October 5, 2008

Just How Bad Is It?

Whenchihuahua Just How Bad Is It? I told family and friends our family was relocating to California, there were many jokes about the end of the world.  “You just wait!” they told me.  “One day there will be an earthquake and California will break of into the ocean causing a massive tidal wave and it will be the end of the world.”

I laughed it of dismissively, but seriously folks I’m wondering about just how bad it is.  I mean, this weekend I had a half-serious conversation with a friend regarding converting all our savings into yen in order to protect assets, the bailout/rescue plan gets passed, and Beverly Hills Chihuaua is number one at the box office. 

Not to mention that tomorrow’s Bloomberg news (in Asia) reports that, ”Japan’s stocks fell, sending the Topix index toward a five-year low, as the global credit crisis deepened in Europe and the U.S. lost the most jobs in five years.”

These are strange times my friends!  Strange times indeed.

We’ve obviously heard all the talks of the bail out/rescue plan and there seems to be varying views on why it is or is not going to work.  But what I haven’t heard is what it really means to us and the real estate market in particular.

Bloomberg had a great bit of FAQ’s from regular taxpayers.  Here are some excerpts that might give you some guidance on the issues surrounding the bailout/rescue and how it affects you.

What will the program do for people in danger of defaulting on a mortgage?

The bill contains vague language encouraging the Treasury to implement plans to help endangered homeowners. Many mortgages, through the securitization process, were broken up into pieces and sold off, making it difficult for lenders to alter them so homeowners can afford rising payments.

“This bill does little to remove the existing obstacles that have made it all but impossible over the past year for the housing industry to help enough people avert foreclosure,” said Kathleen Day, a spokeswoman for the Center for Responsible Lending in Washington.

Will taxpayers lose or make money on this deal?

The assets the Treasury purchases could increase in value, allowing the government to sell them later at a profit. In addition, in return for buying the impaired investments, the Treasury will receive warrants, or contracts allowing it to purchase shares in participating companies at a preset price. If those companies’ stocks rise, taxpayers could benefit.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the net cost of the plan will be “substantially less than $700 billion but is more likely than not to be greater than zero.”

If, in five years, taxpayers have lost money, the president will have to submit legislation — most likely some kind of fee on financial institutions — to recoup losses.

How will it affect my taxes?

That depends on what the next president does. The initial borrowing of funds for the program will add some $2,300 in government debt for every American. Yet the Treasury will get assets for its money, many of which may increase in value as the housing market and economy improve.

“Much of the $700 billion is expected to be repaid, and there could even be a profit made by taxpayers,” said Alex Brill, an economic consultant at Washington law firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney and a former policy director for the House Ways and Means Committee.

Photo courtesy movieblog.com


  • Robert
    Much of the subsidy is in the interest and property tax write offs. Only allow one of each. Pretty easy. If you attached stiff fines that would fund investigation of fraud this would be a further incentive to just do the right thing.

    I don't believe that flippers constitute that large a portion of small business.

    The best way to get the "system" running again is to "gently" remove overhead and waste. There isn't any "quick" fix to this.

    Homes need to be affordable for people to buy. When they are affordable people will buy. Flipping homes by "investors" just raises prices artificially. It really produces very little. We need to encourage personal financial independence not dependence.

    Empty homes and REOs don't seem to generate property taxes or perhaps the problem is that the government doesn't make the REO owners pay property taxes? If a bank owns a property should the property taxes cease to be paid? If the REO owners had to pay their property taxes monthly I don't think there would be a shortfall and if they had to pay more than the owner occupied owners I think they would have a huge incentive to sell and reduce inventory. Owner occupied homes are better for everybody and bank owned empty homes that encourage crime and pull down values.

    Right now people are defaulting on their taxes or at least delaying their payment. This is where half of the shortfall is... the other half is in runaway irresponsible government spending.

    When the governor took office we had a huge debt problem and it disappeared.... why higher property taxes with each inflated purchase... that just encouraged the irresponsible spending... it is time to dump all government spending that is superfluous. Maintaining and improving infrastructure should be the priority with long term thinking in mind.

    For example, the coastal areas have a precious natural resource as do the inland areas that we are not exploiting.

    The resources I am thinking of are the water in the ocean, the sun, and the fertile farming soils.

