costs coming to fruition make your head explode.
does anyone really think we're going to keep track of that and adjust our behavior accordingly?
ACRON will do it for you.
"That interpretation-which suggests that someone who is not in the market for a house can be convinced to put down, say, $50,000 to $100,000 and borrow hundreds of thousands more by the promise of getting $8,000 back-strains credulity, to put it kindly."
And just how do you think Nigerian scams keep going on? Seriously, has anyone taken a look at how dumb most people are today?
friggin typos.
ACORN, of course.
I suppose ACORN has an office in Akron.
The author is forgetting the time value of money. That is, typically, somebody who pays $100k or $200k for a house takes 30 years to pay it, while they get the eight grand almost immediately.
Also, has to be the first time I've seen mass numbers of people posting in the comment section complaining about a tax decrease.
I am sorry, Jacob. Perhaps you are a bit older and not in the "just out of school" crowd, but I am. Trust me, the $8000 credit has been a huge influence on the decisions of my peers and me.
Of course the credit didn't change us from people who weren't planning on buying a house or condo in the foreseeable future into buyers. But it sure did change us into people who are buying this year rather than waiting a few years to see how thinks shake out...and that was exactly the purpose of the credit.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
credit != "tax decrease"
You are making a ton of assumptions here. For starters. You are assuming the credit is returned in cash and is not accounted for in the purchase price of the house at the time the house is purchased. This means the TVM of the credit (again not an actual cash amount) is moot, it is being used in the time it is given.
I won't even bother with the difference between cash transactions and transactions involving a discount(credit).
The incentive to purchase still poses the same problem that any government incentive produces. Like bubbles, and artificially and unsustainably moving revenues from future dates to current dates.
A couple highlighted by the Times paid $171,000 for a two-bedroom condominium in Dallas last spring, then used their $8,000 refund to buy furniture. "We did exactly what the government wanted us to do," says the wife. "We stimulated the economy."
This makes me understand what the anti-gay crowd doesn't like about gay public displays of affection. All I could think reading this was, "Ew... what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business."
Something about saying "My husband and I stimulated the economy just like the govt wanted us to" just doesn't sound kosher.
Fuck the RealTards at the NAR.
New house payment. Check
New car payment. Check
New furniture payment. Check
Few more college loans. Check
Sustaining inflated values for everything from leather couches to college. Check.
There are some things Mastercard can buy. For everything else, there's China.
I'll be using my $8,000 to pay for a vacation to Cozumel, pay off a furniture loan and put a dent in my car loan. I'll be spending as much as I can in Mexico.
Thanks government!
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Lucia
Leather bed
It is a great tax credit.