Housing Policy

Kamala Harris' Plan To End the Racial Homeownership Gap Doubles Down on the Worst Aspects of U.S. Housing Policy

The 2020 contender wants to give $25,000 grants to homebuyers living in historically segregated neighborhoods.

|

Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) is out with a new plan to close the gaps in wealth and homeownership between white and minority Americans by subsidizing the down payments of homebuyers living in poorer, historically segregated neighborhoods.

"A typical black family has just $10 of wealth for every $100 held by a white family," Harris said during a Saturday speech announcing her new policy, according to Politico. "We must right that wrong and, after generations of discrimination, give black families a real shot at homeownership—historically one of the most powerful drivers of wealth in our country."

Harris' plan is to create a new $100 billion grant program to be run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This new program will give out as much as $25,000 to individuals making up to $75,000, and families making up to $125,000, which can be used to defray the costs of down payments on homes worth up to $300,000.

Borrowers would still have to prove creditworthiness to obtain a grant, according to Harris' website, although the specific qualifying conditions aren't specified. These grants would only be available to people who have lived in a historically "redlined" community—one that remains low-income—for more than 10 years.

Redlining refers to the federal government's old practice of refusing to guarantee mortgages in predominately black neighborhoods, effectively walling off the people who lived there from New Deal and post-war federal homeownership subsidies.

Racially segregating these subsidies allowed white homeowners to build equity while depriving black families of the same opportunity.

"Although average African-American family incomes today are about 60 percent of average white family incomes, average African-American household wealth is only about 10 percent of average white household wealth. This enormous disparity is almost entirely the result of unconstitutional federal housing policy in the last century, which explains a good part of the racial inequality that we see all around us," wrote Richard Rothstein, author of the Color of Law (a history of these discriminatory housing policies) for Reason in February.

Harris' down payment subsidies are intended to right the wrongs of this policy. Goosing homeownership rates for black and Hispanic families, she claims, will help these same families build wealth.

But by trying to expand homeownership as a means of helping low-income earners build wealth, Harris is doubling down on one of the core contradictions of U.S. housing policy: that homes should be both affordable and a good investment.

A house is only a good tool for accruing wealth if it continues to increase in value over time. As Daniel Hertz at City Observatory notes "this sort of wealth building is predicated on a never-ending stream of new people who are willing and able to pay current home owners increasingly absurd amounts of money for their homes."

This shouldn't happen in a functioning housing market, where a mix of older homes' physical deterioration and the construction of newer housing should see prices decline over time.

The only reason that homes have proven a good investment for many families is because of government restrictions on housing development have prevented new supply from keeping up with additional demand.

The result, in the most restrictive markets, is ever-rising home prices. Some 81 percent of homes in San Francisco are valued at more than $1 million, according to a 2018 study by real estate company Trulia.

That is good for incumbent homeowners. It's bad for everyone else who has to pay more to purchase a home, or is priced out of the housing market altogether.  In a country where black and Hispanic people are disproportionally low-income, these restrictions on housing supply take on a racial dynamic.

Harris, rather than try to combat this affordability problem by removing restrictions on supply, wants to subsidize low-income people's ability to get in on this racket. It's a similar approach to her Rent Relief Act, which aims to combat increasingly unaffordable rents by subsidizing tenants' monthly rents.

By subsidizing demand while leaving restrictions on supply in place, both of Harris' policy proposals will likely just lead to increased prices. The value of the subsidies she's offering will be absorbed by home sellers and landlords.

Harris' plan to subsidize down payments has the additional downside of potentially saddling low-income homebuyers with mortgage debt they can't afford, something we saw during the Great Recession.

Research suggests that homeownership is a particularly bad wealth creation tool for low-income buyers. They are more likely to buy at the top of the market—when prices are high but credit standards are looser—and are more easily pushed into default as a result of other financial shocks like job losses or sudden large medical bills.

