Why Pelosi Chooses Wealthy Homeowners Over the Working Class

cawacko

Well-known member
From a local Bay Area paper. The author says it is tantamount to racism and is socialism for rich white homeowners on the back of poor blacks and latinos. If the Democratic Party really cares about the poor as much as they say they do the mortgage interest deduction would be a top target on the chopping block.




Why Pelosi Chooses Wealthy Homeowners Over the Working Class


This column is Part 1 of a two-part series about the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction and its politics.


The Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction is demonstrably exacerbating the housing affordability crisis while transferring wealth from poorer households of color to richer white households. Yet Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat in the state with the country’s worst affordable housing crisis, refuses to support reform. “Why is Pelosi against a bill aimed at reducing homelessness?” Gillian Rose Brassil recently asked in these pages. “Unclear.”

I would argue that it’s actually clear as day why Nancy Pelosi won’t do right by California’s needy families. It’s as clear as her millions of dollars in real estate and her millions of dollars in campaign contributions from real estate, mortgage lender, and mortgage insurance industry lobbying groups.

What the MID costs

More than 7 million American extremely low income families spend more than half their income on housing, and on any given night half a million Americans sleep on the street, in shelters, or in their cars. America’s needy families spend years on waiting lists for housing assistance, with 75% never getting help.

This is despite Congress spending $200 billion per year on housing assistance. Homeowner subsidies including real estate tax deductions, capital gains exclusions and other expenditures take up $134 billion yearly. That’s more than the budgets for the Departments of Education, Justice and Energy combined.

And 75% of it goes to our country’s richest families.

The MID alone costs the federal government more than all rental subsidies combined, $70 billion a year, nearly equal the food stamp program. By 2019, experts expect it to exceed $96 billion.

The MID was supposed to encourage homeownership. But it’s done the opposite. The MID encourages people who were already going to buy homes to spend more. The bigger the mortgage, the bigger the benefit. “By inflating home values, the MID benefits Americans who already own homes — and makes joining their ranks harder,” writes Matthew Desmond in the New York Times. Jacking up the price of housing “is a particularly poor instrument for encouraging homeownership,” according to economist Edward Glaeser.

Every year we spend $11 billion subsidizing the 1%’s houses. We offer more housing assistance to families earning more than $200,000 annually than those earning less than $50,000.


Racist in effect, if not intention


Homeownership tax benefits are part of what Chris Ladd calls “socialism for white people.”

Between 1934 to 1968, it was the official policy of the Federal Housing Administration to refuse to insure home mortgages in black neighborhoods. What redlining could not prevent, white homeowners handled with burning crosses. “The consequences proved profound,” wrote Historian Ira Katznelson. By 1984, the median net worth for white households was $39,135. For black households, $3,397. “Most of this difference was accounted for by the absence of homeownership.” In 2011, the median white household had a net worth of $111,146. The median household net worth for black and Latino households were $7,113 and $8,348, respectively.

The homeownership gap is the prime driver of the nation’s racial wealth gap. While the majority of white families own a home, most black and Latino families don’t. If black and Hispanic families owned homes at rates similar to whites, the racial wealth gap would be reduced by almost a third.

Thus the MID is a transfer of wealth from poorer black and Latino households to richer white households.

Repealing the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction would end a regressive wealth transfer that is empirically shown to worsen the housing affordability crisis while disproportionately harming black and Latino families. Reform would free up millions of dollars for desperately needed housing assistance.

Next week I’ll go into why California families especially need Pelosi to support abolishing or reforming the MID and why she might be loathe to do so.

Cathy Reisenwitz writes about software for a living, sex on the side, and policy for fun. Her column “Unintended Consequences” appears regularly in the Bay City Beacon. She’s pro-sex, pro-feminism, and pro-market. Sign up for her newsletter and follow her on Twitter.



https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/po...cle_e2a88a50-8148-11e7-bd88-3bda8b1e0fcc.html
 
I'll bump this one last time. The number one reason for the economic difference between whites and blacks in America is housing. And that was caused by discriminatory laws passed by our government. By the time fair housing laws were passed it was too late. Blacks didn't have the chance to get in on the ground floor like whites did.

So who does the MID benefit the most? Well to do whites and Asians.

