Crime Trump, 50 year mortgage?

[N13]

Inflation rate was about 3.2% a year ago, currently its about 3%. It is coming down but very slowly, and ts still well above the Fed's target of 2%. Not really a good time to cut rates significantly, unless there's a big change.

Yea Trump is leaning on them, but situations like this is why the Fed is supposed to be independent. I guess we'll see what happens

I can tell you right now.

Powell's term is up in May. Trump decides who replaces him.

Edit: it wasn't too long ago that inflation was over 9%. Things are much better now. 2.7%.

 

[avenue94]

How do you do that? Enlighten everyone on Sherdog how you're going to magically force companies to build homes.

Subsidize and/pr encourage construction of new homes, reduce arbitrary restrictions on supply, penalize inefficient use of housing supply (aka close property transfer loopholes or more heavily penalize 2nd or 3rd homes that sit empty), etc.

Not all is federal policy and policy isn't magic, but to pretend the federal government is powerless is absurd given that the government heavily subsidized home construction for boomers.

 

[Croaker]

Subsidies and tax breaks. Seems to work well for the oil industry, the farming industry, and Tesla.

Also put new taxes on landlords/corporations renting out single family homes, increase the tax for the more homes they rent, and give them tax breaks if they sell those homes.

This is a great way to accelerate the transfer of wealth and destroy the middle class. Investors and developers are already going to multi family facilities and moving away from single family homes. The wealth that has been generated will just go to more apartment complexes.

Subsidize and/pr encourage construction of new homes, reduce arbitrary restrictions on supply, penalize inefficient use of housing supply (aka close property transfer loopholes or more heavily penalize 2nd or 3rd homes that sit empty), etc.

Not all is federal policy and policy isn't magic, but to pretend the federal government is powerless is absurd given that the government heavily subsidized home construction for boomers.

I didn't pretend they are powerless, I just don't believe there are any real solutions. Only trade offs.

 

[avenue94]

I didn't pretend they are powerless, I just don't believe there are any real solutions. Only trade offs.

And what would the trade off be if housing supply improved by say, 25% or 50%?

 

[HARRISON_3]

It would cost the average home owner 2 decades of debt .

Welcome to Trump World , everything backwards since at least 1990 and going strong still he’s the luckiest president in the world where stupid people managed to grow in mass amounts over time .

 

[Croaker]

And what would the trade off be if housing supply improved by say, 25% or 50%?

That depends on how you accomplish it.

 

[SoSo]

Of topic I don't think I have ever seen this one at Stop & Shop a big East Coast Grocery chain said they don't have penny's due to a national shortage. I usually pay in dollars and cents but now forced to use my debt card in this case or take a hit.

Ummm. Like a potential 4 cent hit max every time you go there? Once a week let's say. If that grocery store is the cheapest in town by a penny when you throw your nickels down you're at least breaking even. Seems like a no brainer to me. But what do I know. But I get the losing 4 cents at a time bit. If you're paying in cash shopping there multiple times a day using it as a convenience store. That could get annoying. But I think you're making a large mountain out of a small mole hill here.

 

[avenue94]

That depends on how you accomplish it.

Let's say we eliminate lots of single family zoning restrictions and speed up permitting and environmental review.

 

[Croaker]

Let's say we eliminate lots of single family zoning restrictions and speed up permitting and environmental review.

You would get a lot of apartments built quickly. That wouldn't help the cost of new homes.

 

[avenue94]

You would get a lot of apartments built quickly. That wouldn't help the cost of new homes.

Why it not lead to condos, duplexes, or town homes being built? There is plainly demand for it.

And even if it led to only apartments being built, that still reduces demand for new homes. Are you arguing that the housing market is immune from supply and demand?

 

[Khaosan]

 

[Croaker]

Why it not lead to condos, duplexes, or town homes being built? There is plainly demand for it.

And even if it led to only apartments being built, that still reduces demand for new homes. Are you arguing that the housing market is immune from supply and demand?

The consumer for townhouses/condos is much smaller, that's committing to HOA's and shit. The problem with only building apartments is you're reducing homes being built resulting in higher costs for individuals looking to buy homes, and that also makes people more leery of procreating which is essential for society to function lmao

 

[avenue94]

The consumer for townhouses/condos is much smaller, that's committing to HOA's and shit. The problem with only building apartments is you're reducing homes being built resulting in higher costs for individuals looking to buy homes, and that also makes people more leery of procreating which is essential for society to function lmao

In your mind, if someone is seeking to own and they don't get a house, they'll turn their nose up at the other options and go back to renting?

Your logic doesn't make sense. Plenty of houses have HOAs and other expenses and you claim that condos are too small but somehow apartments aren't.