If Harris wants to decrease the racial gap in homeownership rates, there's a lot of other policies, from getting rid of single-family zoning to abolishing urban growth boundaries, she should endorse that could make that a reality without costing taxpayers a dime.

NEXT: Justin Amash Officially Quits House Republicans and Steps Down From Committee Seat

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Politicians confuse thermometers and thermostats, and extend that to the rest of the world. Change a thermostat setting, the temperature eventually follows.

    Error one is they forget the lag and the furnace working behind the scenes and expect laws to change society instantaneously and without error.

    Error two is thinking the speedometer is really a speedostat; they expect to reach into the dash and twist the needle, and that will slow down or speed up the car.

    1. Equal footing is never enough for some people. They won’t be happy until the white man’s leg is broken.

      1. Just another reason to put an end to the democrat party.

        And in a side note, Reason appears to have fixed the website so it isn’t a huge nightmare to deal with.

        So thumbs up for them.

  2. The Left is literally incapable of conceiving of any solution that does not involve taxation and direct payments.

    1. When all you have is a 30k year old hammer…

      1. … AND sickle!

      2. I’d rather have a 40k year old warhammer…………

    2. Let’s be fair. The left also sees confiscation as a solution.

      Like confiscating guns from law abiding citizens to stop criminals from using them, or confiscating money from the wealthy and the working and giving it to the “poor” to solve poverty and crime.

    3. That’s why i wonder why a libertarian writer would end this article with…

      “If Harris wants to decrease the racial gap in homeownership rates, there’s a lot of other policies, from getting rid of single-family zoning to abolishing urban growth boundaries, she should endorse that could make that a reality without costing taxpayers a dime.”

      Instead of…
      “but who really cares. This spiteful bitch is more authoritarian than ten trumps, has a terrible records as a prosecutor, and has proposed nothing but socialist policies where’s she’s attempting to buy the votes of ignorant minority voters by promising a bunch of free shit to het back at “the whites”. So fuck her and never consider voting for this piece of shit.”

  3. Clinton started the same ‘credit for the poor’ instant-wealth process in the 90s which led to the subprime mortgage disaster 10 years later. Here she wants to go again, but since she’s working the down payment angle instead of the monthly payment angle, it’ll work just fine. Right?

    1. Sure. No reason it won’t work exactly the same as last time.
      But who actually expects economic logic from someone who spent a gazillion dollars to get a job that pays a couple hundred thousand?

      1. Outside money. There is a solution.

      2. “No reason it won’t work exactly the same as last time.”

        It worked fine for Clinton, he got elected twice.

        So Kamala Harris is hoping that it ‘will’ work exactly the same as last time.

        1. Blll Clinton got elected because Ross Perot ran and got 20% of the vote. Easily pulling two to three votes from Bush as he did from Clinton. Had it been a two way race, George Bush would have wiped the electoral map with him.

      3. being President doesn’t pay all that much for the workload, but being an ex-President has the high pay to work ratio on Earth.

    2. That was just one tiny piece of the puzzle that led to the mortgage disaster. You can’t blame it all on subprime loans to the poor. At some point you have to lay a lot of the blame on the zero down refi madness and the Fed’s idiotic easy credit policies. The poor were just along for the ride.

      And from what I’ve seen, the poor who bought houses have mostly managed to keep them. It was the middle class trying to trade their way up that got stuck without a chair when the music stopped.

      1. It was the middle class trying to trade their way up that got stuck without a chair when the music stopped.

        And the dipshit rent-seekers who were overpaying for second homes to rent or flip.

        1. Yeah, I think that the rampant speculation on real estate was likely the biggest contributor to the crash.

          1. It was a boom. Too much easy credit. It just happened to be real estate this time around, instead of tulips or petroleum or tech stocks.

            1. “Too much easy credit”

              Which resulted in a ton of SUBPRIME loans.

              Why are you stupidly trying to separate the two?

