darthtang aw
Active Member
Is this a good program or a bad one?
First time home buyers credit.
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
lovethesea
Active Member
dumb question on my part......is it taxable in the next year??? (cash for clunkers comes to mind)
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3168190
Yes.
Can you elaborate?
To LTS: I am not sure, but I do not believe so.
http:///forum/post/3168190
Yes.
Can you elaborate?
To LTS: I am not sure, but I do not believe so.
reefraff
Active Member
I think it is one of the dumbest programs the Government has come up with in quite some time. I am really sick and tired of having debt heaped on me so someone else can have a little free money. What kind of money? Obama money. Where did he get it? I don't know, his sta-ash I guess.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3168244
I think it is one of the dumbest programs the Government has come up with in quite some time. I am really sick and tired of having debt heaped on me so someone else can have a little free money. What kind of money? Obama money. Where did he get it? I don't know, his sta-ash I guess.
This is what I was looking for....Did you realize THAT portion of the bill was penned by a republican. That idea was a republican's....not Obama's.
http:///forum/post/3168244
I think it is one of the dumbest programs the Government has come up with in quite some time. I am really sick and tired of having debt heaped on me so someone else can have a little free money. What kind of money? Obama money. Where did he get it? I don't know, his sta-ash I guess.
This is what I was looking for....Did you realize THAT portion of the bill was penned by a republican. That idea was a republican's....not Obama's.
ironeagle2006
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3168247
This is what I was looking for....Did you realize THAT portion of the bill was penned by a republican. That idea was a republican's....not Obama's.
The original plan was up to 7500 bucks that had to be REPAID OVER IIRC 10 years at an even % of what you got each year after 2 years free. However in 2008 as part of the DUMMYCRAPS Stimulas plan it was raised to 8000 and NO REPAYMENT EVER. So which Party was making sure the Goverment got its money back The Republicans or the Dummycraps.
http:///forum/post/3168247
This is what I was looking for....Did you realize THAT portion of the bill was penned by a republican. That idea was a republican's....not Obama's.
The original plan was up to 7500 bucks that had to be REPAID OVER IIRC 10 years at an even % of what you got each year after 2 years free. However in 2008 as part of the DUMMYCRAPS Stimulas plan it was raised to 8000 and NO REPAYMENT EVER. So which Party was making sure the Goverment got its money back The Republicans or the Dummycraps.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3168247
This is what I was looking for....Did you realize THAT portion of the bill was penned by a republican. That idea was a republican's....not Obama's.
The Bush era was proof enough that Republican doesn't mean conservative any more.
Here's the rub. What is going on right now is people are using the tax credit to fabricate a down payment. They are given an interest free loan with a balloon payment due next year, when they get the tax credit payment from the Govt.
Isn't the whole reason we have this problem people defaulting on loans they technically couldn't qualify for
http:///forum/post/3168247
This is what I was looking for....Did you realize THAT portion of the bill was penned by a republican. That idea was a republican's....not Obama's.
The Bush era was proof enough that Republican doesn't mean conservative any more.
Here's the rub. What is going on right now is people are using the tax credit to fabricate a down payment. They are given an interest free loan with a balloon payment due next year, when they get the tax credit payment from the Govt.
Isn't the whole reason we have this problem people defaulting on loans they technically couldn't qualify for
This is basically a tax credit off an individual's income taxes. So, if a person owed $3000 in taxes, then they would not have to pay any taxes and would be getting $3000 of their income back which was taken in taxes.
Since conservatives tend to support less taxation, then they should be happy with this tax credit. Whoever qualifies will be paying much less in taxes, and maybe no taxes at all.
Since conservatives tend to support less taxation, then they should be happy with this tax credit. Whoever qualifies will be paying much less in taxes, and maybe no taxes at all.
reefraff
Active Member
Creating yet another government program is not really a conservative principle. This is another case of income redistribution which is a hallmark of liberalism. Somebody has to pay the 8 grand these people are given by the government.