 

[Oblivian]

Not a Trump fan at all, but I do find it interesting some of the outrage that I see from some people on this. Let's not act like there have not been absolute horrible mortgage products out there backed by the government forever. I have a realtor friend who hates Trump that is flipping her shit about this 50 year mortgage and how much it would cost over 50 years, but scroll down a few posts and she's peddling seeing a lender who provides 0% down mortgages. They'll be paying a shitload of PMI and won't have equity for quite a long time. Furthermore, she's constantly advocating timing the market and buying/selling. So why are we pretending people stay in homes for 50 years?

I'm not saying it's a good product, but people acting as though this is outrageous have no idea what else is going on the lending industry. I can't tell you how many buyers we see bringing no money to closing and receiving their earnest $ back.

 

[MeatheadMike]

I can tell you right now.

Powell's term is up in May. Trump decides who replaces him.

Edit: it wasn't too long ago that inflation was over 9%. Things are much better now. 2.7%.

Powell will probably be replaced when his term is up, but that is only one of the 12 voting members of the Fed who decide on the rates

 

[MeatheadMike]

This is a great way to accelerate the transfer of wealth and destroy the middle class. Investors and developers are already going to multi family facilities and moving away from single family homes. The wealth that has been generated will just go to more apartment complexes.

The tax benefits/subsidies would only be available for builders who build the types of homes that the middle class needs, (single family ) Not really that hard to control. How is that plus taxing/penalizing the the landlords/corporations who have bought up all the properties and are renting them going to destroy the middle class?

What do you propose ?

 

[44nutman]

The so called Hero of the working class is actively trying to destroy them.
I have told every friend who has financed a big purchase the same thing. At the bar minimum round up your payment to the nearest $100 and apply the round up to the principal because the interest is a mother fucker.
I wonder how much crypto Big Lenders gave Old Pussy Neck to implement that dumb idea. Maybe they told Trump they would explain magnets to him for 20 more years of interest earnings on a house.

 

[Croaker]

In your mind, if someone is seeking to own and they don't get a house, they'll turn their nose up at the other options and go back to renting?

Your logic doesn't make sense. Plenty of houses have HOAs and other expenses and you claim that condos are too small but somehow apartments aren't.

Its not in my mind, its what the market data shows. It's like 1/10 are willing to settle for a townhouse.

The tax benefits/subsidies would only be available for builders who build the types of homes that the middle class needs, (single family ) Not really that hard to control. How is that plus taxing/penalizing the the landlords/corporations who have bought up all the properties and are renting them going to destroy the middle class?

What do you propose ?

Who do you think the builders are building for in new developments? Do you think they're building for single families? They aren't. They're building 5 different models 100x. I also don't know how taxing and penalizing landords and corporations. works. Like, getting that legislature through is going to be damn near impossible, but you're penalizing assets. Who the fuck is going to invest in something that gets penalized that hard in a short amount of time? Crater the fuckin market completely. 2008 would be childs play.

I think a good solution would be tax credits or write offs for buyers who own a home and have children. 20% per kid and the loan get reworked after each child is born. Loss of children (which will happen) incurs a half penalty of write off to encourage having more children. This encourages homes to be made, people to buy, having children, and maintain families.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Its not in my mind, its what the market data shows. It's like 1/10 are willing to settle for a townhouse.

Who do you think the builders are building for in new developments? Do you think they're building for single families? They aren't. They're building 5 different models 100x. I also don't know how taxing and penalizing landords and corporations. works. Like, getting that legislature through is going to be damn near impossible, but you're penalizing assets. Who the fuck is going to invest in something that gets penalized that hard in a short amount of time? Crater the fuckin market completely. 2008 would be childs play.

I mean that's my point, you only incentivize building the types homes that are in shortage like single family, not this other stuff. The reason the prices are so high is because there's not enough supply.

For taxing/penalizing, you would have to target properties that aren't being used as a primary residence, and/or target/cap profits on rentals. Also reduce taxes on sales. All this this would push them to sell these properties, and boost housing inventory without building new homes.

I think a good solution would be tax credits or write offs for buyers who own a home and have children. 20% per kid and the loan get reworked after each child is born. Loss of children (which will happen) incurs a half penalty of write off to encourage having more children. This encourages homes to be made, people to buy, having children, and maintain families.

The problem with this is its another demand based solution. There is already enough demand among people with children to buy homes, and the competition is fierce, so whatever money you give them is just going to drive up prices even more. The problem is supply, you need ways to get more homes (both new and existing) to be on the market for sale.

 

[eddymotto]

I hope that Klarna picks up on this idea.

People should have the option to pay off their DoorDash burrito delivery over 50 years (or at least 20)