The Cody Word
  • June 22, 2009 11:25 AM EDT by Cody Willard

    Home and car buyer credits - more welfare for the rich

    The Democrats like to say they're for helping poor people get a level playing field and perhaps even a leg up. The Republicans like to say that they're for preserving your rights and perhaps even honoring the Constitution (though it's a little bit radical among the Republicans to actually use the C-word).

    Tell me why then, the Democrats want to punish the renters and other non-ownership-class people who aren't rich enough to be able to buy a new home. And tell me why then, the Republicans meddle with my right to buy and sell real estate without the government manipulating the marketplace.

    After all, that's exactly what both parties do when they create targeted tax benefits and other wealth redistribution tricks for the home ownership class in this country. The money for that $8,000 a year targeted tax trick for "new home buyers" that the Democrat/Republican Regime created a few months ago means that anybody who's renting is subsidizing those people who are rich enough (or stupid/dishonest enough) to already OWN homes. You know that whole "We have to stabilize housing to fix the economy" line? The Democrats and Republicans in power seem to think that taking money from the poor and redistributing it to the rich will help the economy. Really, guys?! That's your plan? Punish the renter at the behest of the already homeowner who already doesn't have to pay his fair share of taxes because he gets a "mortgage write offs" while those of us who rent don't get to "rental write offs".

    Yeah, and now the National Association of Realtors (an organization that you can ALWAYS count on to be on YOUR side, I'm sure!) wants the renters and everybody else who doesn't own a home and doesn't want to risk their capital on owning a home to subsidize ANY HOME BUYER with a $15,000 targeted tax trick.

    The Democrats and Republicans already this week will punish anybody not rich enough to be able to buy a new car with a new $4500 "new car buyer" subsidy.

    All governments have two primary options at their disposal with the monopoly on the use of violence that they have (laws of any sort are always enforced with the threat of violence, of course...don't wanna pay your taxes since you're a renter and the guy whom you're renting from doesn't have to pay his fair share of taxes? Tough! The government will send guys with guns to your house to send you to prison.):

    1. Ensure that private contracts are respected and that people who lie, cheat and steal from each other go to prison. Sounds pretty fair and sounds pretty much like what the people in government are supposed to be doing, no? Probably would create some serious confidence in our system if the government actually punished all the guys in the government and in the private banking sector who lied, cheated, stole and colluded to do such things, no?

    2. Redistribute wealth to sectors and people who have great access to the government people. You know, like punishing renters and savers who would likely benefit in coming years if real estate prices were allowed to crash to truly "affordable" levels, no? Or like taking from the guys who drive old vans, Camaros and Volkswagen Rabbits and giving $4500 in welfare checks to people who are rich enough to buy a new car.

    You do realize, by the way, that the Republicans and Democrats in charge of California voted through a $10 thousand dollar subsidy in addition to the $8,000 federal subsidy for new home owners...that little targeted wealth redistribution to the ownership class cost the state $100 billion. The idiots signed that unfair welfare for the rich bill into law back in April...even as the state was collapsing into bankruptcy. And now the state of California is cutting teachers, closing state parks and letting prisoners out early; the Republicans and Democrats in power don't have money for teachers, but they've got money for rich homeowners and lobbyists who represent them and the real estate industry.

    Explain to me how I'm the wacko in all this analysis.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/codywillard

m.kelly

I am one of the renters and I won a 2000 Honda that is paid for. I have been responsible and pay all my credit cards on time. I really agree with what your saying and have had these same sentiments. I feel like I'm really getting robbed. And by the way, I take home 20,000 a year after taxes, have health expenses because my employer plan covers only the basic expenses. I really feel like the working poor. I am 57 years old and am going to retire and still work at 62.5 because of all this. I'm really discusted with all the congress and president for the way they are forgetting about people like me.

June 22, 2009 at 12:25 pm

monkeyfurball

That car purchase credit isn't allowed to anyone making $200k a year last time I read the draft of the proposal. So, which "rich" folks are you speaking of? And most taxpayers making $50k a year or less pay very little taxes, so I don't get your point. Who's rich in your definition? Some making $50k or even $100k? What are you talking about?

June 22, 2009 at 12:59 pm

TrikeMike

This is your tax dollars trying to entice you into buying overprices cars. The down economy is making websites like www.repofinder.com gain in popularity because you can buy that same car at your local credit union for half the price. Our politicians are nuts.

June 22, 2009 at 1:09 pm

tidho

You need to consider both halves of the 'fairness' equation. With a progressive tax system, the rich (as you're labeling them here) are paying a disproportionate amount of tax for the benefits the government in providing them. While it is unusual to see that group as the beneficiary of anything the government does, its difficult to feel bad for the poor renters who so often aren't paying their fair share to begin with.

June 22, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Robert

Cody, if you actually own your home, the only tax deduction is the property tax. If you borrow the money to purchase your home, you technically don't own it until the mortgage is paid, but you do get to deduct the mortgage interest from your taxable income. So you must pay Uncle Sugar the same whether you rent or own excluding the property tax deduction. If you mortgage (borrow), then the government lets you deduct the amount you pay to their very good friends, the banks. Just wanted to clarify the use of the word "own". In the end, it is all about sheering.

June 22, 2009 at 1:54 pm

JMan

You have got to be kidding me. There is no more unfair tax than that which has 5% of the top end of taxpayers forking over at least 75% of income taxes. Renters don't have to pay for upkeep, homeowners insurance, mortgage insurance, flood insurance, and a host of other costs. Sometimes their utilities are included as is garbage, snow plowing, grass cutting, ad nauseum. In today's market, a renter can get a whole lot for his money.

