iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dean Baker

GET UPDATES FROM Dean Baker
 

Policy Follies in the Housing Market: The First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit

Posted: 02/13/2012 5:59 pm

The right is very good at making progressives pay for their mistakes. They still trot out failed programs from the '60s as a warning of the risks of wrongheaded liberalism.

Unfortunately, the left cannot hold a grudge the same way; otherwise the folks who started the war in Iraq and allowed the housing bubble to grow out of control would be hiding under rocks instead of holding positions of power. But this crew gets amnesty not only for its big blunders; it also can count on a no-blame policy for even more mundane screw-ups. The first-time homebuyers tax credit is one such case.

The basic story was fairly simple. The first-time homebuyers tax credit was put in place as part of the stimulus package that Congress approved in February of 2009. The credit gave 10 percent of the purchase price of a home, up to $8,000, to first-time homebuyers or to people who had not owned a home for at least three years.

The credit was not part of the stimulus package proposed by President Obama. It was inserted as an amendment to the bill by Johnny Isakson, a Republican Senator from Georgia who had worked in the real estate industry for more than three decades before turning to politics. Isakson was able to quickly get a large number of Senators from both parties to sign onto his proposal and President Obama indicated that he would not oppose it.

The logic behind the tax credit was that it would provide a boost to the housing market at a time when prices were in a free fall. Prices were declining at the rate of 2 percent a month nationwide, and in some of the cities with the worse bubbles the rate of price decline was more than 3 percent a month.

The tax credit was explicitly intended to be temporary. It was initially scheduled to end in November of 2009, but was later extended to April of 2010. This was supposed to give people an incentive to buy a house right away, rather than waiting with the hope that prices would fall further.

The credit had its intended effect. There was a big surge in buying before the initial credit was scheduled to end (people did not know it would be extended until just before the expiration date), and then another huge surge in the spring of 2010 as buyers rushed to beat the end of April deadline.

This ended the plunge in house prices, with prices actually showing modest price increases in the late summer and fall of 2009. They remained stable through the expiration date of the extended credit.

However, there was a simple logical problem with the response to a credit of this sort. Very few people are going to buy a home who would not have otherwise because of an $8,000 credit. Relative to the purchase price of a home and related financial commitments (e.g. maintenance, property taxes etc.), $8,000 is not much of a consideration.

What a credit like this can do is to cause people to move an intended home purchase forward. In other words, people who might have otherwise bought a home in the second half of 2010 or 2011 could be persuaded by an $8,000 credit to buy their home in 2009 or the first half of 2010. The result is that the demand for homes would be expected to plummet after the expiration of the tax credit.

This is exactly what happened. Home sales fell by almost 40 percent in the months after the expiration of the tax credit. And with the collapse of the demand side of the market, house prices resumed their decline. By one widely used measure, home prices at the end of 2011 were more than 7 percent lower than they had been at the peak reached with the tax credit.

Of course not all housing markets were affected equally by the tax credit. The lower-priced homes in the less-expensive markets saw the biggest impact. This is for the obvious reason that first-time buyers are likely to buy less expensive homes and an $8,000 credit will have more impact on the price of a $100,000 home than a $400,000 home.

In these less-expensive markets the impact of the ending of the tax credit was truly disastrous. For example, in a year and half prices for homes priced in the bottom third of the market in Minneapolis have fallen by almost one-quarter. In Atlanta prices in the lower portion of the market have fallen by more than half. Similar stories could be told in many other cities.

This means that in effect the government persuaded many people with a $8,000 tax credit to buy a home on which they may have lost $40,000-$50,000 in less than two years. This is incredibly foolish policy.

If this policy had been proposed by liberals with the idea of helping the poor, its failure likely would have been a huge political issue in the 2012 election and likely for many years beyond. After all, the government spent somewhere between $15 -$20 billion on a policy that ended up hurting the people that it was intended to help.

However, this was a policy that was pushed by the real estate industry, ostensibly to promote homeownership. As a result, it would almost be viewed as unpatriotic to call attention to its failure. One result of this bias in policymaking is that we are likely to see many ill-considered policies along these lines in the future.

