Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

Thread: New home sales plunge 33% after tax credit expires

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501

    New home sales plunge 33% after tax credit expires

    If this doesn't prove tax cuts stimulate the economy, what does?

    "Sales of new homes collapsed in May, sinking 33 percent to the lowest level on record as potential buyers stopped shopping for homes once they could no longer receive government tax credits.

    The bleak report from the Commerce Department is the first sign of how the end of federal tax credits could weigh on the nation's housing market.

    Analysts were startled by the depth of the sales drop.

    "We all knew there would be a housing hangover from the expiration of the tax credit," wrote Mike Larson, real estate and interest rate analyst at Weiss Research. "But this decline takes your breath away."

    Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected a May sales pace of 410,000. April's sales pace was revised downward to 446,000.

    The government offered an $8,000 credit for first-time buyers. Current homeowners who buy and move into another property could receive up to $6,500.

    New-home sales fell nationwide from April's levels. They dropped 53 percent from a month earlier in the West and 33 percent in the Northeast. Sales in the South dropped 25 percent. The Midwest posted a 24 percent decline."

    Entire article:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_new_home_sales

    Of course my favorite part was "Analysts were startled by the depth of the sales drop." I wasn't startled at all. Since the dawn of time it's been shown when you cut taxes on a product, sales of said product go up. And when you raise taxes on a product, sales of that product go down.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    283
    Its all Bushes fault. Always.

    33% dive, so far its the most impressive number Obama has produced.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    In Ontario, effective July 1st, all homes being sold for over 400K will have to pay an addtional 8% in taxes.
    Right now you see many homes of that type on say right now, MANY homes.
    They are trying to beat the "tax man" because they know that once that 8% tax increase hits in that things will be different.
    A buyer of a 425,000 dollar home will have to pay an extra 34K to the government.
    Guess where that will come from?
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    Well, Canada weathered the storm well.
    Overall we got screwed out of about 15% of the value of our rrsps.

    pretty much the same as anyone else in canada who invests.

    the value of my home is up, way up!

    and real estate is skyrocketing up here.

    Maybe it's because in Canada you can't get a loan without some hurdles that put the onus on you to ensure that you can actually pay it back.

    Unlike in teh states where they were giving away mortgages to people who were obvious defaults and then converting those bad mortgages to credit swaps and selling teh bad swaps to all teh other markets.

    It didn't actually take that long before it all fell apart.

    right after bush allowed for it, it went up and down in his term and all that was left was the huge fire for Obama to put out and take the blame for starting. lol
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    In Ontario, effective July 1st, all homes being sold for over 400K will have to pay an addtional 8% in taxes.
    Right now you see many homes of that type on say right now, MANY homes.
    They are trying to beat the "tax man" because they know that once that 8% tax increase hits in that things will be different.
    And our capital gains rate is due to jump in January. Anyone want to wager that the stock market has a huge sell-off in December?

    The one thing Obama has done well is destroy wealth.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    Unlike in teh states where they were giving away mortgages to people who were obvious defaults...
    They were forced by law to do it.

    Now I agree they went over the percentage of bad loans the Government forced them to make via the Community Reinvesment Act (signed into law by Carter), but had the Gov't stayed out of the market, I'd bet that they never would have started lending to people who couldn't afford the mortgages in the first place.

    Also, the banks had little risk, as the Federal Government actually backed the bad loans via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Had they not backed them, the banks could not have sold the bad mortgages. Had they been stuck with the bad loans, you can be sure the banks wouldn't have made them in the first place. But Government interference allowed them to make the bad loans, and then assisted them in offloading them to others!
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Posts
    543
    It is really simple. Count the bodies.

    Count the bodies (American and foreigners) under Bush/Cheney.


    If the number is lower under Obama then that's less bad than Bush/Cheney.


    We didn't vote for Obama cause we loved him. We voted for him because we hated Bush.

    1Bad65 can whine, moan, cast aspersions, call names, criticize etc. till the cows come home...

    but in the end in the choice between the lesser of the evils it's really quite simple.

    You count the corpses. The guy with a smaller pile of corpses on his watch is preferably to the guy with the bigger pile of corpses.

    It's really just that simple.
    "The first stage is to get the Gang( hard, solid power). every movement should be done with full power and in hard way, also need to get the twisting and wrapping power, whole body's tendon and bones need to be stretched to get the Gang( hard) power. "
    -Bi Tianzou -

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    They were forced by law to do it.

    Now I agree they went over the percentage of bad loans the Government forced them to make via the Community Reinvesment Act (signed into law by Carter), but had the Gov't stayed out of the market, I'd bet that they never would have started lending to people who couldn't afford the mortgages in the first place.
    Sigh......

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    Sigh...

    http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...postcount=1154

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check
    That has been addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check
    Here is some interesting information: http://www.traigerlaw.com/publicatio...udy_1-7-08.pdf

    "Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis.