June 22, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Heretic

It is very interesting to view the article and debate within these comments. It gets difficult to sort out sometimes. How about government keep hands off and let free markets sort it out.

June 22, 2009 at 3:22 pm

JeffD

Why don't they just make the first $50k an individual earns untaxable? I'm sure the very wealthy would complain but it would be "fair" because EVERYONE would get exactly the same benefit. I make under $50k per year and I pay a disproportionate amount of taxes because I have no dependants. Some families get more tax money refunded than they paid in the first place, I get very little in return and I pay through the nose.

June 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Nacho

Here's my question: What happens to the used car market in the <$4,500 range after this? Forget the "fairness" question of if the "rich" should be getting this credit, while the poor do not, what happens to the cars worth less than this cut off? I guess we're now just saying you don't have to trade in a car to get the $4500, so what happens to the nearly-new used car market? Is it now going to be the case that a 3 month old car with 2K miles is of a higher cost to buy than a brand new car off the lot? Isn't that just going to mean the entire car market ends up getting artificially pushed down by this government credit (hurting those looking to sell a slightly used vehicle)? If so, when does it end? Much like this $8000 first-time home buyer credit, who it hurts most is the people on the edges looking in. Now people that bought two months to early or late payed more for the house or car than others (again this really would hurt in resale). All only because of some political whim intended to prop up a bubble or a failing auto company. This erodes consumer confidence and causes people to shelter their money in fear or hope that the government brings a long a new different plan to suit them better....

June 22, 2009 at 4:32 pm

KurtS

If you don't pay any taxes, you can't complain about not getting a tax break. Lets never forget that the top 10% of taxpayers are paying 75% of all the taxes in this country.

June 22, 2009 at 5:09 pm

Jim McGarry

Cody: I am astonished at your ignorance, maybe that long hair is clouding your brain. Or are you saying this commentary to get a rise out of people like myself. age 60 worked since i was 9 income 150k a year,,,,,,,,,,,and I pay for everything I have I took the risks and you think I should give the rewards to people that sit on their ass and complain that the mommy goverment is not doing enough for them, both my sons put themselves thru college working 3 jobs, now that they are making decent money 70 to 90k.......my sons the do somethings should continue the tradition of giving to the do nothings!!!!!!!! Cody wake up and write something intelligent, or get a new career.

June 22, 2009 at 9:57 pm

James

Time for a Constitutional Convention.

June 23, 2009 at 6:08 am

AARGH59

40% of the earners in this country don't pay federal income taxes. Gut feel tells me that that group is disproportionately "renters." So to suggest that the "poor" are subsidizing the ownership class would appear to be an attractive populist claim but probably lacking support from the facts. Now if you want to argue that those of us who already own a house/car and paying taxes are subsidizing the purchases of others for the purposes of buying votes, I'm with you.

June 23, 2009 at 9:35 am

Mark

Hi Cody - "love your show" as they say - I forget where you are based out of, but I live in the great Socialist State of Kalifornia where the state budget is run by (and has been for years) the DEMONCATS & state employee unions who live to spend more than they take in even though we have a state constitution (there's that C word again) that mandates a "balanced" budget.... and a Goveneuter that actually said (into a mic no less) that the $5-10 Billion a year that he admits illegals cost the state didn't matter in the big picture. Please at least look that stuff up before you paint everyone here with the same mindless overspender paint bomb. I hear BO saying that the only way to get us out of the problems caused by over borrowing and over spending is to over borrow and over spend even more - maybe even by a factor of 4! YABBADABBADO! I think the best way to cash in on that deal is to take advantage of the housing and car tax credits and then get a 105% loan backed by the government! WOWIE - that gal was right "if I help BO he'll help me" new car, new house, free government loan! SWEET. If you can't beat them, might as well join the party - right? I meant that is what you were suggesting - right? Speaking of fairness - I'd go with a flat tax with no deductions 1 page tax form. Everyone uses the basic services provided by government, (military, etc) except that those of use that currently PAY the majority of taxes use most social services the LEAST. What's fair about that?

June 23, 2009 at 11:18 am

mike

Well, any auto dealer is going to be looking at maybe keeping a small fleet of junkers on hand -- rather than wholesaling trade-ins they have less than $500 in, maybe they'll be buying them. Customer buys a junker 1st, then trades it in, whether it ever left the lot or not. Customer gets government rebate -- dealer get profits from sale, plus profits from paperwork, plus profits from financing, plus gets to charge a premium for the new car because the customer is only watching that rebate, thinking they got away with scamming the gov.

June 23, 2009 at 12:33 pm

sarnold

I rent, drive older cars, have no debt. I lived the American Dream until I was stung last year and had to sell it low and use my 401K to close. Now I have become educated and understand the truth. I have the means to buy another house if I want to be creative, but I believe what is going on is wrong. The next time I lay my money down, it will be own my own back, not the taxpayers back. The mortgage write-offs are not that great anyway and you loose your freedom to move. With a lease, you can move in s short time.

June 23, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Henry S

Cody, Both bills are worthless pandering bills. The housing credit doesn't work because interest rates are up 1% so very few are refinancing. As for the car bill, the "subsidy" is basically worthless to a car owners whose trade in value is about 4,500. If one is truly driving a POS car worth $500, then they're likely not able to qualify for a new car lease or loan. So the number of individuals impacted by either of these programs is very very low.

June 24, 2009 at 11:39 am

about this blog

  • Cody Willard is an anchor on the FOX Business Network. Willard is also the principal of an investment management company. He was a long-time featured columnist for the Financial Times and TheStreet.com as well as a regular featured economist and stock picker on CNBC's ''Kudlow & Company."

most popular posts