In the perfect conservative model tax cuts aren't the goal, they are the result.
In the perfect conservative model tax cuts aren't the goal, they are the result.
crypt keeper
Active Member
I bought a house. I'm getting my credit. I love every second of it.
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3168302
Creating yet another government program is not really a conservative principle. This is another case of income redistribution which is a hallmark of liberalism. Somebody has to pay the 8 grand these people are given by the government.
In the perfect conservative model tax cuts aren't the goal, they are the result.
The person who will pay the 8 grand, is the person who bought the house, and paid 8 grand in taxes. Its their 8 grand--they're just getting it back because they bought a house.
http:///forum/post/3168302
Creating yet another government program is not really a conservative principle. This is another case of income redistribution which is a hallmark of liberalism. Somebody has to pay the 8 grand these people are given by the government.
In the perfect conservative model tax cuts aren't the goal, they are the result.
The person who will pay the 8 grand, is the person who bought the house, and paid 8 grand in taxes. Its their 8 grand--they're just getting it back because they bought a house.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/3168280
This is basically a tax credit off an individual's income taxes. So, if a person owed $3000 in taxes, then they would not have to pay any taxes and would be getting $3000 of their income back which was taken in taxes.
Since conservatives tend to support less taxation, then they should be happy with this tax credit. Whoever qualifies will be paying much less in taxes, and maybe no taxes at all.
See this is a distinction that NEEDS to be made. A subsidy IS NOT A TAX BREAK. That is what they are doing subsidizing first time home buyers. If it was a tax break. You would not be getting more than you paid in...
http:///forum/post/3168280
This is basically a tax credit off an individual's income taxes. So, if a person owed $3000 in taxes, then they would not have to pay any taxes and would be getting $3000 of their income back which was taken in taxes.
Since conservatives tend to support less taxation, then they should be happy with this tax credit. Whoever qualifies will be paying much less in taxes, and maybe no taxes at all.
See this is a distinction that NEEDS to be made. A subsidy IS NOT A TAX BREAK. That is what they are doing subsidizing first time home buyers. If it was a tax break. You would not be getting more than you paid in...
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3168879
See this is a distinction that NEEDS to be made. A subsidy IS NOT A TAX BREAK. That is what they are doing subsidizing first time home buyers. If it was a tax break. You would not be getting more than you paid in...
Are you getting more than you paid? My understanding is, you can qualify for up to 8k, but if your tax was only 5k, then you are going to get 5k credit.
http:///forum/post/3168879
See this is a distinction that NEEDS to be made. A subsidy IS NOT A TAX BREAK. That is what they are doing subsidizing first time home buyers. If it was a tax break. You would not be getting more than you paid in...
Are you getting more than you paid? My understanding is, you can qualify for up to 8k, but if your tax was only 5k, then you are going to get 5k credit.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3168879
See this is a distinction that NEEDS to be made. A subsidy IS NOT A TAX BREAK. That is what they are doing subsidizing first time home buyers. If it was a tax break. You would not be getting more than you paid in...
I don't follow the logic here. Even if it wasn't a refundable credit you still have someone paying 8 grand less than their fair share of taxes.
http:///forum/post/3168879
See this is a distinction that NEEDS to be made. A subsidy IS NOT A TAX BREAK. That is what they are doing subsidizing first time home buyers. If it was a tax break. You would not be getting more than you paid in...
I don't follow the logic here. Even if it wasn't a refundable credit you still have someone paying 8 grand less than their fair share of taxes.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/3168880
Are you getting more than you paid? My understanding is, you can qualify for up to 8k, but if your tax was only 5k, then you are going to get 5k credit.
If is what is called a refundable tax credit. That means if your tax is less than the amount of credit you qualify for the difference is refunded to you. The earned income tax credit works that same way.
http:///forum/post/3168880
Are you getting more than you paid? My understanding is, you can qualify for up to 8k, but if your tax was only 5k, then you are going to get 5k credit.