    Specifically, our analysis shows that:

    (1) CRA Banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan;

    (2) The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA Banks was appreciably lower than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders;

    (3) CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in their portfolio; and

    (4) Foreclosure rates were lower in MSAs with greater concentrations of bank branches."
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check
    "More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts."

    I.e., the majority of the subprime loans were made by companies not subject to CRA.

    http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...barr021308.pdf

    Janet Yellin, President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Board:

    "There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term."

    "According to the 2006 HMDA data, 19 percent of the conventional first lien mortgage loans originated by depository institutions were higher-priced, compared to 23 percent by bank subsidiaries, 38 percent by other bank affiliates, and more than 40 percent by independent mortgage companies. Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner, “The 2006 HMDA Data,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Volume 94 (2007), p. A89."

    http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html

    As I noted above, independent mortgage companies are not subject to the CRA.
    1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

    "I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

    Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

    Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by dimethylsea View Post
    It is really simple. Count the bodies.

    Count the bodies (American and foreigners) under Bush/Cheney.


    If the number is lower under Obama then that's less bad than Bush/Cheney.


    We didn't vote for Obama cause we loved him. We voted for him because we hated Bush.

    1Bad65 can whine, moan, cast aspersions, call names, criticize etc. till the cows come home...

    but in the end in the choice between the lesser of the evils it's really quite simple.

    You count the corpses. The guy with a smaller pile of corpses on his watch is preferably to the guy with the bigger pile of corpses.

    It's really just that simple.

    Highly disingenuious interpetation of a guys compentancy based on a body count. Harry Truman drops an atominc bomb on Japan, thousands died and the war ended with Japans unconditional surrender Dwight Eisenhower becomes the next POTUS does that make eisenhower a better POTUS based on body counts?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by dimethylsea View Post
    It is really simple. Count the bodies.

    Count the bodies (American and foreigners) under Bush/Cheney.
    Stop trying to hijack the thread with your "it's all Bush's fault" BS. We are discussing the economy and housing, not the war. Stay on topic please.

    Quote Originally Posted by dimethylsea View Post
    We didn't vote for Obama cause we loved him. We voted for him because we hated Bush.
    Ididots like you are how dictators gain power. In hindsight, I'm sure the Cubans would kill to have Batista back. But they didn't look at the alternative to Bastista, they did what you did and didn't support a man based on his policies/ideas etc, they supported a man because of who he wasn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by dimethylsea View Post
    1Bad65 can whine, moan, cast aspersions, call names, criticize etc. till the cows come home...
    Actually I'm quoting reliable news outlets. Simply because you cannot debate the facts, you try and make light of my legit sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by dimethylsea View Post
    but in the end in the choice between the lesser of the evils it's really quite simple.

    You count the corpses. The guy with a smaller pile of corpses on his watch is preferably to the guy with the bigger pile of corpses.

    It's really just that simple.
    So by your logic, FDR was our worst President ever.
    Last edited by 1bad65; 06-24-2010 at 11:12 AM.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    Sigh......
    So are you saying it was good policy for the Federal Government to force banks to make some bad loans?

    I just want to be clear on your stance on this.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    So are you saying it was good policy for the Federal Government to force banks to make some bad loans?

    I just want to be clear on your stance on this.
    You keep bringing up the CRA as being the cause of the housing crash. And I repeatedly have shown that not to be the case. The overwhelming majority of sub-prime mortgages were issued by lenders not subject to the act. So, please stop bringing it up as I tire of repeating myself, and have grown bored of your inability or unwillingness to accept reality.
    1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

    "I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

    Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

    Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by dimethylsea View Post
    It is really simple. Count the bodies.

    Count the bodies (American and foreigners) under Bush/Cheney.


    If the number is lower under Obama then that's less bad than Bush/Cheney.


    We didn't vote for Obama cause we loved him. We voted for him because we hated Bush.

    1Bad65 can whine, moan, cast aspersions, call names, criticize etc. till the cows come home...

    but in the end in the choice between the lesser of the evils it's really quite simple.

    You count the corpses. The guy with a smaller pile of corpses on his watch is preferably to the guy with the bigger pile of corpses.

    It's really just that simple.
    Obama's presidency is still relatively young, so he has plenty of time to catch up with Bush's body count. Actually,he has gone back on his promises of pulling out of the war zones.

    The fact is that Presidents do not make such decisions. These decisions are made for them!

    Presidents and Prime Ministers are just mouthpieces for the elite, so if the elite decide a war with Iran, then it will happen, the same if the target is North Korea. It won't really matter if the President is Obama, Bush or Mickey Mouse.

    These "leaders" are just mouthpieces for a long term agenda called the New World Order, which happens to be in its final stages.

    In short, it is a dictatorial world government where the elite banking/corporate establishment call the shots and control the wealth, while the rest of the population will serve as nothing more than technologically controlled glorified slaves, stripped of their wealth and dignity.

    Just look at what is happening tot he wealth of the middle class, through debt foreclosures, ever increasing taxes and fines and the centralization of political and business power.

    We are in for rough times, that is, until enough people wake up and lock up all of the crooks and criminals who have been causing so much misery and human suffering, and throw away the keys.

