Both the House and the Senate have passed an unemployment insurance bill, which includes an amendment that expands and extends the first-time home buyer’s tax credit. That bill will be sent to President Obama for his signature in the next day or so.
A number of differences exist between the current tax credit and the newly expanded tax credit. Rather than spell out these differences in this post, I’ll simply defer to a concise .pdf document, created by the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®, that compares the differences between the current tax credit and extended and expanded version. Click on the picture below to enlarge.
13 comments
I think the government needs to stop giving out money that we do not have…
welp, i have capital gains on my home sale here
is san jose—and thus will be over the income limit for the 6500 credit
so i’ll report that income in tax year 2009 and buy a replacement home after jan 1 and take the credit in that tax year
any holes in my thinking here?
What a shock! The NAR ought to have the most accurate version of the bill that passed, since the NAR wrote it.
Once again, the $25,000,000 a year that the NAR spends in DC lobbying pays off.
The NAR legions of six perecenters are once again provided for.
As if this was ever in doubt.
Did you all see where Fannie Mae has a new program where defaulting homedebtors who cannot qualify for a loan modification can transfer ownership to Fannie by a deed in lieu of foreclosure and then rent the house back from Fannie?
So now the government is going to become the biggest landlord in the country?
Just when it seems that the government has run out of options to prop up the market, it comes up with something new.
So when the furnace blows up at 3:00 am, do the former owners/ now tenants call Fannie?
Is Fannie going to send out the repair guy to fix it?
Do you all get the sense that this is starting to get a bit out of hand?
Or, Comrades, should we all give thanks for the way our government takes care of us?
I’d love to rent from the federal government. If they administer this program with the efficiency they do everything else, I could probably live in the house for two years without paying rent before they noticed. Then probably another year or so before they got around to doing anything about it like institute eviction proceedings. This may be a far better deal than living in the house and not paying the mortgage for a year before foreclosure is commenced by the bank.
Deed in lieu, deed in lieu…… Hmmm, where have heard that before? Oh yeah - the Montage screwing.
Only appropriate our government should pick up on this and want to get in on it.
RE: “I think the government needs to stop giving out money that we do not have.”
I thought tax cuts were good? This is a TAX CUT. Did I miss a memo? Are tax cuts bad now?
“Did you all see where Fannie Mae has a new program where defaulting homedebtors who cannot qualify for a loan modification can transfer ownership to Fannie by a deed in lieu of foreclosure and then rent the house back from Fannie?”
When they first talked about this a few months ago they were talking about not evicting people even if they could not pay the rent. Can you say redistribution of wealth?
Sounds like a great time to buy a home you can’t afford. Oh, they’re already doing it…
Hey Ralph, if the government tries to evict you from your government owned house, you could go get a government paid legal aid lawyer like Newell to keep you in the house.
The government has it covered.
Mello’s comment raises an interesting point. Federally owned or subsidized low income housing is governed by specific Federal Regulations that arguably would not apply to Fannie Mae REOs. Absent specific legislation/regulation regarding such properties, Fannie Mae would act as a private landlord under state law.
However, as Fannie Mae does not have the required infrastructure to manage residential rental properties, and as Fannie Mae would have to adhere to state landlord obligations in the sate in which such properties are located, I would suspect that Fannie Mae would contract management of such properties to local housing authorities, which already receive federal funding and have the knowledge and resources to manage residential properties. If the housing authorities were to manage Fannie Mae owned properties, I would not expect the housing authorities to ignore non-payment of rent as they have plenty of experience with such issues in their own properties and in HUD owned properties they manage. And while conventional wisdom is that it is very difficult to evict tenants from federally owned or subsidized low income properties, and there is some truth to this view when it comes to tenant behavioral issues, non-payment of the tenant’s rent or share of the rent (if rent is required) usually results in an eviction as quickly as federal regulations and state law allow. From experience working with Nevada housing authorities, I would expect to see quick action against non-payment of rent if they were managing the properties.
“When they first talked about this a few months ago they were talking about not evicting people even if they could not pay the rent. Can you say redistribution of wealth?”
Can you offer a better alternative?
Less complaining, more ideas, please.