Push on to expand $8,000 tax credit

[Kevin M. Leonard]

Some want to expand the tax credit for homebuyers. Supporters say it could stem price declines. Critics say it would just be a costly, temporary fix.

[Joshua L. Frederick]

They did for the military........
http://activerain.com/blogsview/1283...-one-more-year

[Tom Shelters]

I would rather see an extension to the $8,000 tax credit than AIGs 1.75 billion bonuses.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by tshelters

I would rather see an extension to the $8,000 tax credit than AIGs 1.75 billion bonuses.

Do the math Tom.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Although I believe an extension would be beneficial to our profession I would rather the government not artificially stimulate a market that has collapsed from a bubble, which would only send false signals of recovery where there is none.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Although I believe an extension would be beneficial to our profession I would rather the government not artificially stimulate a market that has collapsed from a bubble, which would only send false signals of recovery where there is none.

I agree.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Although I believe an extension would be beneficial to our profession I would rather the government not artificially stimulate a market that has collapsed from a bubble, which would only send false signals of recovery where there is none.

Ditto.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Ditto.

ditto? Are you a Rushy

I thought you believed in signs of a recovery and now you agree with joe when he states there is none.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by mlarson

ditto? Are you a Rushy

I thought you believed in signs of a recovery and now you agree with joe when he states there is none.

You're usually a pretty good reader, Mike. Read Joe's post again. It's about the 8K producing a false recovery in the Real Estate market.

You can't be claiming the RE market is the only economic indicator.

Perhaps you need another cup of coffee.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rmaday

You're usually a pretty good reader, Mike. Read Joe's post again. It's about the 8K producing a false recovery in the Real Estate market.

You can't be claiming the RE market is the only economic indicator.

Perhaps you need another cup of coffee.

On my second

This administration has been desperately trying to prop up the real estate market to apparently little positive effect because they considered it key to economic recovery.

Unemployment is still growing.

More people are loosing their homes.

Retail sales are tanking.

Shipping activity is way down.

And our leaders are busy trashing the dollar.

Who will buy our debt when we have interest rates at zero and the dollar is devalued?

We are deflating in some asset classes and inflating in others.

What a mess it is and it will cost us dearly.

Please list some more positive indicators.

You must have more than you have listed so far.

[rmaday]

Finish that cup - you're confusing threads. I listed two indicators on the other one.

The $8K, after the numbers are crunched, I read, was more like $43K (or so) per home that was actually "stimulated" - that is, the number of people who would not have bought a house without the stimulus.

Some, who will take the credit, would have bought a house anyway.

It needs to go.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rmaday

The $8K, after the numbers are crunched, I read, was more like $43K (or so) per home that was actually "stimulated" - that is, the number of people who would not have bought a house without the stimulus

I cannot make any sense out this statement.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I cannot make any sense out this statement.

I need to find the link. FOUND IT - it's mentioned at the bottom.

Basically the premise is that many would have bought a house anyway, without the $8K.

If you take those out and divide the total spent by those who were actually "stimulated" to buy a home, it comes out to $40 something thousand.

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by rmaday

I need to find the link. FOUND IT - it's mentioned at the bottom.

Basically the premise is that many would have bought a house anyway, without the $8K.

If you take those out and divide the total spent by those who were actually "stimulated" to buy a home, it comes out to $40 something thousand.

Cut back on the coffee , both of you.
Green tea is much more relaxing and also happens to be the color of money (for the record)

My biggest fear is that once the credit runs out(just got a email from NAHB that it may to late to start applying already) that we may all forget what color it is as the cash for clunkers program comes to mind and how sales dropped off the table.

Many of my clients are first time home buyers and I have real concern as to what will happen the first quarter of next year.

[rmaday]

Fact is, it can't go on forever and has to end sometime.

It is skewing the reality of the market - much like cash for clunkers.

People will continue to buy houses without the 8K.

Prices may drop some more and sales may slow, but, IMO the market will take care of itself over time. It is not a long term solution.

It would be like giving everyone $1 a week to use at McDonalds for a year. People would still eat hamburgers when it was over, much like they would have without the $1.

Did anyone notice car prices before, during and after CFC?