    And guess what, do you think that these criminals will be locked into cells according to their political parties, Republican, Democrats, etc.? Of course not, they will hopefully be squeezed in together, yes,

    Al Gore (the "Man made Global Warming" fraudester)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4...eature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg...eature=related



    and Bill Clinton (drug trafficker and fraudester, etc.),
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3120507357139#


    together with the Bush crime family (three generations of war mongering, war profiteering and drug dealing Nazi criminals!).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkojpgNZD9I

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0mDs...eature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HTf4P2QItQ

    There are no real political parties anymore, just psychopathic criminals, waving their cosmetic ideologies, to fool the naive, while employed by the trilionaire banking elites that run our economies and lives! They make all the promises under the sun, but once elected, they turn around and carry on their predecessor's steps, because, just like him, they have the same masters!!!

    The facts are there for everyone to see that "Democracy" is a sham and a smoke screen for these criminals to dominate the human race. Of course, some people will take longer to wake up while others have been awake for a long time!
    Last edited by Hardwork108; 06-25-2010 at 11:07 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    You keep bringing up the CRA as being the cause of the housing crash. And I repeatedly have shown that not to be the case. The overwhelming majority of sub-prime mortgages were issued by lenders not subject to the act. So, please stop bringing it up as I tire of repeating myself, and have grown bored of your inability or unwillingness to accept reality.
    It does matter. I'll explain, and pray you somehow grasp it.

    The Government FORCED banks to make some bad loans via the CRA. Now the banks knew there were gonna be alot of defaults on these loans so they had to find a way to negate/limit their losses. They found ways to do this, one way involved bundling the bad debts and selling them, and they found willing buyers of the bad loans because the bad loans were backed by the Government. Once banks saw that this actually worked, it was only a matter of time before SOME banks figured out they could write tons of these bad loans and just sell them in greater numbers. And again, they found buyers of the bad loans because the bad loans were Government backed.

    So again, I never blamed the CRA as being the cause of the crash. They were a factor in the crash though. A bigger factor was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And Fannie and Freddie are examples of Government intervention into the private sector. So in effect, Government intervention was the biggest factor in the cause of the crash.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    It does matter. I'll explain, and pray you somehow grasp it.

    The Government FORCED banks to make some bad loans via the CRA. Now the banks knew there were gonna be alot of defaults on these loans so they had to find a way to negate/limit their losses. They found ways to do this, one way involved bundling the bad debts and selling them, and they found willing buyers of the bad loans because the bad loans were backed by the Government. Once banks saw that this actually worked, it was only a matter of time before SOME banks figured out they could write tons of these bad loans and just sell them in greater numbers. And again, they found buyers of the bad loans because the bad loans were Government backed.

    So again, I never blamed the CRA as being the cause of the crash. They were a factor in the crash though. A bigger factor was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And Fannie and Freddie are examples of Government intervention into the private sector. So in effect, Government intervention was the biggest factor in the cause of the crash.
    From a speech by Federal Reserve Board Governor Randall S. Kroszner:

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...081203a.htm#f6

    Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices...

    The CRA does not stipulate minimum targets or goals for lending, investments, or services. Rather, the law provides incentives for financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income people and areas, consistent with safe and sound banking practices, and commensurately provides them favorable CRA consideration for those activities. By requiring regulators to make CRA performance ratings and evaluations public and to consider those ratings when reviewing applications for mergers, acquisitions, and branches, the Congress created an unusual set of incentives to promote interaction between lenders and community organizations.

    Given the incentives of the CRA, bankers have pursued lines of business that had not been previously tapped by forming partnerships with community organizations and other stakeholders to identify and help meet the credit needs of underserved communities. This experimentation in lending, often combined with financial education and counseling and consideration of nontraditional measures of creditworthiness, expanded the markets for safe lending in underserved communities and demonstrated its viability; as a result, these actions attracted competition from other financial services providers, many of whom were not covered by the CRA. There are many fine examples of community development lending and investment activities designed to address needs in the poorest of areas, including many of those highlighted by the case studies in this report...

    Over the years, the Federal Reserve has prepared two reports for the Congress that provide information on the performance of lending to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods--populations that are the focus of the CRA. These studies found that lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions. Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses. Rather, the law has encouraged banks to be aware of lending opportunities in all segments of their local communities as well as to learn how to undertake such lending in a safe and sound manner...

    In analyzing the available data, we focused on two distinct metrics: loan origination activity and loan performance. With respect to the first question concerning loan originations, we wanted to know which types of lending institutions made higher-priced loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what types of neighborhoods the loans were extended. This analysis allowed us to determine what fraction of subprime lending could be related to the CRA.

    Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.

    Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis...

    The final analysis we undertook to investigate the likely effects of the CRA on the subprime crisis was to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income. We found that most foreclosure filings have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods; in fact, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.

    Two key points emerge from all of our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, as I stated earlier, we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
    1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

    "I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

    Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

    Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •