367
Kamala Harris unveils populist policy agenda, with $6,000 credit for newborns
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
367 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19125 readers
2923 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe I'm missing somethng here. I'm not just asking this because I'm upset about the possibility of other people getting money and not me: Wouldn't we expect the home buyers' subsidy to only increase demand and drive up the cost of houses? Then the money would end up in the hands of those who already own one or many houses. Isn't this just giving money to people who are already well-off? Wouldn't it be better to create a program focused on building more houses instead?
Both can be done. Besides, first time homebuyers are the ones most in need of the kickstart needed to ownership. Consider also that the people with $2m homes likely aren’t going to see a direct increase in demand because of this. It would instead be current owners of so-called starter homes who could then use their existing equity to purchase a forever home.
Are there starter homes just sitting about, unpurchased because people can't afford them?
My friend, in california, every house costs a million dollars. All this is going to do is bump up the value of a house by 2.5% at the expense of taxpayers. Unless we're going to massively increase tax on the rich and cut tax for the poor, I don't see this as a win.
Serious answer from a long term economic standpoint.
You want more people to participate in home ownership, it's good for all home owners. Homes are the majority of a family's equity/net worth. It continues to grow and appreciate and allows them to invest into themselves.
In 5-10 years, when they're ready to upgrade, they create a lot of economic activity for everyone by selling their current house, plus additional funds, to upgrade to a new one.
If you ever want to sell your house to someone under the age of 35 who's not a tech bro, this is how it's done.
It's the same logic that the economic stimulus package used to generate economic growth and activity.
The more hands money exchanges, the more valuable it is as a currency to everyone. Counter intuitively, the economy is not a zero sum game. It's unbounded. The more people we help to achieve financial stability and the ability to participate in the housing market, the better it is for everyone currently participating in the housing market.
I'm still not understanding the part where everyone having an extra 25k for a house purchase doesn't just increase the price of all houses by 25k. This is what happens when you increase the demand for something without increasing the supply.
Not everyone. Just first time buyers.
I'd basically a 25k incentive to join the housing game.
It may have a very mild effect on increasing housing prices, but historical that's not something that has an impact.
Having dirt cheap rates, does do what you're saying.