      2. Yes, all those were causes too. But they all stemmed from the core idiocy of the government “encouraging” under-qualified loans. If it had been limited to the really poor, little long term harm would have been done. But everyone jumped onto the bandwagon. I knew several people who got 0-down mortgages with payments which didn’t even cover interest and a huge balloon 5 or ten years later, only because it was possible and smelled like the smart investment. Why limit yourself to your own house when you could buy several dirt-cheap and rent them out and make money in the process, then sell them for a fortune and pay off the mortgage just in time to avoid that balloon payment?

        It wasn’t the poor who caused the collapse. There weren’t enough of them. It was the well-off who jumped on the bandwagon which broke its axles.

        1. No matter what the tipping point is, it’s all a function of the business cycle. The market will always find a way to self correct eventually.

      3. ” At some point you have to lay a lot of the blame on the zero down refi madness and the Fed’s idiotic easy credit policies”

        Zero down refi madness?

        You’re an imbecile.

        And the “Fed’s idiotic easy credit policies” ARE HOW THE POOR GOT THE SUBPRIME LOANS.

        Buttplug your stupid ass is literally saying “don’t blame subprime loans” and then you’re naming policies that allpwed an explosion in subprime loans.

        But this has always been your schtick Shreek. You simply cannot accept reality.

        1. Also the partial repeal of Glass Steagall was part of the equation too. I sold consumer mortgage loans in the 2000s and relaxed credit standards, pushed by the democrats, were a big part of the problem.

          But being a democrat means never being accountable for anything ever.

  4. “Harris’ plan is to create a new $100 billion grant program… will give out as much as $25,000 to individuals making up to $75,000, and families making up to $125,000, which can be used to defray the costs of down payments on homes worth up to $300,000.”

    Can we call this reparations?

    1. And get rid of a wedge issue? Have you gone mad?

    2. Sure buy when it fails, they’ll blame the racist bankers and demand more reparations for the “housing slavery” the bankers inflicted on them.

      1. don’t worry, Bernie and AOC want to the turn the Post Office into a payday lender of last resort, with reasonable interest rates.

  5. Owning a house does not build wealth only if you sell it for more than you bought it. It builds wealth because over your lifetime you will spend less owning a unit of housing than you would renting the same unit, even if you sell it for the exact purchase price adjusted for inflation.

    1. Assuming you do the minimum maintenance, which a lot of people don’t.

      1. Some people don’t save enough to pay for things like a new rood, siding, furnace replacement, etc.. this is why it makes sense to only lend to people who are capable of saving for a down payment.

    2. Forget property taxes?

      1. You pay those either way. With the landlord as middleman or to the county direct

  6. Harris’ plan to subsidize down payments has the additional downside of potentially saddling low-income homebuyers with mortgage debt they can’t afford, something we saw during the Great Recession.

    Don’t worry, Harris has a plan for that too: blame Trump.

  7. “”Harris’ plan to subsidize down payments has the additional downside of potentially saddling low-income homebuyers with mortgage debt they can’t afford””

    You did not mention the taxes and maintenance costs. If you are having a hard time keeping up with the mortgage, you probably can’t afford that new roof. Your house deteriorates, and the value goes down.

  8. Wouldn’t it be easier to just bus white and black homeseekers to neighborhoods that need more racial balance?

    1. Every year, the government will randomly re-assign living quarters. However, mortgages and leases and rental agreements are still signed by individuals, so their payments will remain the responsibility of the signers, as it should be in a capitalist society.

  9. “The only reason that homes have proven a good investment for many families is because of government restrictions on housing development have prevented new supply from keeping up with additional demand.

    The result, in the most restrictive markets, is ever-rising home prices. Some 81 percent of homes in San Francisco are valued at more than $1 million, according to a 2018 study by real estate company Trulia.”

    BS. Even the Invisible Hand can’t enlarge the SF peninsula. And maybe some (most) people prefer to live in separate single family homes and not 800 sq ft high-rise habitats. And maybe that preference for a rare commodity leads to higher prices.