If is what is called a refundable tax credit. That means if your tax is less than the amount of credit you qualify for the difference is refunded to you. The earned income tax credit works that same way.
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3168888
If is what is called a refundable tax credit. That means if your tax is less than the amount of credit you qualify for the difference is refunded to you. The earned income tax credit works that same way.
I wasn't aware of this aspect. hmm.
Our tax code is full of all kinds of tax deductions--medical, day care, disaster, thief, etc., etc. This is just another that is supposed to stimulate the housing market. If this one isn't fair, then why is it fair to get deductions for children? For being married? For being disabled? For being single with under age children? For having day care expenses? On and on and on....?
http:///forum/post/3168888
If is what is called a refundable tax credit. That means if your tax is less than the amount of credit you qualify for the difference is refunded to you. The earned income tax credit works that same way.
I wasn't aware of this aspect. hmm.
Our tax code is full of all kinds of tax deductions--medical, day care, disaster, thief, etc., etc. This is just another that is supposed to stimulate the housing market. If this one isn't fair, then why is it fair to get deductions for children? For being married? For being disabled? For being single with under age children? For having day care expenses? On and on and on....?
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/3168894
I wasn't aware of this aspect. hmm.
Our tax code is full of all kinds of tax deductions--medical, day care, disaster, thief, etc., etc. This is just another that is supposed to stimulate the housing market. If this one isn't fair, then why is it fair to get deductions for children? For being married? For being disabled? For being single with under age children? For having day care expenses? On and on and on....?
I am disabled and I don't get any tax breaks for it. 90% of what they gave for deductions is BS. Why should someone with 3 kids who use schools, parks, libraries etc. pay less taxes than someone who doesn't have kids and thus doesn't use those services or uses them a fraction of what the family does?
What makes me so crazy about this one is they are encouraging the very thing that causes this whole mess in the first place, people who aren't financially able to qualify for a loan are using the credit as their down payment.
And for the record, I have a house on the market right now. The credit renewal will help us sell it sooner. I still say it sucks/
http:///forum/post/3168894
I wasn't aware of this aspect. hmm.
Our tax code is full of all kinds of tax deductions--medical, day care, disaster, thief, etc., etc. This is just another that is supposed to stimulate the housing market. If this one isn't fair, then why is it fair to get deductions for children? For being married? For being disabled? For being single with under age children? For having day care expenses? On and on and on....?
I am disabled and I don't get any tax breaks for it. 90% of what they gave for deductions is BS. Why should someone with 3 kids who use schools, parks, libraries etc. pay less taxes than someone who doesn't have kids and thus doesn't use those services or uses them a fraction of what the family does?
What makes me so crazy about this one is they are encouraging the very thing that causes this whole mess in the first place, people who aren't financially able to qualify for a loan are using the credit as their down payment.
And for the record, I have a house on the market right now. The credit renewal will help us sell it sooner. I still say it sucks/
sickboy
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3168906
What makes me so crazy about this one is they are encouraging the very thing that causes this whole mess in the first place, people who aren't financially able to qualify for a loan are using the credit as their down payment.
In some ways I can see this, but they still need to get the $8K loaned to them first. This could mean the difference between a traditional 80/20 30 year fixed and an FHA or over leveraged variable loan.
For other people, it gets them off the fence. My wife and I were basically making the equivalent of a house payment for our apartment's rent, so it got us into the market faster. Thank goodness owning farm land doesn't disqualify you for a homebuyer credit
http:///forum/post/3168906
What makes me so crazy about this one is they are encouraging the very thing that causes this whole mess in the first place, people who aren't financially able to qualify for a loan are using the credit as their down payment.
In some ways I can see this, but they still need to get the $8K loaned to them first. This could mean the difference between a traditional 80/20 30 year fixed and an FHA or over leveraged variable loan.