    If every rooftop had 1000 watts of solar generation we would have a lot of surplus electricity. If every new vehicle was mandated to generate and use solar energy and electricity many further benefits could be realized. back to the power generation. Electricity could be used to desalinate ocean water and the water could be used in the coastal areas or shipped inland reducing the draw on the Owens River Valley and other river systems.

    I am sorry about the divergence, but I believe there are solutions. They just require some people to change their behavior. Those who have been resisting the bubble mania and get rich quick hype are generally not in trouble and if they are it is the result of the behavior of others. I don't think the current methods are working. High rates of residency by owners as opposed to renters are possible if the policies that are discouraging ownership through bubble pricing are changed. I really don't think the flippers and landlords make up the majority of the people and they don't really grow the food or make the products that make life more efficient and better. I don't dislike either, I just don't think the system and efforts to improve things should be centered on their concerns to the detriment of the "average" family.

    In a sense it is similar to the high salaries paid to entertainment and sports stars and CEOs.... I don't believe their product warrants their salaries of millions and millions of dollars. I am not a socialist, but I don't think tax laws and policy should favor these entities over the people who make things run everyday.

    In fact, I am very much against all the bailout programs I have seen so far. Why should income of any kind be taxed at different rates? Capital gains tax is lower than income tax... so the person who makes their money from a paycheck and produces something pays higher taxes than the person who flips a house... why? Isn't that a taxpayer paid subsidy? Why not have them both taxed at the same rate.... or better yet.... why no the Fair Tax where there is only sales tax at the federal, state, county and city levels on new non-food items? Think of it. No April tax time nightmares! If the people are over taxed they stop buying new and conserve and recycle. Product longevity and conservation become of paramount importance. How much we pay in tax is visible to us and to some extent in our control. How about another novel idea.... if the government is in debt no one in office can run for office again for the next 5 years.... there are things that can be done.
  • Sheila
    Robert-

    Really interesting points!

    I can definitely see how your plan outlined might be feasible. But I don't think any politician would be backing it up right now as many are dangerously close to losing small business owners as it is. And there are many small businesses involving the flipping & renting of real estate properties.

    I do have a question regarding your plan though - isn't there too much uncertainty regarding an owner occupied home and one that is not. Our schools and government programs rely on those tax dollars to fund their projects/functioning. How would they project if their local areas start losing more money by people not renting out properties or flipping them and having to pay that higher tax break? Or neighborhoods that have high rates of residency?

    Love the thoughts your comments spurred on though!
  • Robert
    What does the government buy the assets with? Taxpayer's future income. The government is in the red due to irresponsible spending... do you really believe they have suddenly become responsible?

    This problem stems from greed and avarice. The trust of many was violated and the "system" runs on trust and integrity. The banks don't trust each other enough to lend to each other. The government isn't trusted.

    Many are looking for a safe haven for their lifetime accumulation of assets... but who can they trust? Others are trying to capitalize upon the situation and the misfortune of others.

    Until some entity proves trustworthy, people will continue to scramble. The scrambling has resulted in several TRILLION in losses to total personal wealth....

    The solution is to reward those who day in and day out produce what is needed. Lower taxes on production and remove subsidies on speculation.

    For example, remove interest tax write offs on any home, but an owner occupied home. Why should taxpayers subsidize any home purchase let alone those of speculators.

    Lower property taxes on owner occupied homes. Increase property taxes on non-owner occupied homes enough to compensate for the owner occupied decrease and to pay for maintaining any taxpayer costs in the handling and maintenance of the homes. Require that non-owner occupied home taxes be paid monthly and if not include interest penalties.

    Make the taxes on the sale of a non-owner occupied home equal to the income tax rate of the seller.

    The elimination of taxpayer subsidies of residential real estate speculation will move home prices back to affordability and people will buy a home for their family.

    If they really wanted to fix this they could, but they want to continue the failed system they have evolved.

    At the prices of homes now where we live we find more economical to rent.
  • Sheila
    Very true! But I don't think the article meant we would all be getting an ROI in our checkbooks, just that there might be some future profit. Basically they're trying to calm everyone down right now...I'm not sure if it's working effectively.
  • maria G
    "even be a profit made by taxpayers"? If there is a profit do you really think the taxpayers will ever see any of it? It would be spent on pork (bridges to no where, etc. or another "Great Society".
blog comments powered by Disqus
close