Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

You're misreading this because your numbers are too small. There are already hundreds of thousands of potential investor buyers, because real estate investment is a global market. Adding a few thousand local competitors is like spitting into a lake - it won't make a measurable difference.

[McTraveller]

Ok to step back:  So we're in agreement that the first-time housing purchase grant is unlikely to reduce housing prices, as far as I can tell; is that correct?

I still posit it won't increase owner-occupancy either; I can't think of a mechanism by which that would happen, especially if there is a hundred-to-one ratio of "international investors" to local buyers.

[Truean]

Please do not quote

" I can't think of a mechanism by which that would happen, especially if there is a hundred-to-one ratio of "international investors" to local buyers."

Intelligent regulation functions when permitted. Mechanism: Regulatory created Right of First Refusal, taxes and accounting practice alteration proposals.

Possible Mechanism(s):
I.) Federal government regulation mandating right of first refusal (opportunity to buy before the large corporations and/or out of state buyers, etc.) to:

A.) Local individuals residing within a 100 mile radius local area.
B.) Individuals with a valid job offer/reassignment seeking housing with the local area, or individuals seeking an employment, or disabled /retired individuals 
C.) Individuals seeking medical treatment for themselves or family members.
D.) Individuals with family members nearby.
E.) Any current military personnel or veteran
F.) Any individual intending to occupy the property for a period of no less than 2 years (Also ties into tax code).

From there, perhaps limit to single family homes or create second tier of preference for local corporations (small landlords) with no housing violations or outstanding landlord tenant cases, that is possible. Individuals get first shot to buy; local corporations in good standing get second, then the rest.... In that order....

II.) Property taxes
SALT (State and Local Tax) deduction on federal taxes, which have been a hot button issue typically disfavored by conservatives and favored by liberals.
Mechanism present; modifications possible.

III.) Basis taxes
Provide a lowered credit amount  (better basis value for capital gains and lower for property taxes) both federally (capital gains later) and locally (property taxes) in the amount of any credit to individuals.

Create a legal right to sue for individuals who can prove they made an offer but were outbid by a larger non local potential buyer in violation of the right of refusal.
Attorneys fees awarded for the local buyer against the large investment firm if successful. This will give the large firms pause.

Demand (ability and willingness to pay) lowers, as out of state investors are unable (forbidden) to pay until individuals have a shot.
Thus, demand is shrunken, prices fall, and local owner occupied residency is increased, or so goes the goal.

Disagreement expected; proposal valid though perhaps nor your preference.

Please do not quote

[McTraveller]

Sure those mechanisms might work - but those are different policies, and they would probably work without the $25k first-time buyer credit grant.  It's the first-time buyer credit grant that I don't see working to increase ownership.

Maybe it was unclear that I was not talking about "I can't think of any way to increase owner-occupied" because I do think there are ways. I just think home-buyer credit grant is not a way to do it.

EDIT: clarified that this was for the proposal to just give buyers $25k cash; not a tax credit or something.

[Truean]

Please do not quote

Perhaps lack of clarity was mine. $25K first-time homebuyer credit fits into portions II and III. That is the referenced credit, amount of basis adjustment and property tax valuation lowering. The  $25K first-time homebuyer credit may be necessary but not complete and benefits from additional complimentary policies, perhaps as noted, to function as desired.

The lock may require more than one key; result may require more than one policy.

Please do not quote

[Frumple]

Can't say I trust polling much at all at the moment, but... jeez, that selzer poll. Harris +3 in friggin' Iowa, from a pollster that's been within 2-3% of accurate for the last like decade or so? In a state that was +4 trump a few months ago and broke his way closer to double digits than not the last times he was on a ballot there?

Polls are scuffed so I don't think it's actually going to end up like that, but you can bet there's some politicos melting right the hell down right now. We get news someone in the trump campaign had a heart attack or stroke today, it would not surprise me.

[Lord Shonus]

Elections are not independent by state - if Harris is this high in Iowa, it would all but guarantee she's sweeping the swing states and bringing Texas into contention. That's enough by itself to make me doubt it, but it is generally an accurate pollster.

[McTraveller]

I like this quote from that Iowa Poll article:

“To me, the biggest part of democracy is the ability to compromise,” he said. “And with Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, there is no compromise, even within their own party.”

[anewaname]

I love this little old granny... she gets it and she is still sharp on it.

Near the beginning of the interview this little old granny says:
The most dangerous animal in the world is man. Other animals will hurt you if they are hungry but man can turn into an animal in no time... in minutes. The instinct to kill is so strong in man, all he needs is permission from others, from the society. And as soon as he's given permission, he's the most dangerous animal.

And near the end of the interview this little old granny says:
It is subtly, and even not so subtly, changing as we watch it in this country... who is the enemy, who is to be hated, who is to be excluded. It's happening all the time. As soon as permission is given from higher ups, from government, it accelerates. Permission is very important, even a hint of permission... that it is okay, to attack this group or exclude that group or shame that group. Its happening, its never stopped.

She is Irene Weiss doing a 60 Minutes interview... She was a kid from what is now western Ukraine, who was put in the Nazi camps and lost 6+ family members and survived with her older sister only because the Russians cut off the route the transport truck would have used.

There is always a group of turds who need and want permission to hurt others and trump and his immediate followers are the sort who would give that permission. To people like Ivan Raiklin who literally says he is waiting to be deputized so he can begin "lawfully and peacefully" jailing the enemies on his enemies list.

[Strongpoint]

I find it extremely amusing that at the end of the election cycle the American segment of social networks goes SQUIRREL!!!!

[hector13]

Pointing to the safety glass in front of him, he says: "I have this piece of glass here, but all we have really over here is the fake news, right? And to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don't mind that so much."

"I don't mind," he says, to cheers in the crowd.

It was about threats against him that were spurred on by dangerous rhetoric from Democrats. In fact, President Trump was stating that the media was in danger, in that they were protecting him and, therefore, were in great danger themselves, and should have had a glass protective shield, also," communications director Steven Cheung says in a statement.

"There can be no other interpretation of what was said. He was actually looking out for their welfare, far more than his own!"

Cheung deserves a medal for his loyalty, and probably an Oscar for his ability to act.

Trump is such a dangerous person, goddamn.

[McTraveller]

What's really scary is that Trump by himself isn't really that scary. It's all the people he  enables and with which he surrounds himself that are the truly scary ones.  Like that quote above - he gives people permission to be evil without consequence.

EDIT: Holy smokes there are people that think it's somehow possible to create a voting system that ensures that every "legal" person can vote (zero false denials) and simultaneously ensure no "illegal" vote is cast (zero false allows).  These people think that evidence of an invalid vote means our voting system is "not secure", but their threshold for secure is basically impossible.  The forces that want to discredit faith in the elections have done so much damage...

[Starver]

It's a bit like the whole thing about the difference of insanity vs eccentricity entirely depending upon how rich the person is to start with.

The aura of influence[1] makes the kind of things said that normally might put 'gramps' in a home, or at least politely ignored at the dinner-table, into a whole "Yes Man"-propogated 'worthiness' and ultimately the cult-of-personality.

Biden just doesn't have the pitbull-like retinue of "interpreters and explainers", so his slips (non-trivial, but often obvious trips rather than full on tossing the word salad) went badly for him. Kamala has been leapt on for even her decidely more eloquent and self-consistent words when they were perceived as being wrong[2]. But then we have this guy with a bunkum-Barnum persona and whatever trickles out gets lapped up by his supporters and regurgitated in whatever 'wiser' way someone with an actual eye on the reputational ball could end up swinging it.


[1] I'm not convinced it's the wealth. In any final reckoning I imagine that a lot of credit terms might easily come home to roost. Those that it's in nobody's interests to keep on keeping quiet about.

[2] e.g. Had she been to the border? Well, no, but she hadn't been to Europe either. Given as criticism for being a non sequiter, but the clear implication intended was that "You don't have to stomp around ground zero of an issue to do something about it...", and a refreshing idea that making a big show of going somewhere for a photoshoot maybe isn't the best way to address location-based concerns. I mean, it's better to go somewhere than to (be thought to) almost go there, but it's also not necessarily the best idea to go and make a personal fuss, even if it's truly for all the best intentions. (And it can certainly backfire on you, if you do.)

[Robot Parade Leader]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rfk-jr-says-fluoride-industrial-224744489.html

This is stupid conspiracy theory crap and a distraction not a solution to anything.

A lot of people just believe whatever conspiracy theory they hear no matter how stupid.

Trump is such a dangerous person, goddamn.

Yeah. He's basically inciting people to violence again.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/atrocious-donald-trump-fiercely-condemned-112304868.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

And yeah,  Stephen Cheung and the crowd are just loving him saying that. Trump is basically anti free press and only likes it when the media acts as his personal PR firm to make him look good. There have never been consequences for Trump for anything he has ever done, not really and there may somehow never be. Technically isn't he currently a felon with that NY conviction? He seems to be able to get away with basically anything because he more or less got that much money from his dad. He's failed nearly every business venture he's had and bankrupted a casino, incited an insurrection on January 6th, etc. Through it all, he has about half the country loving him no matter how bad he fails and refusing to admit he even possibly could fail, when he absolutely did.

He could tell them to hold their toast in the air and butter the bottom side of it and they'd do it while praising him as being on their side. They'd buy a MAGA toast holder from him to do it. He's said soooo many stupid things and they just don't care and love him. He doesn't have to prove anything no matter how nuts. They make up BS reasons for him even. I've never seen anything like this.

[martinuzz]

If I were president, I would order the police to take extra measures to protect journalists. Like, shoot snipers if they are trying to shoot journalists, even if those snipers are Secret Service or fellow police.

Protecting journalists is one of the cornerstones of democracy.