    1. The SF Peninsula is not limited to 2D as you and politicians seem to think.

    2. ” people prefer to live in separate single family homes and not 800 sq ft high-rise habitats”

      And I would prefer to drive a Bugatti to work every day. But I haven’t provided enough value to the market to own one yet, have I?

    3. When you have a fixed land mass and a growing population, policies to explicitly limit home building are fucked. You don’t have to raze the few remaining parks, but you do need to allow building to expand. Build up. Build denser. Get out of the way.

      1. That might cast shade on a school yard in the morning. Better to keep a laundromat than to add a bunch of housing units.

    4. You’re saying basic economic theory is BS based on your simple conjecture argument

      1. You’re saying basic economic theory is BS based on your simple conjecture argument

        No. He’s saying that some scarcity is inherent rather than created by government.

        1. That’s pretty meaningless. Almost all housing scarcity in cities is created by government. The fact that homeowners are afraid of losing artificial equity is good enough proof that SF’s scarcity is a result of government.

        2. But he’s refuting the claim that scarcity is worsened by government housing limitations. In fact, government zoning laws and rent controls are a huge limiter on housing.

          1. But he’s refuting the claim that scarcity is worsened by government housing limitations.

            No. He’s saying some scarcity will still exist which will still result in generally increasing housing prices particularly in desirable locations.

            1. That may be what you and others are saying, but OP said the article claim that government policy severely restricts housing supply “BS”. That’s obviously a ridiculous claim. These guys just look for any opening to refute the articles and they are quite often wrong.

        3. He’s saying that some scarcity is inherent rather than created by government.

          Yes – that’s true. But it’s not true of real estate in San Francisco (at least at the moment).

        4. If we’re going to get all technical with our economic jargon, all scarcity is inherent. If there’s a price tag on it, its scarce. If there’s no price tag on it, than its free/not scarce. Scarcity necessitates the existence of the market to distribute goods to their highest ordered uses.

          Ah, it sure is refreshing to get back to the basics.

          1. It would be even more refreshing if government made some effort to do the same.

    5. Even the Invisible Hand can’t enlarge the SF peninsula.

      The invisible hand has nothing to do with it. Desperate SF homeowners are voting for politicians who are keeping their housing prices abnormally high; any politician who promises to normalize housing prices has no chance.

  10. The land can be considered an investment (that can be good or bad – location, location, location). The house that sits on top of it is a consumer good, full stop.

    1. This is what makes selling condos as “an investment” a straight-up scam.

      1. If you make it an investment, sure. But there’s still equity in a condo, one can still sell it. One still gets their money back out of it. Still a better deal than flushing rent at a landlord.

        1. Still a better deal than flushing rent at a landlord.

          That depends. Renting is cheaper from an income perspective… the real question is what is the opportunity cost of buying? Could you have invested that money in equities and come out way ahead? How fast will real estate appreciate in your area?

          1. Well in most places the rent is more than a mortgage. You just don’t need to save up a lot for a down payment. And in my area in particular, California bay area, the real estate never stops appreciating.

            1. “Well in most places the rent is more than a mortgage.”

              And? You are aware there are… Other costs?

              JFC Screech…

            2. “And in my area in particular, California bay area,”

              You don’t live in the Bay Area you fucking low rent liar.

            3. And in my area in particular, California bay area, the real estate never stops appreciating.

              IOW, you’re banking on the old “bigger sucker” theory. That’s smart! It’s always worked in the past…

            4. Well in most places the rent is more than a mortgage

              Yes, but is it more than mortgage+taxes+opportunity cost+repairs+time spent?

              And in my area in particular, California bay area, the real estate never stops appreciating.

              Yeah, sure… you just go on believing that.