We also will continue to see a pattern whereby every failure of a policy designed to help moderate-income people is a political albatross on its proponents for decades, while the failures by the right are quickly swept under the rug. Is it any surprise that with a game played by these rules the country continually drifts rightward?

 

Follow Dean Baker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeanBaker13

The right is very good at making progressives pay for their mistakes. They still trot out failed programs from the '60s as a warning of the risks of wrongheaded liberalism. Unfortunately, the left ca...
The right is very good at making progressives pay for their mistakes. They still trot out failed programs from the '60s as a warning of the risks of wrongheaded liberalism. Unfortunately, the left ca...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 89
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:26 AM on 02/14/2012
Tax credit worked for me!!!! Bought my house in March 2010 here in Miami one of the worst real estate markets in the US. The credit did not raise the price of the house or start any bidding war...
06:04 PM on 02/15/2012
Yeah but it left you deep in debt on a rapidly depreciating asset.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fb0252
11:22 AM on 02/14/2012
real world story from my office:

2005 lady wins Nigerian green card lottery.
2005 though she's already married to another Nigerian she "marries" Nigerian #3 so that she can bring him with her to USA.
2008 Couple buys house in USA
2008 Nigerian tax preparer prepares couple's tax return--no children, $55,000 combined income--for a $14,000 tax refund $7000 of which is the tax credit for the new house (and, yes, it was 2008)
2008 couple gets refund from the IRS no Qs asked.
2010 House is foreclosed on--after couple made two out of 24 payments and modification request rejected.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kasinca
Liberal Vietnam Veteran
10:54 AM on 02/14/2012
The two Santa claus theory of the republican party. They screw things up and then blame the democrats who are tryin to fix the screw ups.
10:53 AM on 02/14/2012
The Republicans play hardball, the Dems are softies. I with they would grow a pair occasionally and stand up to the elitists.
10:50 AM on 02/14/2012
I witnessed this happening in Los Angeles where my boyfriend is a realtor. People wanted to take advantage of the tax credit which led to multiple offers on properties and drove prices up, negating much of the tax benefit.
bullthull
Enemy of all that is stupid
10:47 AM on 02/14/2012
Yep, perfect proof you dont meddle with markets - no matter what side of the fence you are on
So can we use this proven failure to get rid of all the green energy and GE specific disasters that are still killing us?
steveinohio
A small businessman in Ohio doing the best he can
11:11 AM on 02/14/2012
Big difference between interventions in an established market (nearly always bad) and interventions to create new markets (capable of being very positive). You can't push an existing market in most circumstances, but new industries often suffer from a chicken/egg problem that government can solve with properly tailored policies.
bullthull
Enemy of all that is stupid
03:19 PM on 02/14/2012
Please show me one business that succeded using ....."that government can solve with properly tailored policies.
We spents trillions on the space program and we got calculators - sweet !
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:38 AM on 02/14/2012
Prime example of conservatives believing whatever they want, the facts be dam*ed.

Can you not read "It was inserted as AN AMENDMENT to the bill BY JOHNNY ISAKSON, A REPUBLICAN SENATOR from Georgia who had worked in the real estate industry for more than three decades."

While there's plenty of blame for both parties for a host of failures and mistakes, the Repubs are the primary architects of the stupid "soak the middle class to feed the rich" policies that have put the once great country on the path to third world status and its people on the road to peasantry.

And many of their voters seem to be able to neither read nor think.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Julie Dahlman
Now a self employed, under
12:44 PM on 02/14/2012
I like it "soak the middle class to feed the rich". I suppose if you're part of that 40% of middle class/poor who think they to will be part of the rich you support those ideas or want the same opportunity to be rich and soak the middle class. They are defunct of Morales/values.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:25 PM on 02/14/2012
I hadn't given thought to that, but I see that you are right. Besides, stupidity and gullibility, that's the only reason the middle class and poor would support policies that harm their own class, therefore themselves, and further enrich those already rich beyond imagining, like hedgefund managers.

In this fantasy world they live in, even after they become rich, they want to be able to take from the poor and middle class to become even richer. Otherwise, they would want fairness, which still enables them to become rich, but not to steal others blind.

