Just off La. Highway 22 in Maurepas, Michelle and Neil Richard are putting the finishing touches on their 5,200-square-foot dream home.
“It all just kind of fell into place,” Richard says.
It started about four years ago when the two graduated from LSU and soon found work. Two years ago, they married and saved for a down payment. About 10 months ago, they found land in Ascension Parish, in an area booming with development, lined up a builder and set their life plan in motion.
There have been a few surprises along the way. Their “little blessing,” baby Madeline, was born seven months ago. And, if the Richard family qualifies, they might be among the nation’s first-time buyers to benefit from the newly signed federal Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
Although the measure is aimed at bailing out some homeowners struggling in the nation’s subprime loan debacle and slipping into foreclosure, the bill also includes stimulus provisions to hotwire the national housing downturn.
Proponents of the measure concede taxpayers will foot a hefty tab, but remained focused on the bill’s short-term economic benefits. Opponents staunchly say it won’t help enough people to justify the long-term problems it could cause with the economy.
“I think it’s a good bill,” says Joe Didier, president of the Capital Region Builders Association and owner of Didier Homes. “I realize the taxes will affect us all and some tax dollars will go to bailing some people out, but it’s worth paying a few hundred dollars to keep up housing values. If housing lags and property values decline, that’s a lose-lose situation.”
But Terry Coxen, economist and senior editor with Arizona-based Casey Research, calls it a “horrible bill” that Congress passed without considering the fallout.
Advertisement | Advertising
“It won’t stop the housing crisis,” Coxen says. “It’ll just be something that campaigning congressmen can point to as what they did.”
He contends the measure won’t help many people and could keep house prices beyond prospective buyers’ reach. “When the government spends taxpayer money to help one person avoid a foreclosure, it is preventing someone else from buying that house. It’s painful for many people, but it’s not a bad thing if those prices come down.”
Interfering with the housing market cycle will prolong the crisis at least another year or more, Coxen says. This would be especially troublesome, he says, because the nation is in a recession, not a slowdown, which also would be extended. He points to earlier failed government attempts to stem housing prices, which he says prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930s.
“How can you not be in a recession when the credit market freezes up?” he asks. “Talk to someone who’s tried to borrow.”
Years of government subsidy to the housing industry caused the housing bubble. He cites the Federal Reserve’s cheap credit and housing-friendly tax rules “screaming buy a house” as examples.
While Didier says he doesn’t typically advocate a tax bailout, he does anticipate the bill’s $7,500 tax incentive to first-time buyers could boost the starter house market and significantly ease the inventory buildup.
“It’s smart money to buy now,” he says. “I don’t consider it a windfall, but do think it’s a tremendous opportunity for a first-time home buyer.”
The bill is aimed at aiding states like California, Florida and Nevada, where the housing bubble burst and left homeowners struggling with subprime and adjustable-rate loans, declining values and foreclosure. While that didn’t happen in Louisiana with its stable housing market, low foreclosure rate and appreciation, Didier says local buyers can still benefit.
Linda Fredericks, president of the Baton Rouge Association of Realtors, maintains the bill will help more than hurt.
Victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita also could benefit from the bill as reconstruction continues, Fredericks says. The bill singles out first-time buyers, but it applies to those who have not owned a house in the last three years. Hurricane victims could quality for the tax benefit, as well as higher loan limits.
“This is a dollar-for-dollar credit on tax dollars owed, not a deduction,” Fredericks says. “This is huge. It allows people to have money to buy necessities now. If they need furniture, a refrigerator, washer or dryer, they will not need to burden themselves with credit at high interest rates.”
Vickie Theriot, program administrator of EBR Mortgage Finance Authority, says the bill makes mortgage bonds permanently exempt from the alternative minimum tax. For bond investors, it could mean not paying tax on interest earned on these bonds. For the authority, it means selling the bonds at a lower interest rate, and the borrower gets the loan at a better rate.
Also, the bill allows states to offer more tax-exempt bonds each year, Theriot says. The cap varies per state and the bonds are limited to areas like housing, student loans or pollution.
Under a temporary provision in the legislation, housing authorities also will be able to issue bonds to provide loans to refinance existing mortgages. It would allow borrowers to get a fixed-rate loan under certain guidelines. These bonds would have to be issued separately and specifically for refinancing. The EBR authority is considering the move, but she says this measure is aimed at areas with large volumes of “exotic loans” such as subprime and adjustable-rate mortgages.