            5. Well in most places the rent is more than a mortgage

              Yeah, if you’re not counting the fact that you have to buy mortgage insurance (unless you’re rich and have a huge down payment), pay real estate taxes, interest, and HOA/condo fees. Oh, and you need to factor in the maintenance that you now have to take care of yourself.

              There is a lot of other money you “burn” that isn’t going toward equity when you buy a home.

              This country needs to have a high school level course on personal finance. Most people don’t understand that buying a home can actually be a huge mistake depending on where you live.

              1. you have to buy mortgage insurance (unless you’re rich and have a huge down payment), pay real estate taxes, interest, and HOA/condo fees. Oh, and you need to factor in the maintenance that you now have to take care of yourself.

                Your landlord has to pay all these things, too, and also not lose money on renting to you.

                1. I should have been clear that I was comparing to renting from an apartment. I wouldn’t rent a single family home, generally.

                2. and also not lose money on renting to you.

                  Also, that’s now how rents are set. Rents are actually set by supply & demand. There are plenty of single family homes that have monthly rents under the mortgage + insurance + taxes + interest that landlords pay. Income streams are supposed to continue long after the debt is paid.

                  1. Income streams are supposed to continue long after the debt is paid.

                    Meaning that if the property is rented throughout the term of the mortgage and afterwards, then the renters renting the property will pay more to the landlord than the landlord paid to own and maintain the property. If not, the landlord will have sold to a different landlord for whom this is true.

                    The residential mortgage payer also gets to keep the property after the mortgage is paid, which makes it pretty cheap to continue living on.

                    1. Okay, so yes this is complicated. I’m trying to distill this down to forum-level length, but I don’t disagree with you. We’re getting way beyond what I am trying to say anyway – which is that land is an investment, the house sitting on top of it usually is not (I’ll add this caveat for you particularly anal Reasonites: the house can be an investment if you are renting it out to people).

            6. it will eventually, when the software tech giants automate code generation, and all the FIRE yuppies quit working at 40 and move to Sacramento or into a van down by the river.

          2. The real sweet slot is to buy a fixer, move in, do some of the work yourself, wrangle some deals on the rest of the work, and flip it every few years. Thereby taking advantage of the periodic exemption of capital gains on the sale of a primary residence.

            I have contractor friends who do that. One of them now buys really big older houses, immediately fixes up a few of the bedrooms and bathrooms, then rents them through AirBnB to cover his outgoing cash flow while he works on the rest of it.

    2. if only we had a common means of exchange that held it’s value and didn’t necessitate constant speculation in order to accumulate wealth. Somebody needs to come up with that system.

      1. Value can’t be held. Value is subjective.

        1. There are commodities that have traditionally held value better than others, and green slips of paper arent one of them. My point is that inflationary currencies equal endless boom/bust cycles. There are better ways.

          1. Inflationary currencies don’t create the endless boom/bust cycles – poor investment decisions do. Some of those poor investment decisions are driven by bad government policy, including monetary policy.

            1. Inflation, in the form of credit expansion, drives the misallocation of resources, or “poor investment decisions” as you put it.

              The government has a printing press. It doesn’t do good monetary policy.

  11. “A typical black family has just $10 of wealth for every $100 held by a white family,”

    Racism, orRent-A-Wheel?

    1. Clearly, what is needed is more government programs. As blacks have been greatly uplifted so much by all the other government programs over the last 50 years. So much that they only hold $10 in wealth for every $190 held by a white family.

    2. How can that NOT be a satire?

    3. in LA you hear radio ads for “Rent a Wheel” all the time. Like you can’t save up to buy a set of rims. Also ads for “auto title loans”, pitched by Hulk Hogan himself. Own your own beater? Access that cash now brother!

  12. Matriarchy & The Future

    Miss Harris and the rest of the Democratic pack of candidates reflect the national context; namely, a fragmenting, declining nation on fire gravitating towards a matriarchal society. It may not seem so; but that issue, matriarchy, is the most important issue troubling these United States of America today. It will determine the future direction of these United States of America. Yet, it is mentioned rarely if at all.

