John

You’re working rather hard to avoid facts that don’t support your opinion, e.g. “the mob rule of the majority vote” ? Would you prefer the mob rule of the minority vote? Ranting is fun till someone disagrees with you. I understand that you are upset about not being selected as an instrumentality of the government’s efforts – so are many, if not most, folks reading and posting here, including me. But your irrelevant (to this discussion) reference to equal opportunity suggests that you have a wide variety of fundamental disagreements with this administration rather than simply the Congress. It’s our right to be able to express our opinions freely, but that right doesn’t mean that others cannot point out logical inconsistencies in those opinions.

For homes purchased by first time homeowners (defined as not having lived in an owned house in three years prior to purchase) AFTER December 31, 2008 and before december 1st 2009:
Increase credit from $7,500 to $8,000
Wave the requirement to repay

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....66604.html

see section B for the homebuyers credit information

Thanks!

Thanks,

-Robert

Mary,

The Constitutition is in place to specifically protect citizens from the mob rule of the majority vote. The power of congress is not just limited to its ability to gain a majority vote on a bill and a signature from a President. It’s powers are strictly limited to those enumerated in the Constitution.

John,

Dear God, man. “The fundamental objective of our government is to ‘provide for the general welfare’”? Noooo, it is not. The phrase you’re looking for is “Promote the general welfare”. The difference was not lost on the founders. Equal opportunity is guaranteed, its up to you to do something with it. And again, the government’s power to “promote the general welfare” is limited to those specifically enumerated.

John

On Monday I was going to receive a $15,000 refund – now – zip. C’est la guerre ; )

The fundamental objective of our government is to “provide for the general welfare” of its citizens. Right now, there is a crisis, (regardless of what or who caused it) that can only be solved by stimulating the economy by increasing government spending. That spending, through the “multiplier effect”, stimulates many different sectors of the economy. In a democratic capitalist economy, by definition, some citizens or entities e.g. banks, must become the recipients of that spending in order to “prime the pump”. Our “comfort level” with the process is based on our knowledge and agreement with the proposition that some citizens, by dint of their own efforts AND the government’s needs, must become the instrumentalities of the government’s efforts to thus “provide for the general welfare”. The alternative; increasing government spending through government owned “means of production” failed globally in the late 80’s. Democratic capitalism is a terrible way to run an economy, except for all the alternatives. ; )

First-time home-buyers could qualify for an $8,000 tax credit.

The credit is slightly larger than the $7,500 credit in existing law, but it is substantially less than a proposal in the Senate bill that would have boosted the credit to $15,000 and broadened the eligibility.

In addition, the compromise bill waives a requirement that the tax credit be repaid. The credit applies only to homes bought between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31 of this year.

Homeowners who install new doors, windows or furnaces to make their home more energy efficient would be able to get as much as $1,500 back through new tax breaks.

My question to everyone that is so excited about receiving this credit is, “Would you feel comfortable knocking on your neighbors door and asking him/her for $15,000 for you to buy a house?” Your answer should be, “Of course not. That’s too much money, why would they be required to pay for my new house?” So, then let’s spread it around a little. Instead of asking your next door neighbor for the entire $15,000, what if you went to 50 of your extended neighbors and asked for $300 for your new house. Your answer should still be “That’s too much money, why would they be required to pay for my new house?”

Yet, look at everyone on this board that would take my money and every other American tax payer’s money to buy a new house. How can you explain this comfort level? Why am I responsible for buying your new house? What article, section, or clause of the Constitution allows Congress to take from one citizen or group of citizens to provide a private good for service to another citizen? In fact, the Constitution specifically forbids involuntary servitude. And isn’t that what this is? I am forced to provide my funds to the federal government for your home purchase. Am I not then forced to serve you?

It is scary to me that an infringement of government of this magnitude doesn’t even raise any of these questions from any the previous posters.

The homeowner tax credit has been kept but significantly reduced.

If were not fixing the housing market then what a waste.

