Biden's Plan To Subsidize Homebuyers Won't Work
The president's laundry list of proposed tax credits would likely make the problem of high housing costs worse.

America's high housing costs got a brief shout-out in President Joe Biden's State of the Union address tonight, with the president mostly proposing policies that would subsidize demand of this heavily supply-constrained good.
"I know the cost of housing is so important to you. If inflation keeps coming down mortgage rates will come down as well. But I'm not waiting," said Biden, proposing temporary tax credits of $400 a month to compensate for high mortgage rates and the end of title insurance fees for federally backed mortgages.
In addition, Biden proposed cracking down on the price fixing of big landlords and urged Congress to pass his plan to build or renovate 2 million affordable homes.
That housing policy got a shout-out at all in a State of the Union address is somewhat rare, despite housing being the largest line item in most Americans' budgets. Regrettably, most of the policies Biden proposed would do little to address the cause of high housing costs and could make the problem worse.
Higher rents and home prices are a natural consequence of local and state zoning laws, labyrinthine approval processes, federal restrictions on mortgage financing, and environmental reporting laws, to name a few.
All these laws limit the supply of new housing, which drives up the price for any given level of demand. That's a diagnosis the Biden administration itself has endorsed in various housing briefs and "action plans."
Despite that insight, the president's proposals to subsidize home buying will, all else equal, increase demand while leaving supply constraints in place. That will only raise prices further. People who claim new federal subsidies will be no better off. Anyone who misses out on the subsidies will be worse off.
Biden's proposal to crack down on price-fixing landlords is likely a reference to the hot new idea that landlords are illegally colluding on rents by paying for third-party algorithms that propose market-clearing maximum rents.
The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice released a memo earlier this month saying that this could be illegal, without offering any clear guidance on when it would actually be illegal.
Even property owners who set their rents below whatever a third-party algorithm recommends could still be guilty of price fixing.
"Even if some of the conspirators cheat by starting with lower prices than those the algorithm recommended, that doesn't necessarily change things. Being bad at breaking the law isn't a defense," read the memo. One shouldn't expect this garbled threat to do much to move the needle on rents.
In his remarks tonight, Biden didn't elaborate much on the policy he proposed to increase actual housing supply, his plan to build or renovate 2 million affordable homes.
A White House fact sheet circulated earlier today provides a little more detail. The plan, such as it is, would involve increasing the number of tax credits available for low-income housing developers—something the tax bill approved by the House and being considered by the Senate would do.
The White House fact sheet also calls for creating a $20 billion competitive grant program that would directly fund affordable apartments, "pilot innovative models" for affordable housing production, and, more interestingly, "incentivize local actions to remove unnecessary barriers to housing development."
When it comes to housing funding, $20 billion is a lot of money. It's nearly a third of the current budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
As part of its existing "housing supply action plan," the Biden administration has allegedly retooled a number of federal transportation grant programs to incentivize local zoning changes. As I've written, that doesn't seem to have made much of an impact on where those grants go. San Francisco, the nation's beating heart of anti-development regulations, got one of the largest grant awards from one of these supposedly retooled programs.
Congress has also passed a smaller, $85 million "baby YIMBY" grant program more focused on paying local governments to change their zoning rules. Here too, the language of the grant program (and the applications it's received thus far from localities) suggests it will end up being more of a subsidy for routine planning work than a powerful incentive for liberalizing zoning laws.
Given the difficulty state governments have had trying to prod local governments into being more pro-housing with explicit zoning preemptions, I'm skeptical of how much federal carrots can do here.
Perhaps the best thing the president can do for zoning reform is to use his bully pulpit to argue for it. Biden had an opportunity to do that tonight, and he didn't take it. It was a missed opportunity.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
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
Ahh yes, a delightful future of homogeneous section 8 megahousing.
You'll
eat the bugslive in the pods and you'll like it.proposing temporary tax credits of $400 a month to compensate for high m
Fuck you, dude, where's my $400 a month? You know, the guy who didn't buy a house until he could afford it, but had his plans completely upended by your federal overspending and interest rate shenanigans? You know, that guy, and all the Gen Zs who see no possible way to buy property right now?
"woah, dude, people can't buy a house. So here's $400 a month to all the folks we gave 3% mortgages to, who will NEVER move, and fuck all y'all who got priced out because of 15 years of horrible Federal policy followed by pandemic insanity." Good job asshole. Give more federal funding to people who already have theirs, but fuck me.