But this never gets talked about. I understand we all have different issues or topics we are passionate or more knowledgeable about but a home is generally the largest and most expensive purchase a person will make in their lifetime. People talk about equality well the MID sure isn't pushing equality.
 
I'll bump this one last time. The number one reason for the economic difference between whites and blacks in America is housing. And that was caused by discriminatory laws passed by our government. By the time fair housing laws were passed it was too late. Blacks didn't have the chance to get in on the ground floor like whites did.

So who does the MID benefit the most? Well to do whites and Asians.

But this never gets talked about. I understand we all have different issues or topics we are passionate or more knowledgeable about but a home is generally the largest and most expensive purchase a person will make in their lifetime. People talk about equality well the MID sure isn't pushing equality.

You are wrong. Government policies toward housing favor ownership. It does not distinguish based on race. Native Americans and Native Alaskans have higher poverty rates than blacks BTW.
 
I'll bump this one last time. The number one reason for the economic difference between whites and blacks in America is housing. And that was caused by discriminatory laws passed by our government. By the time fair housing laws were passed it was too late. Blacks didn't have the chance to get in on the ground floor like whites did.

So who does the MID benefit the most? Well to do whites and Asians.

But this never gets talked about. I understand we all have different issues or topics we are passionate or more knowledgeable about but a home is generally the largest and most expensive purchase a person will make in their lifetime. People talk about equality well the MID sure isn't pushing equality.
You're a real estate guy. This is a bit over most of our heads and/or interest level. I'll reread your posts in this thread when my energy level is a bit higher.
 
Here in Anchorage we have housing available to purchase for low income earners. http://www.cookinlethousing.org If you've got good credit, good work history and happen to be a checkout clerk at a grocery store you can buy a house.
Too bad hyper lib places like Portland or San Francisco don't have something like this.
 
Here in Anchorage we have housing available to purchase for low income earners. http://www.cookinlethousing.org If you've got good credit, good work history and happen to be a checkout clerk at a grocery store you can buy a house.
Too bad hyper lib places like Portland or San Francisco don't have something like this.

My state has a similar program. Public policy should be made based on the here and now and not in injustices that happened 80 years ago. Here and now, the primary problem is that many public benefit programs have a cliff at the end. People either have to constrain themselves into the safety of subsidized poverty or throw themselves off the cliff. The problem isn't racism. The problem is that there is no soft transition for the poor from poverty to working class or working class into the middle class. I know several people who moderate their incomes in order to maximize their earned income tax credit by remaining underemployed or refusing to work overtime and such.
 
You are wrong. Government policies toward housing favor ownership. It does not distinguish based on race. Native Americans and Native Alaskans have higher poverty rates than blacks BTW.

Are you not familiar with redlining and lending policies prior to the fair housing act?
 
Are you not familiar with redlining and lending policies prior to the fair housing act?

I'm so sick of hearing about how policy x,y,z is why blacks are poor and commit crimes. What about other factors? Like cultural? Glorifying and embracing ganster rap lifestyle? Calling each other "white" if you try to go to college. etc. Wedlock birthrate of 77%.

Sometimes you have to look in the mirror to fix your own situation.
 
I'm so sick of hearing about how policy x,y,z is why blacks are poor and commit crimes. What about other factors? Like cultural? Glorifying and embracing ganster rap lifestyle? Calling each other "white" if you try to go to college. etc. Wedlock birthrate of 77%.

Sometimes you have to look in the mirror to fix your own situation.

Who has said any of that here?

This article is about U.S. housing policy over the past century. To understand the rules and laws in place today we have to know what came prior.

And U.S. housing laws were highly discriminatory and there are vestiges of it still in place today
 
Are you not familiar with redlining and lending policies prior to the fair housing act?

As pointed out before, you are relitigating past injustices. That does not make for sound current and future economic policy. I don't care if they limit or eliminate the deduction or not, but there are middle class and wealthy minorities who can take advantage of the deduction as readily as white people. My doctor is black and he is a hell of a lot more wealthy than I am.
 
As pointed out before, you are relitigating past injustices. That does not make for sound current and future economic policy. I don't care if they limit or eliminate the deduction or not, but there are middle class and wealthy minorities who can take advantage of the deduction as readily as white people. My doctor is black and he is a hell of a lot more wealthy than I am.

1) you can't ignore the past when those same laws are in essentially in place today

2) the MID deduction distorts the market and favors wealthier people; that's just a fact

So you tell me why Democrats want to keep the law in place when they claim to care about poor people and P.O.C.?
 
