We are spending $400,000 to build a $150,000 house and charge the owner $50,000 (numbers are just an example). That is in addition to any normal tax breaks they would receive on interest payments.
People who don't benefit from the itemized deductions for mortgage insurance and real property taxes are subsidizing the housing of those who do benefit from those deductions.
Calling that method of subsidizing housing a "tax break" doesn't change what it is - subsidized housing.
Check Out My Blog
You really don't have a clue about financial matters do you?
Where do you think "the goberment" gets the funds it uses to subsidize housing? From non-taxpayers?
BTW - you and i are the "government" - and as long as you keep thinking you are not, you'll be ruled by those of us who know we are.
Definition of affordable housing should simply be what YOU can afford. [It used to be between 25-30% of NET income by the banks when we got a mortgage and you used to have to have a stable job and no outstanding debt; that was 40 years ago]. Now, very simply, although we surely can afford a much larger and expensive home, we are still living in the less than 900 sq. ft. home we bought in the early 1970s. At that time, it was outrageously priced (under $24K) and was more than 2.5X the household income. It was paid off and we have no mortgage. Taxes and utilities are low. It doesn't cost 30% of what we have in income to live each month. That is affordable.
OTOH, when I see people moving into rather expensive brand new homes and apts using "low income" vouchers and section 8, I do get a bit peeved. We worked for this place. We paid it off. We don't qualify for the "subsidized" -- nor ever will -- simply as we spent our entire life saving all we could. Time for "affordable" to go back to the criteria that was around when we bought this place: a job, no outstanding debt, 25% of net monthly income for a mortgage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)