    Visit …
    https://www.nationonfire.com/matriarchy-in-america/ .

    1. WTF does indoor vs. outdoor plumbing have to do with this article?

      Jump off your hobby-horse if you want to contribute. Or just insult someone.

  13. So her proposition is to “give” $25,000 to move into “government approved” neighborhoods. Does she realize that she is giving money to people whose family income is well above the 60th percentile? Lowering one’s mortgage by ten percent or so is NOT going to have a significant impact because it isn’t very likely to get people to move into areas in which they otherwise wouldn’t want to live. She is just trying to buy votes.

    1. Exactly, many people working minimum wage make barely more than $25000 (many work multiple jobs) and Prosecutor Harris wants to give tax dollars to prospective homeowners

    2. Historically red-lined areas are in the cities where prices are going up. She’s just contributing to “gentrification” which any good lefty will tell you is terribly evil. There’s almost nothing worse than an improving neighborhood

    3. It will also artificially increase prices in the aforementioned government areas. Just the same way as all the government backed student loan money cause massive inflation in college tuition and boarding costs.

    4. As an added bonus you get a higher “disadvantaged” score on your SAT. upper middle class white people (Harris wants to cap it at 100K income) are going to start moving into these neighborhoods, and then the left will complain about gentrification.

  14. Oh look a Democrat trying to buy votes with taxpayer money. Whoever could have seen that coming.

  15. Perhaps a large number of sub-prime loans for poor minorities is in order. No one has tried that before.

  16. Two good things about this policy: houses always increase in value and there will be no inflation in housing caused by this policy.

  17. Maybe it is me, but when I read the bullet item summary of what Senator “Heels Up” Harris proposed, I could not help but think of an analog in American history. Her plan smacks faintly of what William Tecimsah Sherman did with one of his Field Orders: 40 acres and a mule.

    Basically, General Sherman sent the freed SC blacks with a mule and told them to go get the 40 acres and work the land. Senator “Heels Up” Harris appears to be proposing a modern version of Sherman’s Field Order. Here is some money, now find a home.

    Oh, what will she think of next? 🙂

    1. “$25,000 and a subprime loan” doesn’t have the same ring to it as “40 acres and a mule”

      1. LOL….Very true. Thanks for the chuckle, Diane. 🙂

    2. Harris’ only claim to fame is being Willie Brown’s chew toy.

  18. >>>the racial gap in homeownership rates

    myth.

    1. Not exactly a “myth.” (And no, Harris is an ass, so don’t think for one minute that I support her on this, or most anything else)

      “according to the U.S. Census Bureau…
      The black homeownership rate is now 30.5 percentage points lower than non-Hispanic whites (72.2 percent)…”

      http://www.nareb.com/african-american-homeownership-falls-50-year-low/

      1. i don’t do skin color i’m not a statistician in need of research funds. people can work make money and buy homes in America if they want to, period.

        1. The gap isn’t a myth. The idea that it is entirely a result of past racism probably is.

          1. “The idea that it is entirely a result of past racism probably is.”

            I agree. Some members of some minorities are at the lower end of the income scale. They are also the most likely to be hurt by recessions, large or small. Similarly, rural areas, due to typically lower incomes and resources, generally take longer to recover from such “fiscal upsets.” I am not claiming that this, either, is the reason for low home ownership rates, but merely that… “it’s complicated,” and no politician, no matter what they promise, is going to “fix” it. The will, more likely, make the matter worse.

          2. the gap is a myth because it’s a manufactured statistic.

            1. Cite please?

              1. It’s not a “manufactured” statistic. It’s a misinterpreted one. Here’s a relatively even-handed take on the pay gap from a Harvard professor:

                https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap

                The issue has a lot less to do with discrimination than it does with non-linear payscales and individual men & women’s choices. Men start to get paid more not only because they work more hours, but also because each of those extra hours is compensated at a higher rate. i.e. if 2 people work the same firm, person 1 works 40 hours and person 2 works 80 hours, person 2 won’t just get paid 2x the salary of person 1, they might get paid 2.50x or 2.75x.