“A Democratic source also said a plan to offer tax credits to homebuyers that is in the Senate bill will be scaled back to make room for House priorities, and a Senate proposal to offer tax incentives to buyers of American-built cars will be nixed.” – CNN

John

SA 106. Mr. ISAKSON (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 98 proposed by Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) to the bill H.R. 1, making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and

[Page: S1442] GPO’s PDF

local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 1006 of title I of Division B and insert the following:

SEC. 1006. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN HOME PURCHASES.

(a) Allowance of Credit.–Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after section 25D the following new section:

“SEC. 25E. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN HOME PURCHASES.

“(a) Allowance of Credit.–

“(1) IN GENERAL.–In the case of an individual who is a purchaser of a qualified principal residence during the taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to 10 percent of the purchase price of the residence.

“(2) DOLLAR LIMITATION.–The amount of the credit allowed under paragraph (1) shall not exceed $15,000.

“(3) ALLOCATION OF CREDIT AMOUNT.–At the election of the taxpayer, the amount of the credit allowed under paragraph (1) (after application of paragraph (2)) may be equally divided among the 2 taxable years beginning with the taxable year in which the purchase of the qualified principal residence is made.

“(b) Limitations.–

“(1) DATE OF PURCHASE.–The credit allowed under subsection (a) shall be allowed only with respect to purchases made–

“(A) after December 31, 2008, and

“(B) before January 1, 2010.

“(2) LIMITATION BASED ON AMOUNT OF TAX.–In the case of a taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of–

“(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over

“(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other than this section) for the taxable year.

“(3) ONE-TIME ONLY.–

“(A) IN GENERAL.–If a credit is allowed under this section in the case of any individual (and such individual’s spouse, if married) with respect to the purchase of any qualified principal residence, no credit shall be allowed under this section in any taxable year with respect to the purchase of any other qualified principal residence by such individual or a spouse of such individual.

“(B) JOINT PURCHASE.–In the case of a purchase of a qualified principal residence by 2 or more unmarried individuals or by 2 married individuals filing separately, no credit shall be allowed under this section if a credit under this section has been allowed to any of such individuals in any taxable year with respect to the purchase of any other qualified principal residence.

“(c) Qualified Principal Residence.–For purposes of this section, the term `qualified principal residence’ means a single-family residence that is purchased to be the principal residence of the purchaser.

“(d) Denial of Double Benefit.–No credit shall be allowed under this section for any purchase for which a credit is allowed under section 36 or section 1400C.

“(e) Special Rules.–

“(1) JOINT PURCHASE.–

“(A) MARRIED INDIVIDUALS FILING SEPARATELY.–In the case of 2 married individuals filing separately, subsection (a) shall be applied to each such individual by substituting `$7,500′ for `$15,000′ in subsection (a)(1).

“(B) UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS.–If 2 or more individuals who are not married purchase a qualified principal residence, the amount of the credit allowed under subsection (a) shall be allocated among such individuals in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe, except that the total amount of the credits allowed to all such individuals shall not exceed $15,000.

“(2) PURCHASE.–In defining the purchase of a qualified principal residence, rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1400C(e) (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this section) shall apply.

“(3) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.–Rules similar to the rules of section 1400C(f) (as so in effect) shall apply.

“(f) Recapture of Credit in the Case of Certain Dispositions.–

“(1) IN GENERAL.–In the event that a taxpayer–

“(A) disposes of the principal residence with respect to which a credit was allowed under subsection (a), or

“(B) fails to occupy such residence as the taxpayer’s principal residence,

at any time within 24 months after the date on which the taxpayer purchased such residence, then the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year during which such disposition occurred or in which the taxpayer failed to occupy the residence as a principal residence shall be increased by the amount of such credit.

“(2) EXCEPTIONS.–

“(A) DEATH OF TAXPAYER.–Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any taxable year ending after the date of the taxpayer’s death.

“(B) INVOLUNTARY CONVERSION.–Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a residence which is compulsorily or involuntarily converted (within the meaning of section 1033(a)) if the taxpayer acquires a new principal residence within the 2-year period beginning on the date of the disposition or cessation referred to in such paragraph. Paragraph (1) shall apply to such new principal residence during the remainder of the 24-month period described in such paragraph as if such new principal residence were the converted residence.