Interesting - and horrifying - thought. But it explains what I have previously considered unfathomable, i.e. why people vote for policies that hurt them and help others. They want to cash in on the greed feed forever after.

About as likely as a snowball's chance in hades, too.
10:34 AM on 02/14/2012
"the left cannot hold a grudge the same way; otherwise the folks who started the war in Iraq and allowed the housing bubble to grow out of control would be hiding under rocks instead of holding positions of power"

Most of the left went along with the war in Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the inflation of the housing bubble. In the first case, you were frightened into compliance, and in the second and third cases, you were paid off.

That's right, I say "you." Most of you calling yourselves progressives sat silently by or even cheered the Iraq invasion. Most of you calling yourselves progressives didn't utter a single complaint against the Bush tax cuts because you got yourself a tidy little check. Most of you calling yourselves progressives ignored the absurd inflation in housing prices during the years 2001-2007 because you were too busy spending your home equity line of credit.

Now, y'all can't throw that in their faces, because you went along. You got played, you're getting what you deserve, and you should be embarassed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
10:34 AM on 02/14/2012
Just whose fault is it that Republican perfidy is forgotten, while Democrat's perfidy is not?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jen Celli
Done sitting and watching quietly.
10:15 AM on 02/14/2012
Artificially propping up an inflated market was the problem. There were so many reasons not to provide that incentive; but in the end, it came down to the market trying to protect itself. The industry was in free fall and brokers were desperate to protect their own investments. There is no way to stabilize a market that is so inflated that an average American family cannot make a commitment to buy into the market; they don't have the assets or the income to complete the sale. Now with job losses and wage stagnation chipping away at the value of their pay, Americans have even less. This market isn't done correcting and it's unlikely that will change anytime soon as the legislators are too busy trying to find money to finance their personal ambitions to effectively tackle jobs creation for the rest of the country.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:09 AM on 02/14/2012
The Affordable Housing Act and other Affirmative Action programs to get unqualified minorities and others into homes set the charge for the housing implosion. Both parties are guilty but the Dems are dogged devotees of AA so we can expect to see more of the same from that quarter.
10:03 AM on 02/14/2012
Your argument makes no sense to me. In one paragraph, you say that all the credit did was encourage people who would have bought anyway to purchase sooner. Then in a later paragraph, you make it sound like people in less expensive markets would NOT have bought without the credit, causing them to buy at the height of the market. Make up your mind! And, anyway, how do you expect someone to "time" the real estate market in order to buy the home they need when the market is low - you never know for sure. The only rational argument you seem to make is that the credit ramped up planned purchases, creating a lull when the credit was taken away. I do not believe that this tax credit program had the devistating impact on the market you purport - there were much larger factors at play, such as poor lending practices and the credit-default swaps from investment banks and insurance companies that backed them.
Linda from Deerfield
Paying attention
09:48 AM on 02/14/2012
I see this pattern of behavior in Democrats and Republicans as I see many marriages -- one party tends to be more forgiving and conciliatory in hopes of making the marriage work. The question is, does it work? As long as neither party is suffering genuine harm at the hands of the other, yes, it does, but if the give and take is too one-sided, somebody may be in for a rude surprise.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bestoftimes1
08:59 AM on 02/14/2012
So this tax credit was approved by the Dems in both houses and signed by a Dem President and the author blames the real estate industry, media matters at work.
10:18 AM on 02/14/2012
It was proposed by Republicans and signed into law by George W Bush. The First Time Home Buyers credit started in 2008 and extended in 2009 and 2010.

Do some research.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
usna73
We are all in this together
08:54 AM on 02/14/2012
A house is a depreciating asset by definition. It is not an investment. The RW and the left saw convenience for promulgating their respective myths. Had we been more honest ( a word few politicians can spell), we would not have rewarded developers and land speculators with our social engineering.

Instead, Americans would live more productively and efficiently in cities designed with humans and not autos in mind. We'd have more productive uses and means for our capital ( jobs) and there would be no ZIRP, which continues to punish the most prudent among us.

Go to The Netherlands and Scandinavia and have a look at how different cultures successfully organize themselves. Come back and help reshape the so-called "American Dream."