                Factor in women’s preferences in the job market (more flexible schedule, hours at home when they don’t want to be contacted, availability of part time work, etc.) and you get a lot more men doing those 80 hour weeks than you have women doing 80 hour weeks.

                1. You could go on to argue that women are incentivized by society to stay at home and work less, but I’d say that becomes less and less of a viable argument each day. Within some percentage of individual families this is probably true, but I don’t believe that this is still occurring in any kind of systemic and measurable way. It probably just has to do with the normal distribution of men and women’s choices across the American population.

                2. I thought we were discussing a racial gap, not one based on gender.

                3. Don’t pitch the bitch.

        2. Of course anyone can buy a house, once they have the income and a bit of credit history. Nevertheless, the numbers exist. But the main thing is, even if her idea wasn’t reprehensible, it doesn’t address the issue anyway.

          The idea is DOA. It might result in some significant increase of middle-class gentrification, which would only hurt low-income communities. Redlining was bad. Sub-prime loans with virtually nothing down were bad. This is equally bad, if on a slightly smaller scale. The government needs to stay out of the housing business. And since the most obvious problems are those associated with zoning, that makes it a local problem, and one which the POTUS. outside of “the projects,” has virtually no control over anyway.

          1. “Nevertheless, the numbers exist.”

            I think he is taking issues with the “racial” component, when it is essentially irrelevant.

            1. word. gracias.

            2. The “racial” component exists. It’s a fact. That does not mean, nor does it imply, that such a fact implies some sort of “truth” causation, or that there is some simplistic solution to be had.

              Given that, one has to start somewhere. Ignoring “facts” is exactly what gun-grabbers do. Usually, when the government attempts to get involved with social problems (which are thousands of times more complex than technical problems), they either make the problem worse, or have no visible effect. In the years leading up to The War on Poverty, for instance, the poverty rate had been steadily going down. Fifty+ years After the War on Poverty began, the poverty rate is essentially identical to what it was (about 15%)

              1. >>>It’s a fact.

                to you. one easily ignored by me like i said i don’t do skin color. want to own house? work and buy house. America.

                don’t perpetuate the race pimps and their stats. people are people.

      2. non-Hispanic whites

        This makes my head hurt.

        1. helpful to ignore it. people are people.

          1. Democrats depend on division. Without economic, sexual, and racial division how would we have poverty pimping, race baiting, and all this gender fluid mess.

  19. “The 2020 contender wants to give $25,000 grants to homebuyers living in historically segregated neighborhoods.”

    That’s quite generous. Does she really have that much money?

  20. If non-whites want wealth, do what the Chinese and Indians do. Stop putting rimz on your shitty Nissan Maxima. Stop buying flashy chains and flat screen TVs. There are people worth <$1m who live a more lavish lifestyle than people worth tens of millions.

    1. There’s something a lot of people don’t want to talk about. An awful lot of poverty is simply down to poor decisions on what to do with money. I know people who live just fine on $30k a year. And people who make 2-3 times that much who are broke. It’s largely down to the decisions you make.

      1. Ya think? A relative of mine invested his entire retirement fund (over a million dollars in today’s money), into Enron. Of course, the State of California also invested pension monies in Enron, as did the UC system. So, I guess even the “experts” are sometimes unable to resist the appearance of absurdly high profits.

    2. This is true, but only half of the picture. You usually cannot save your way to prosperity when you are a low income individual. You really do have to make decisions that increase your income while also making smart spending decisions.

      That being said, you are offering really good advice. If your goal is to build wealth, don’t spend your income on expensive and unnecessary consumer goods.

