The New York Times recently had a real estate section cover story about how both sales prices and rental rates were out of sight for many areas of NYC. There didn't seem to be a good choice for someone looking to move to make. Here, we see things as being different. Rentals in our region are increasingly scarce. New Haven has the lowest apartment vacancy rate in the country. In addition, we haven't seen the wave of foreclosures that people think may be coming in our state. If or when it does, that will mean that large numbers of people will go from being owners to being renters, for at least the seven years that they will need to wait before they can borrow again. Where are they all going to go?
On the other side of the equation, prices for homes are low. Very low. And so are mortgage rates. That makes it a good time to buy, if you believe that prices are going to rise. In that regard, we got some help from a Trulia article, albeit a backhanded compliment. Greater New Haven was listed among the ten cities where the number of people looking to move out most exceeds the number of people looking to move in. It also predicted that prices would go down a couple of percent by the third quarter of this year. BUT, it went on to say that price increases would average 5.3% per year through 2016, meaning that someone who buys a home and plans to hold onto it for five years, whether living in it or renting it out, will be likely to get quite a bit more for it when he or she goes to sell.
That seems to me to make the rent versus buy decision pretty simple around here. It's the time to buy.
Showing posts with label renters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label renters. Show all posts
Monday, February 13, 2012
Monday, July 25, 2011
An Idea to Move the Market
Much thought and discussion went into the enactment and extension of the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and it clearly impacted the market, both while it was in effect, and after it expired. It moved sales for last year into the first half, and the immediate drop in activity and sales beginning last July proved that it motivated people to buy before it ran out.
Although I have my issues with that credit, both in terms of policy and in practice, there is no question that it made a difference while it was in effect, and that the market responded. It is also clear that the jump start that the government must have hoped that it would give to real estate did not occur, as sales fell off as soon as it was over. In retrospect, I think that the government was right in thinking that we needed that kind of stimulus, and I think we need to try again. After all, cash for clunkers helped the auto industry, the TARP money helped the financial industry, and real estate is still lagging. It is hard to imagine any real recovery taking place without our industry improving.
My problem with the first-time homebuyer credit was that it aimed at exactly the people who would buy in any type of market: those forming households; and renters with no homes to sell. One of the main problems with the current market is that it is stopped up, because sellers who can sell refuse to do so, because they feel that they are losing equity, even though that perceived equity may have been phantom gains.
In order to give an incentive for those who can to sell now, and to buy something else, I propose that the government offer a one-time tax credit for sellers who will lose equity when they sell, on the same terms and up to the same amount as the first-time credit. So, for example, someone who paid $200,000 for her house and now is selling for $180,000 could deduct up to $8000 on her tax bill this year. I believe that the market may now be ready for the jump start that such a program could provide, and that it would help even more than the last incentive, since it would both produce a supply of homes for others to buy, and sales for developers and other sellers when those people buy a new place to live. It's time for bold action, and helping the housing industry would be good for everyone.
Although I have my issues with that credit, both in terms of policy and in practice, there is no question that it made a difference while it was in effect, and that the market responded. It is also clear that the jump start that the government must have hoped that it would give to real estate did not occur, as sales fell off as soon as it was over. In retrospect, I think that the government was right in thinking that we needed that kind of stimulus, and I think we need to try again. After all, cash for clunkers helped the auto industry, the TARP money helped the financial industry, and real estate is still lagging. It is hard to imagine any real recovery taking place without our industry improving.
My problem with the first-time homebuyer credit was that it aimed at exactly the people who would buy in any type of market: those forming households; and renters with no homes to sell. One of the main problems with the current market is that it is stopped up, because sellers who can sell refuse to do so, because they feel that they are losing equity, even though that perceived equity may have been phantom gains.
In order to give an incentive for those who can to sell now, and to buy something else, I propose that the government offer a one-time tax credit for sellers who will lose equity when they sell, on the same terms and up to the same amount as the first-time credit. So, for example, someone who paid $200,000 for her house and now is selling for $180,000 could deduct up to $8000 on her tax bill this year. I believe that the market may now be ready for the jump start that such a program could provide, and that it would help even more than the last incentive, since it would both produce a supply of homes for others to buy, and sales for developers and other sellers when those people buy a new place to live. It's time for bold action, and helping the housing industry would be good for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)