How about stop Dodd Frank. Stop monkeying with interest. Stop closing the economy down. Stop giving a tax break to banks (which is what the mortgage interest deduction is -- allowing banks to sell their product tax free). Let anyone who gives out a bad loan eat it themselves and don't bail them out. Prosecute anyone who commits fraud in lending (Robosigning, for example, is a polite term for forgery, and "Liars loans" are fundamentally fraud). And reduce the regulatory burden on developers.
More from the federal coffers to "fix" what you keep breaking makes everything worse. I swear, nobody ever sang that "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly" song to politicians.
Yep. I just keep missing out as well. Didn't have a student loan to be forgiven, don't get Social Security, and my house is paid off. No children, so no Child Tax Credit.
Damn me for being frugal and thinking about the future.
Rich Dad Poor Dad was an insurrectionist guide with Dave Ramsey as the new General.
Hah, never thought of it like that before.
Guess I shoulda gotten a masters in something studies I couldn't afford and made Biden pay it off instead of pouring money into my savings and retirement during the years when I was doing well. I'd be a lot more mainstream.
No children, so no Child Tax Credit.
Damn me for being frugal and thinking about the future.
You did not think about the future.
Maybe he has no kids under 18. He may have adult offspring and thus gets no tax benefit.
My offspring is over 18 and even though he lives at home while getting his degree in metalurgical engineering I don't get tax credits for him either. Maybe we will get lucky and he will get his student loans forgiven, but i doubt it. We are pretty much the whitest white people you will ever see. German and Scandinavian. It don't get whiter than that.
Bush Jr. pushed home buying as well. He followed the basketball falicy. Tall people play basketball so if you want to get tall play basketball. His was people who own homes are more financially secure so let's make it easy to buy a home. I think Bidens handlers are doing much the same. They want to improve the economy so if more people were homeowners they'd be more financially secure and thus the economy will prosper from more financially secure people. Actually I think that's a double basketball falicy.
That wasn't all Ws doing.
The 1999 "Banking modernization" Act was the primary cause of the following decade of economic activity, with a huge assist from policy makers and legislators who insisted on pretending there wasn't a bubble in the housing market (and even if there was, it was never going to pop). Signed by Bill Clinton, but passed through Congress with 70% or higher support from both parties in both chambers, meaning a veto wouldn't have held up anyway, and cheerled by Bob Rubin (who had left his position as SecTreas in Bill's first term to being on the board of Citibank in the late 1990s), Larry Summers, and most of the other "murderer's row" of advisors who Obama brought in to supposedly repair the consequences of the 1999 law change.
The gist of the 1999 Banking law was that it eliminated the Glass-Steagal division between commercial and investment banking, and made it possible for major financial corporations (such as Citibank) to become "too big to fail" via mergers and acquisitions of various kinds of financial operations (banks, brokerages, insurance companies), and at the same time sought to expand access to homeownership by mandating that the now "deregulated" banks also take on more higher-risk mortgage loans.
The sudden spike in the number of potential buyers, especially in certain larger metros with some history of "redlining" and artificial limits on the capability of developers to expand housing supply rapidly triggered a price spike which attracted a wave of speculation which compounded the price increases and created several local bubbles. In southern California, home prices were tripling every 4-5 years after a longer-term overall trend of about 7-10% annual price growth (meaning prices would usually slightly more than double over a decade).
The timing of that happening around the time that certain innovations in the structure of "Mortgage Backed" bonds, and the invention of various "Default Swap" derivative contracts was endorsed by multiple legitimate experts (including Alan Greenspan) as having "eliminated risk from mortgage lending" set off something of a perfect storm.
For those who can manage a purcase on a fixed-rate mortgage, ownership is ultimately a path to some level of prosperity, since it "locks in" one's housing cost (more or less) for the term of the loan, and after that all that needs to be covered is maintenance and property tax, compared to renters who will face periodic rent increases over time regardless of how good a deal they've got (not to mention, they're ultimately paying the taxes which their landlord gets a tax deduction for).
Strategically and reluctantly, eh?
"would likely make the problem of high housing costs worse."
Likely? Pretty sure the historical-data on that doesn't just describe 'likely'.
Is this like the government getting into healthcare, education, automotive, energy 'likely' to make the problem of higher costs worse for those olden days when a local doctor came to your house for the price of a pizza?
