No More PBS?

You have a right to believe that rural communities don't suffer and I have a right to ask not be called an ignorant hillbilly libtard real America New Yorker.

I think everyone suffers, rural, suburban, and urban. And I don't believe in calling anyone names.

My point was simply that the attacks go both ways, so I don't like when one side, in this case rural Americans, plays the victim. Because as a group, they give as good as they get, per the examples in my last post. I'm not speaking of you personally, or necessarily this board. But the narrative after the election was that rural America, red states, or what have you were sick of being talked down to by the coastal elites. My point is that they disparage us as much as we disparage them.



Gilgul said:

All economic analysis shows that there is no inherent benefit to promoting home ownership as opposed to rental. Other than home ownership with a mortgage being a form of forced savings, there is no economic benefit to owning a home over renting. The whole "if I rent I am throwing away money" argument is bunk. If you own a home you are throwing away tons of money in the form of interest, property, taxes, maintenance, etc. Nor is their any evidence to show that ownership communities are inherently more stable, secure or desirable compared to rental communities.

Please show me some analysis



lord_pabulum said:



Gilgul said:

All economic analysis shows that there is no inherent benefit to promoting home ownership as opposed to rental. Other than home ownership with a mortgage being a form of forced savings, there is no economic benefit to owning a home over renting. The whole "if I rent I am throwing away money" argument is bunk. If you own a home you are throwing away tons of money in the form of interest, property, taxes, maintenance, etc. Nor is their any evidence to show that ownership communities are inherently more stable, secure or desirable compared to rental communities.

Please show me some analysis

Google this "economic impact of mortgage interest deduction" and read to your heart's content.


https://www.k-state.edu/economics/staff/websites/turner/mortgageinterestdeduction.pdf


"

Abstract
This paper examines the impact of the combined U.S. state and federal mortgage interest deduction (MID) on homeownership attainment, using data from 1984 to 2007 and exploiting variation in the subsidy arising from changes in the MID within and across states over time. We test whether capitalization of the MID into house prices offsets the positive effect on homeownership. We find that the MID boosts homeownership attainment only of higher income households in less tightly regulated housing markets. In more restrictive places an adverse effect exists. The MID is an ineffective policy to promote homeownership and improve social welfare.

"


that doesn't really mean that the idea of a deduction is wrong. It's just the current implementation that might be bad. And it's wrong the way most tax p0olicy is wrong - it favors the wealthy.

So fix it, don't toss it. The middle class doesn't get much in the way of favors.


These are pre crash. But the fact that a crash happened so soon after this article shows even more the peril of home ownership. Yes any investment, if bought when prices are low can outperform other investments. And a home purchase is just about the most leveraged investment you can make. But leverage is risk and the higher the risk the higher the expected return. Because leveraged risk can quickly go against you.

http://www.economist.com/node/3715895

http://www.economist.com/node/3722894


Thanks tjohn and Gilgul. I'm not convinced whether their is an overall inherent benefit or not. Personally, if I had bought instead of rented where I lived previously I would have made a nice profit, but that's another kettle of fish...


People still have the buy versus rent choice. What we are saying is that home ownership shouldn't be a government policy objective.

lord_pabulum said:

Thanks tjohn and Gilgul. I'm not convinced whether their is an overall inherent benefit or not. Personally, if I had bought instead of rented where I lived previously I would have made a nice profit, but that's another kettle of fish...




lord_pabulum said:

Thanks tjohn and Gilgul. I'm not convinced whether their is an overall inherent benefit or not. Personally, if I had bought instead of rented where I lived previously I would have made a nice profit, but that's another kettle of fish...

Like any investment timing is key.



lord_pabulum said:

Maybe 'low (or no) income housing is a better term(s)

ETA: I notice the point of my previous post was lost on you

It wasn't lost. I was just responding to what I thought was an odd term. What's wrong with low or moderate-income housing? Remember the Maoral Candidiae whose entir platform was "The rents too high".

And why are so mqny MOL posters getting so testy lately?



RealityForAll said:

Duly noted.
tjohn said:

22 March, 2017, 1056 hrs. Tjohn is in agreement with Gilgul.
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:

All economic analysis shows that there is no inherent benefit to promoting home ownership as opposed to rental. Other than home ownership with a mortgage being a form of forced savings, there is no economic benefit to owning a home over renting. The whole "if I rent I am throwing away money" argument is bunk. If you own a home you are throwing away tons of money in the form of interest, property, taxes, maintenance, etc. Nor is their any evidence to show that ownership communities are inherently more stable, secure or desirable compared to rental communities.

And it seems that DB agrees with RFA.

I think all of you are right.


DB and I have agreed before (and I expect will continue to agree ocassionally in the future). Usually, such agreement is on narrow issues (but it is still agreement).

LOST said:



RealityForAll said:

Duly noted.
tjohn said:

22 March, 2017, 1056 hrs. Tjohn is in agreement with Gilgul.
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:

All economic analysis shows that there is no inherent benefit to promoting home ownership as opposed to rental. Other than home ownership with a mortgage being a form of forced savings, there is no economic benefit to owning a home over renting. The whole "if I rent I am throwing away money" argument is bunk. If you own a home you are throwing away tons of money in the form of interest, property, taxes, maintenance, etc. Nor is their any evidence to show that ownership communities are inherently more stable, secure or desirable compared to rental communities.

And it seems that DB agrees with RFA.

I think all of you are right.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.