1) you can't ignore the past when those same laws are in essentially in place today

2) the MID deduction distorts the market and favors wealthier people; that's just a fact

So you tell me why Democrats want to keep the law in place when they claim to care about poor people and P.O.C.?

1. When the interest was first allowed to be deducted, most people did not have mortgages. It was about businesses being able to deduct interest, not Jim Crow.

2. Everything the government does distorts free markets. Eliminating the deduction and spending the money elsewhere will distort the markets.

3. I have no idea why some democrats or some republicans think the way they do on the issue, but currently the democrats don't have the power to empty the garbage in most places these days.
 
1. When the interest was first allowed to be deducted, most people did not have mortgages. It was about businesses being able to deduct interest, not Jim Crow.

2. Everything the government does distorts free markets. Eliminating the deduction and spending the money elsewhere will distort the markets.

3. I have no idea why some democrats or some republicans think the way they do on the issue, but currently the democrats don't have the power to empty the garbage in most places these days.

""Between 1934 to 1968, it was the official policy of the Federal Housing Administration to refuse to insure home mortgages in black neighborhoods. What redlining could not prevent, white homeowners handled with burning crosses. “The consequences proved profound,” wrote Historian Ira Katznelson. By 1984, the median net worth for white households was $39,135. For black households, $3,397. “Most of this difference was accounted for by the absence of homeownership.” In 2011, the median white household had a net worth of $111,146. The median household net worth for black and Latino households were $7,113 and $8,348, respectively.""

From the article. Redlining prevented black folks from moving into many neighborhoods and prevent them from buying in areas where affordable new housing was being built. By the time those laws were removed housing had appreciated beyond the entry level price point and thus affordability for most.

One novel thought would be the gov't doesn't have to distort the housing market and it doesn't have to be a zero sum game where they distort something else either.

The Democrats have enough votes in the Senate to block legislation if they so desire and the MID is one topic that will be discussed in overall tax reform.
 
""Between 1934 to 1968, it was the official policy of the Federal Housing Administration to refuse to insure home mortgages in black neighborhoods. What redlining could not prevent, white homeowners handled with burning crosses. “The consequences proved profound,” wrote Historian Ira Katznelson. By 1984, the median net worth for white households was $39,135. For black households, $3,397. “Most of this difference was accounted for by the absence of homeownership.” In 2011, the median white household had a net worth of $111,146. The median household net worth for black and Latino households were $7,113 and $8,348, respectively.""

From the article. Redlining prevented black folks from moving into many neighborhoods and prevent them from buying in areas where affordable new housing was being built. By the time those laws were removed housing had appreciated beyond the entry level price point and thus affordability for most.

One novel thought would be the gov't doesn't have to distort the housing market and it doesn't have to be a zero sum game where they distort something else either.

The Democrats have enough votes in the Senate to block legislation if they so desire and the MID is one topic that will be discussed in overall tax reform.

The ability to deduct interest, mortgage or otherwise, pre-dates the FHA. It is as old as the income tax. You and he overestimate the effect of redlining as a lot of the neighborhoods had deed restrictions that would have kept blacks out even if they were Oprah rich, and again, back in the day not that many people borrowed and if they did, it would have been through their local banks that would have held the mortgage. You are confusing correlation with causation.
 
The ability to deduct interest, mortgage or otherwise, pre-dates the FHA. It is as old as the income tax. You and he overestimate the effect of redlining as a lot of the neighborhoods had deed restrictions that would have kept blacks out even if they were Oprah rich, and again, back in the day not that many people borrowed and if they did, it would have been through their local banks that would have held the mortgage. You are confusing correlation with causation.

Blacks were not allowed to buy homes in many neighborhoods regardless of whether they needed a loan or not, yes that is fact and has been stated already. I'm not sure what else you are talking about.
 
Pelosi, just like Feinstein, Hillary, and the rest of the left who claim to be for the common man, have all made millions off of their political celebrity, power, and corruptness.

It's a most despicable side of our political system
 
Blacks were not allowed to buy homes in many neighborhoods regardless of whether they needed a loan or not, yes that is fact and has been stated already. I'm not sure what else you are talking about.

living in the past makes you kind of boring, so you know.
give the racist rant a rest already
 
Back
Top