Importing several million low-income, impoverished illegal aliens sure tends to put low-income housing supply in a bind.
In addition, Biden proposed cracking down on the price fixing of big landlords
They really think voters are dumb as rocks.
Yeah, that’s why rent is so high: “Big Landlords”.
Democrats tend to live in an envious pit of self-induced despair that stems from their laziness and self-entitlement delusions.
A huge problem that is self-perpetuating since the more ‘armed-theft’ happens the more people don’t want to try and *earn* anything because it gets them nowhere.
A repeating lesson/stain of humanitarian history – ‘Guns’ don’t actually make sh*t and government is nothing but a monopoly of Gun-Force.
Or put another way. They are the 'planners' but do absolutely nothing types of people and since their 'plans' don't self-realize they have to enslave.
Well, voters have responded positively overall to the concept of "Big" consistently in the governments favor. Big pharma, big oil, big tobacco, big tech. They get the blame while big government, the biggest big of all the bigs, gets a free pass.
Big Government Schools teach a hatred of success and a paranoid fear of a free market. Not many beat that childhood indoctrination to realize it's all a Big Lie. Those who do are labeled conspiracy kooks by Big Media and marginalized. No matter that our predictions have a better track record than Big Green.
Once again proving that there is no problem so terrible that government intervention (supposedly to fix the problem) can't make it worse.
Or that the 'problem' isn't a result of earlier government 'problem solving'.
This is why I am an anarchist. I really don't see how things could be much worse if there was no government at all. We've yet to try it in a western nation with a history of property rights and self ownership. Why not give it a try?
You can find anarchy in Gangland Chicago. The D.C. gang still sometimes pretends to care what "democracy" says on who gets killed and ripped off. About the only difference.
The USA was actually founded on rules (Supreme Law - US Constitution) that didn't allow "democracy" to kill and steal by mob-vote but Democrats and their treasonous championing of "democracy" didn't think that was hip enough for the new age of criminal-gang governing.
And that is exactly why honoring the US Constitution is so important. Without it the nation is just which [WE] gang can out-gun the other. As-if the consequence just stated wasn't being realized in today's political environment.
The gun-em-down gangster governing democrats have used to take-down/conquer the USA with is an end in itself because 'guns' don't make sh*t.
No, Chicago is not anarchy. Do you even know what that word means?
Chicago is a very powerful government that chooses to be destructive. It's government disarming the law-abiding and letting criminals run free.
Chicago has a very powerful gang that chooses to be destructive.
Before which once upon a time a 'government' existed to ensure Liberty and Justice for all. Its rather a contradiction to call powerful-gangs government when they act just like another gang of the hood.
The problem in big urban areas isn't anarchy, they've got plenty of archy. They have more archy than they can afford. With all that archy they still have murder rates that are out of control. All that archy doesn't go after the dangerous gang banger, it goes after the law abiding citizen who dares to try and defend themselves and their property from the gang banger.
Without all that archy the law abiding citizens could be armed and the gang bangers would be outgunned.
Without having to pay for all that archy that protects the gang bangers they could afford some serious hardware, maybe even hire some real professionals to provide real security.
Without all that archy the drugs that the gang bangers sell at outrageous profits
to fund their reign of terror would be legal and be available to users from convinence stores next to the cigarettes and booze. Thus leaving the bangers so broke they couldn't afford the gasoline for their drive by shootings much less the ammo and the guns. They'd have to get real jobs because crime would stop paying so well.
"The president's laundry list of proposed tax credits would likely make the problem of high housing costs worse."
Making things worse is what politics is all about.
The 'Guns' are either used to ensure Liberty and Justice for all or they're being used by criminals to make things sh*tty for everyone.
"Heads up: Commenting privileges now require a subscription to Reason Plus. As a past commenter you have been granted commenting privileges on a temporary basis. To ensure your continued ability to comment and enjoy numerous additional benefits, subscribe to Reason Plus now. "
I look forward to reading the comments when only the right people are allowed to comment.
Maybe Reason should just become the shameful subsidiary of the New York Times?
If you care enough to comment maybe you should pony up the 25 bucks. You realize the cost of everything is going up, free lunches are the first luxuries to go. Reason has to pay people a living wage to keep the site working. You want to force them to work for free so you can comment for free? I thought you were opposed to socialism.