      1. Wrong. I knew a guy who was a janitor, and up until about 10 years ago when I met him he had never made more than $13ish an hour IIRC. He had a family. He invested in real estate by buying a shitty starter home, renting it. Rinse and repeat. The guy is worth millions now. He was an Asian immigrant with zero formal education.

        He lived frugally. You can do this at ANY level. Sure a guy making $100K and living frugally will stack up more cash than a guy making $40K living frugally… But to say the guy making $40K can’t do it is BS. There will be sacrifices, but it’s not a 100% excuse.

    3. Time to adjust your monocle. Flat screen TVs are just regular everyday tvs now. The rest of your points hold.

  21. “Although average African-American family incomes today are about 60 percent of average white family incomes, average African-American household wealth is only about 10 percent of average white household wealth.”

    Mean or Median average wealth? I would suspect Bezos, Buffet, and Gates are making the rest of us broke ass whiteys look good (evil) on paper.

  22. Can’t this be solved with a minimum wage for poor people? $200/hour if you’re in a hurry.

    1. Or go with the old standby and just export some more violence, if that’s all you have.

  23. I’d like someone to study what black homeowners have done with their equity since redlining ended in the 1970’s.

    1. Equity ain’t money until you sell. Can’t sell without a buyer.

  24. Wondering if they’re actually ever going to run out of other people’s money anytime soon. They’ve burned through all of America’s money, and they’re rapidly working on running out of the Chinese money.

    Who’s next?

    1. Our children’s children’s children’s children’s money.

  25. So, the author thinks getting rid of single family homes is the answer?
    Must be a California Democrat, those folks that think they(well, you actually) should build a 20 story high rise in single family neighborhoods to fix homelessness…sigh…

    1. Which part of the article said getting rid of single family homes is the answer?

  26. Comrade Harris is right.
    The only way to make everyone equal (except for herself and her cronies of course) is to make everyone sell their palaces, mansions and penthouse suites and live in public housing.
    This way the masses can enjoy the social benefits of living with people are homeless, mentally ill, don’t care about your so-called right to privacy, drug addicts, drunks, and violent criminals.
    How else can we all learn the joys and wonders of socialist oppression if we don’t live together happily ever after in the sewer
    of government housing?

  27. “Harris’ down payment subsidies are intended to right the wrongs of this policy. ”

    Check your premises.

    They’re intended to sow racial hatred and resentment.

  28. “Kamala Harris announces $100B plan to make housing more expensive for everybody”

    whats that old expression…for every complicated problem there is a solution that is obvious, easy, and dead wrong?

  29. Just another policy that proves her unworthy to be in charge of anything. Homes are houses where we live and generally should never be considered investments. She is no fiduciary

  30. Why does this sound like the reason that college/university tuition has climbed way beyond the historical inflation rate?

    Something to do with government trying to make it available to all or something?

  31. Pandering ho will say anything.

  32. ” from getting rid of single-family zoning “. Getting rid of is code for ‘GOVERNMENT BAN’. Why let the laws of supply, demand and free markets interfere with the heavy hand of the state or federal Government. Certainly the banks lending on construction loans, builders and home buyers know less than central planning government and Reason writers.
    This whole getting into bed with socialists will bite you and young Reason central planners deserve it. Of course, it will be too late . Social justice warrior lefties will not stop at banning zoning laws, or mandating health insurance, or rationing reliable energy. Next, its water, food, square footage, number of bathrooms, parking spaces, clothing items per capita, concrete used in construction, calorie mandates……. sometimes you get what you want nice and hard.

  33. Some people save more money than others. That doesn’t make it a “wrong” that needs to be “righted” by President Harris giving taxpayer money away.

  34. It’s mainly that minorities make low incomes (largely a result of personal choices), and tend to be irresponsible with the income they have (largely a result of personal choices)… Compare investment rates between whites/blacks/Asians at the same income levels, and one rapidly sees higher savings/investment rates with whites/Asians, lower amounts of debt, higher credit scores, etc.

    Personal responsibility is a thing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.