Because little of this occurred in the Baton Rouge area and foreclosures are still among the lowest in the nation, they’re unsure if there are enough borrowers who need refinancing to warrant the bond issue. Also, applicants must have a decent credit rating and an existing loan still being paid on time to qualify for this loan.
Overall, Theriot agrees it’s the perfect storm for the first-time buyer to make a move in the market. For those who qualify, the bill’s tax break plus the authority’s low-interest loan that can include a grant that covers 4% of the loan [which can be used for closing costs or a down payment] make it an opportune time to buy. She adds, “In East Baton Rouge and Louisiana in general, our home prices are still so affordable.”
In her 29 years with the Authority, Theriot says she’s never seen a market more favorable to first-time buyers, as well as a more stable market overall in the area. It didn’t seem all that long ago with the market crash of the mid-1980s when she had four file cabinets full of loans in foreclosure. Today, there is only one folder, and it’s holding three loans.
Comments
Posted by surfdog1958 on August 26, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Last time I checked, Maurepas was in Livingston Parish, not Ascension Parish. Did we leave something out?
Posted by pmccarron on August 27, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Redistribution of wealth = Bad Bill.
Posted by surfdog1958 on August 31, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Redistribution of wealth = JUSTICE. FDR's New Deal is what made the US the economic and military power it is today, but we are going DOWN unless there is a modern-day equivalent of the New Deal, e.g., redistribution of the wealth. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to see that social security could be saved by eliminating that $200K cap on SS taxes and incrementally decreasing what wealthy retirees can draw. Social Security should be seen as insurance for those who need it. In other words, even if you paid SS taxes all your life, if you are successful to the point that your SS income is just pocket change, you don't really need it and should forfeit at least a portion of your "fair share" for the greater good. It is the only way that SS can be saved. If you retire a millionaire, then somehow mismanage your wealth and need SS income, then by all means you deserve it, but otherwise it makes no sense for the rich to be on the dole. I don't expect rich people to agree with my point of view, but this is the way insurance works, and that is all social security should be. Crucify me.
Posted by surfdog1958 on August 31, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I meant the $200K cap on taxable SS income. It might surprise some people who earn $200K per year to know that people who earn millions or even billions of dollars per year pay no more in SS taxes than they do. It might also surprise them to know that they bear the heaviest income tax burden of all, more percentage-wise than millionaires and billionaires, as well as those living at, below, or just above the poverty line. American billionaire Warren Buffet recently pointed out the disparity in his being taxed at 17% while his secretary earning $60K per year was being taxed at 33%. Middle-class Americans need to wise up and stop falling for those Republican "tax cuts" that clearly benefit the rich and super-rich more than the middle class or average American. If billionaires like Warren Buffet see a problem, why can't you? Wise up, America!
Posted by pmccarron on September 8, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FDR also appeased the communist in Europe and created BIG GOVERNMENT. Not a big fan of FDR, New Deal, Social Security, Democrat Party=Socialist Ideology.
Posted by surfdog1958 on September 13, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Republican Party=Right-Wing Dictatorship
Posted by pmccarron on September 15, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's see... Republican party abolished slavery under Lincoln, toppled communism under Reagan, Fights terrorism and tyranny abroad under Bush, will win the next election under McCain and Palin... that's okay surfdog - you can always go live in Cuba when the election doesn't go your way.
Posted by surfdog1958 on September 16, 2008 at 4:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll give you abolition of slavery, but Gorbachev's democratic reforms are what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan's role is greatly exaggerated. You still have both Russia and China to deal with, and while they have embraced capitalism, neither are shining examples of democracy and both present unprecedented economic challenges, not to mention potential military threats that dwarf the threat of any further terrorist attacks on the US. Bush should have considered this before he got us in a protracted war in Iraq, which by the way had nothing to do with 9/11, in case you haven't heard yet. As for tyrants, we've put at least two in for each one we've removed, and more often than not, the ones we remove are the ones we put in power in the first place. As for Sarah Palin, I didn't see her "electrifying" speech at the RNC, but what I have heard her say is "praise God" for this, "praise God" for that. I've been around those kind of people at work, and they are extremely annoying. Cuba is probably not such a bad place to retire, provided you have more money than the average Cuban. The heat and humidity may be worse than south Louisiana, but there are mountains, jungles, beaches on the Caribbean, and the world-famous Havana nightlife. Do you think the US government would deposit my SS checks there?
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)