“(C) TRANSFERS BETWEEN SPOUSES OR INCIDENT TO DIVORCE.–In the case of a transfer of a residence to which section 1041(a) applies–

“(i) paragraph (1) shall not apply to such transfer, and

“(ii) in the case of taxable years ending after such transfer, paragraph (1) shall apply to the transferee in the same manner as if such transferee were the transferor (and shall not apply to the transferor).

“(D) RELOCATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.–Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on active duty who moves pursuant to a military order and incident to a permanent change of station.

“(3) JOINT RETURNS.–In the case of a credit allowed under subsection (a) with respect to a joint return, half of such credit shall be treated as having been allowed to each individual filing such return for purposes of this subsection.

“(4) RETURN REQUIREMENT.–If the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year is increased under this subsection, the taxpayer shall, notwithstanding section 6012, be required to file a return with respect to the taxes imposed under this subtitle.

“(g) Basis Adjustment.–For purposes of this subtitle, if a credit is allowed under this section with respect to the purchase of any residence, the basis of such residence shall be reduced by the amount of the credit so allowed.

“(h) Election to Treat Purchase in Prior Year.–In the case of a purchase of a principal residence during the period described in subsection (b)(1), a taxpayer may elect to treat such purchase as made on December 31, 2008, for purposes of this section.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25D the following new item:

“Sec..25E..Credit for certain home purchases.”.

(c) Sunset of Current First-Time Homebuyer Credit.–

(1) IN GENERAL.–Subsection (h) of section 36 is amended by striking “July 1, 2009” and inserting “the date of the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009”.

(2) ELECTION TO TREAT PURCHASE IN PRIOR YEAR.–Subsection (g) of section 36 is amended by striking “July 1, 2009” and inserting “the date of the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009”.

(d) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.

I am right with you on the 5% down payment stipulation. I did not hear about it until today. It will be nice to see the dust settle and have some real answers.

We are looking to buy/close on a house in April of this year. This rebate would be fantastic. We would be doing it under a FHA 3.5% down payment, so if there is the 5% stipulation to get it then no go for us.

That would be true if everyone who bought a home were selling a home, but that is not the case. For one, there is a population of buyers who are currently renting. This added incentive along with the low prices of homes would motivate them to stop renting and begin buying. For two, there are people who earn enough to meet the new FHA guidelines who can rent out their homes and buy another, meaning they can qualify for a new home loan by being able to afford the old and new mortgage. So there are two populations of people who are potential buyers without selling their homes.

As it stands now with the Senate version, you would not be eligible for the 7,500 “loan” and that credit is “sunsetted” upon the enaction of the 15,000 credit. Thus, you only would be eligible for the 15,000 credit. If you already don’t pay any taxes, then you’re already receiving scot-free what most of the rest of us have to pay for (defense, entitlements, infrstructure, everything that keeps this country functioning, etc). Consider yourself lucky. As if currently stands, if you contribute zip as a non-taxpayer, you get nothing.

John

As far as stimulating demand for housing is concerned, the prior and current tax credit legislation is geared toward the elmination of excess housing units. Real value creation and increased demand for housing will come over time due to real uninflated economic growth.

Once the tax credit expires, what will the housing market do? Unless the economy grows due to value creation (i.e. not “stimulating” the economy by Congress paying twice the acutal cost for something like a hammer or a road) real increases in demand and value for housing will be stymied.

Housing growth is a reflection of real wealth creation and is not a primary driver of real economic growth. This is why borrower “quality” is back in fashion.

I’m not against the tax credits to elminate excess supply to stabilize a builder’s balance sheet and liquid working capital position, but you need combine it with a long term lower tax policy to spur real economic growth and future housing value and demand.

It is going to help me out a lot if I have to repay or not repay, so I am taking it regardless. I have seen some articles that do feel all repayment will be forgiven, just going to have to wait and see.