- Thread starter
- #21
- 4,183
I wouldn't hold my breath on tax regulation changing significantly... regardless of who (Harris) wins...
No one wants to talk about the debate?
- Thread starter Travis Price
- Start date
I sure hope she wins - I hear my grass will get greener.
Kamala will strengthen the economy because - her plan - you have to understand, she grew up on a street where - she was raised by her mom, of course, and they valued how the lawn looked.
I'm with her!
Having issues with it lately. I think it may be because our soil content is too sandy.
I miss the grass in Ohio. It was amazing - we treated the lawn and in 1 year from when we moved it it went from mediocre to awesome.
Here along the coast, it just isn't nearly as nice. Some of my neighbors have Bermuda - it's really nice in the summer but I despise how brown it it during the winter and how long it takes to "get green."
I've considered killing the lawn and transitioning to Zoysia... might need to see what she thinks of it.
Discuss:
Harris wants to give:
But - I see some issues.
Part of the "housing crisis" that led to '08/09 was, essentially, people getting into homes they couldn't afford. Loans were "too easy" to get - savings and stable jobs weren't as high on the priority list at the time - resulting in foreclosures.
A lot of regulation came in making underwriting pretty strict. Down payments for 1st time homebuyers is still low (most don't have to do 25% down) - but they still need to meet some strict criteria.
My question - is it a step backward?
I'm thinking - probably not.
Harris wants to give:
- $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers
But - I see some issues.
Part of the "housing crisis" that led to '08/09 was, essentially, people getting into homes they couldn't afford. Loans were "too easy" to get - savings and stable jobs weren't as high on the priority list at the time - resulting in foreclosures.
A lot of regulation came in making underwriting pretty strict. Down payments for 1st time homebuyers is still low (most don't have to do 25% down) - but they still need to meet some strict criteria.
My question - is it a step backward?
- Say it starts in 2028 - will we see an uptick in foreclosures by 2036?
Also: - More money "printed" - will it increase inflation?
I'm thinking - probably not.
while golfing 1/4 of his time.
- 5,437
Generally speaking, in a free market system, if prices are too high and people cannot afford the product, then they won't, and prices will eventually come down to meet what people can afford.
What Harris is proposing is interfering with the free market process of making homes affordable, and she is ultimately subsidizing existing owners, and banks, and a lesser extent the real estate in industry with handouts from people like you and me who have been paying taxes for years. Conceptually very similar to the college debt forgiveness scheme.
I see a lot of young people have plenty of money for online streaming services, sneakers, eating out, soda, and doordash. They seem to be plenty able to find money to spend on the things that they deem important. When I was young I could barely afford food and rent for years, so I didn't even start driving until I was well into my twenties while working multiple jobs and taking night classes.
Your body your choice. Fine. Your debt your responsibility.
Love it. 100% agree when you take a step back.
- Thread starter
- #27
- 4,183
I would challenge this thinking, personally.
The underwriting requirements are still the same. The banks job is still to manage risk. A 25k downpayment could reasonably reduce the barrier in terms of debt to income ratio for people, eliminate PMI, reduce interest rates, and build in equity for new homebuyers who participate.
Furthmore, it can allow buyers to have sellers contribute more to closing costs. If you put 10% down, you can ask sellers to contribute up to 6% of closing, 25% can contribute up to 9%.
Less down reduces to 3% in closing assistance from sellers.
Also, this is a policy, it's not a law. Congress would still have to approve it.
It doesn't encourage taking more house than you can afford. It encourages a reduction in admin and interest costs for risk...
Robo, no-income, no sign subprime loans where banks just handed as much money as they could to as many people as they could (because they could package and sell CBO's with shit in them for big profits) was the issue with the GFC.
It similar to the commercial real estate issue here, which will play out... and China's RE issue, which is already in crisis and could blow up global trade.
However, the repeal of parts of Dodd-Frank under R's and Trump; along with deregulation of reserve and stress test requirements for banks, will inevitably cause systemic issues.
The Fed really ***ed banks when they jacked up interest rates, immediately after signaling they wouldnt.
Most banks are insolvent on paper now... because they have bonds that are underwater and they cant offload without huge discounts.
So, when their are inevitable stresses, globally, happen.. more banks will collapse... which causes equities to crash, which causes unemployment to increase.
If you have long term savings, my OPINION is to get it out of cash, banks, and equities. Metals, bitcoin, and other scarce assets that you can custody yourself would be my suggestion.
However, a fixed rate mortgage (when rate cuts bring us down to near zero to refi government debts) is probably the safest place you can be in the US.
'26 is going to be wild af, no matter who becomes President. They'll get blamed for things that are outside of the US's control... because the global crisis has been brewing since 2021, due to 2020 behaviors both inside and outside of the US
- Thread starter
- #28
- 4,183
PS: I'm sorry for the wall of texts... I'm having a pretty intense ADHD day and I'm trying to make sure I'm clear in what I'm trying to say, so I can make my point... Regardless of if people agree or not... It's just making sure I'm explaining where I'm coming from..
Which is wordy, unfortunately.. but that's me anyway.
I fundamentally disagree with Mark. Not about debt being your responsibility, if it was just that simple.
Unfortunately, like most things, there's an incredible amount of fundamental nuance to the situation that supports an environment where predatory actors are taking advantage of unsophisticated and vulnerable borrowers.
It's like the Reverse Mortgage scam and elderly people. Can you say reasonably that those products aren't marketed to people in a way where what they're sold isn't what they got?
Imo, I would say no, and we need to take consideration for that...
Because guess what, people that can pay will always be on the hook for people that can't pay. Either directly, or in increased costs when a crisis inevitable occurs.
College debt is legit an issue because they're sometimes government subsidized loans AND they're a systemic, cascading risk. The government is on the hook for defaults. Can they go after you even in bankruptcy, sure?
Will their be tremendous losses that EVERYONE will pay for regardless, and probably more than just closing the debt? Absolutely.
Forgiving collgege debt isn't because it's some liberal handout to people, for me. It's a purely selfish idea that the cure to mitigate losses and revamp the system is less costly, and economically effiencent that the 100% will happen outcome to the economy when those loans eventually default... because there's no real way for borrowers to resolve them in the coming crisis.
They're serfdom 3.0
Imo, I would rather take less loss, the political win, and a recoverable economy issue than the cascading global debt crises that will kill and injure 10's to 100's of millions of people, regardless of political leanings. Mostly lower and middle class.. who already get ***ed in our economic system by debasement.
But, ya know.. we just want to cancel Billy's student loans because it wins elections... but ymmv...
I would love to hear an argument against what I'm saying on the macro level, an not on the micro level of "people should just pay what they owe."
And I mean that in good faith. I'd love to understand the counterpoint on a large scale.
Last edited:
- 5,437
Actually, you know what, Travis changed my mind. Most of my wealth is tied up in real estate. If the government wants to subsidize real estate, great. More money for me.
It would be a lot simpler for the government to just give me the money directly, but if they give it to first time home buyers to then give to me, then great, that's fine too.
It would be a lot simpler for the government to just give me the money directly, but if they give it to first time home buyers to then give to me, then great, that's fine too.
- Thread starter
- #30
- 4,183
Simply, but not helpful... except to you.. but that's okay.. you take risk, you get rewarded.