For other people, it gets them off the fence. My wife and I were basically making the equivalent of a house payment for our apartment's rent, so it got us into the market faster. Thank goodness owning farm land doesn't disqualify you for a homebuyer credit
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3168219
Can you elaborate?
Yes.
The short answer is it's good for the economy that people spend money now.
The problem w/ a consumer based economy that I rarely hear being addressed (and Capitalist, Socialist, Communist and Fascist are all consumer based) is that w/ a relatively stable population, it becomes increasingly difficult to sell more products that existing consumers already have. At some point, market saturation gets reached. This is true regardless of market sector. (For example, if the population isn't growing, Safeway can only sell so much food. If they can't sell more, they become a bad investment, which leads to investor flight, which leads to segment stagnation or regression, which affects other market sectors as people lose their jobs...)
Stimulating the economy is a temporary fix whether accomplished by tax break or incentive. Eventually the chickens come home to roost. Not only because the money has to be paid back, but also (and in no small part) because Government does not adjust its spending to account for the revenue losses they themselves legislate.
The question therefore becomes one, not of economic stimulus, but of sustaining growth in a situation where it's almost impossible to do so. Of the primary consumer economies, Europe, the US and Japan, ours is the only one w/ a positive birth rate, and barely so at that.
In the short term, the stimulus/break has potential to work. When people spend money other people remain employed. The other short term solution is to encourage immigration (legal or not is immaterial) because more people means more consumers.
In the medium term, the gov't would be better off creating stimuli to have children than stimulating current consumers to buy crap we don't need. 'Course eventually, the planet being finite, that will run its course.
In the long term, they'd be better off employing people to build the infrastructure of 3rd world countries in order to expand the existing consumer base there. That will also eventually fail. As those consumers get richer, (meaning their 1st world employers are paying them more) the cost of products to our own citizens also increases and in the end, the market still reaches saturation.
The economy is analogous to an aquarium. While you're building it, you can spend a ton of money 'cuz it's empty. Once it's full though, you can only maintain it. It cannot be further built.
http:///forum/post/3168219
Can you elaborate?
Yes.
The short answer is it's good for the economy that people spend money now.
The problem w/ a consumer based economy that I rarely hear being addressed (and Capitalist, Socialist, Communist and Fascist are all consumer based) is that w/ a relatively stable population, it becomes increasingly difficult to sell more products that existing consumers already have. At some point, market saturation gets reached. This is true regardless of market sector. (For example, if the population isn't growing, Safeway can only sell so much food. If they can't sell more, they become a bad investment, which leads to investor flight, which leads to segment stagnation or regression, which affects other market sectors as people lose their jobs...)
Stimulating the economy is a temporary fix whether accomplished by tax break or incentive. Eventually the chickens come home to roost. Not only because the money has to be paid back, but also (and in no small part) because Government does not adjust its spending to account for the revenue losses they themselves legislate.
The question therefore becomes one, not of economic stimulus, but of sustaining growth in a situation where it's almost impossible to do so. Of the primary consumer economies, Europe, the US and Japan, ours is the only one w/ a positive birth rate, and barely so at that.
In the short term, the stimulus/break has potential to work. When people spend money other people remain employed. The other short term solution is to encourage immigration (legal or not is immaterial) because more people means more consumers.
In the medium term, the gov't would be better off creating stimuli to have children than stimulating current consumers to buy crap we don't need. 'Course eventually, the planet being finite, that will run its course.
In the long term, they'd be better off employing people to build the infrastructure of 3rd world countries in order to expand the existing consumer base there. That will also eventually fail. As those consumers get richer, (meaning their 1st world employers are paying them more) the cost of products to our own citizens also increases and in the end, the market still reaches saturation.
The economy is analogous to an aquarium. While you're building it, you can spend a ton of money 'cuz it's empty. Once it's full though, you can only maintain it. It cannot be further built.