I don’t agree with the characterization of home ownership subsidies as “cruel.” It comes across as an odd, emotive label in what the author otherwise attempts to rationally discuss. I also don’t agree that private capital necessarily helps the impoverished shoemaker. It will only do so if it benefits the same capital.
Political News
- How Trump could lose the popular vote again – and hold the White House
- History buff finds ships that sank in 1878 in Lake Michigan
- Mike Pence takes eight-vehicle motorcade across island where cars have been banned for a century
- The Amex Business Platinum perks are so good it makes me want to start my own company
- Florida school resource officer who arrested two kids, ages 6 and 8, is under investigation
News Plugin made by Web Hosting.
Vital Resources
Alpha Roster
Consumer Protection
Credit
Market News
Productivity
Real Estate
SciFi
Meta
2 Comments
In his defense, on home ownership, I have seen those subsidies become a cruelty. I saw it anchor a person who wouldn’t have normally been able to afford the house he lived in, because he couldn’t sell it for enough to pay the real estate agent and clear the mortgage. And where he lived was just far enough from good jobs that he wound up being one of my coworkers.
That said, it was HIS decision to buy, subsidy or not. The subsidy simply made the wrong choice look more appealing.
I am very sympathetic on housing, as you no doubt know. The subsidy factored in a small way in our decision to buy a house in Las Vegas, a decision with nuclear consequences to our credit and financial standing. Did your friend consider a short sale?
Post a Comment