Homeownership shouldn’t be encouraged over renting
American housing policy should be neutral on whether a family or individual owns or rents. Instead, politicians embrace policies that favor homeownership at all costs — costs that often prove to be very high.
Repost from OC Housing News 2011-2016
I am a supporter of homeownership — not loan ownership as it’s become perverted into — but real homeownership free of encumbrances like a hefty mortgage. Most people who achieve home ownership go through a period of indebtedness because few can save enough (or get gifts from relatives) to buy a house for cash. Those that achieve home ownership do so through disciplined repayment of mortgage debt without adding to it to supplement consumer spending via the home ATM.
Anyone who plans to stay in one location for five years or more should consider home ownership. It is advantageous to fix one’s housing costs with an amortizing fixed-rate mortgage, and over time, between house prices inflation and amortizing mortgages, equity builds up into a significant nest-egg useful in retirement. These are great reasons to become a homeowner, and it’s why politicians favor homeownership with an abundance of subsidies.
Home ownership has been linked to greater community involvement and other positive societal goals. This link may or may not be true, but many in the government accept it as so, and this has long been used as a justification for a plethora of policies and misguided government subsidies encouraging home ownership.
However, Housing subsidies are detrimental to America. They do not raise the rate of home ownership, they cause house price inflation and volatility that inflicts financial pain and distress on the population, and these subsidies cost the government an enormous amount of money. Homeownership doesn’t need to be encouraged with government subsidies.
I have a confession to make: I am a homeowner.
That’s a dangerous thing to say. We homeowners are getting blamed for a lot of today’s economic ills, and labeled dupes besides.
We need to make a clear distinction here. Homeowners are not being blamed for anything. People with a substantial equity claim in their properties are not the problem. The lingering economic ills we are facing today is caused by loanowners, those with little or no equity stake that cannot afford their properties, often because they used their home like an ATM machine. And, for the record, they are dupes.
It’s said that we profiteer from an undeserved tax break.
That our obsession with ownership drove the nation to make unwise policy choices during the last eight decades.
That our 30-year fixed-rate mortgages are dinosaurs dependent on government subsidies.
Not true. the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage would exist with or without government subsidies, only the price would change.
We’re told that by treating our homes as piggy banks, we impoverished ourselves and our children.
They did. In a big way. How much emotional pain was inflicted on children because their parents were Ponzis?
That we would almost certainly be better off renting rather than owning.
From 2004 through 2011, anyone would certainly have been better off renting than owning financially. Perhaps they gained some emotional satisfaction, but considering the stress of being underwater, I question whether or not the plusses outweigh the minuses.
That we would be richer had we sunk our nest eggs into stocks and bonds.
But it’s time to stand up for homeownership. Because if we convince ourselves that just because home values declined after 2007 the U.S. should stop encouraging ownership, we’ll be making a drastic mistake.
Specifically, what does he mean by “encouraging?” We clearly shouldn’t be subsidizing home ownership. We shouldn’t be encouraging or discouraging any method of obtaining shelter. Our housing policies should be completely neutral on this question.
The fact is that there are sound reasons for homeownership — though it’s not for everyone — and very sound reasons for government policy to encourage it.
No, there isn’t.
Much of today’s attack on the principle of homeownership doesn’t address that principle at all. …
There’s no real doubt that homeownership is a goal that should be encouraged by government policy.
I worked out so well last time, right?
Yes, there is plenty of real doubt that home ownership should not be subsidized by taxpayer money, and it should not be the sole focus of government housing policy.
Homeowners vote more often than renters. They engage more with neighborhood and community groups. Studies suggest that their children do better in school and are more likely to graduate from high school and move on to postsecondary education.
This is an attack on renters. Are renters substandard people who don’t support their communities and their children? As a renter, I find this offensive. Homeowners are not superior people who deserve special government subsidies paid by the people they deem inferior. This is a tyranny of the majority.
The difference in the length of homeownership is the single largest factor underlying the wealth gap between black and white families, according to research by Thomas Shapiro of Brandeis University. That’s important because from 1984 to 2009 the gap in median net worth tripled, from $85,000 to $236,000. Much of the difference is home equity, which gives home-owning families a leg up in helping relatives with down payments, lowering the cost of borrowing and improving access to credit, Shapiro has found.
It’s true that some of these advantages were sapped by the housing crash. But many long-term homeowners were still able to weather the storm better than renters.
As I pointed out previously, renters did much better than homeowners from 2004 through 2011 — much better. However, loanowners did much better than renters during the recession. Loanowners who decided to quit making housing payments were allowed to squat in their comfortable homes. In contrast, renters who lost their jobs or otherwise felt the pinch of the recession were not allowed to miss any housing payments. If a renter quit paying for their housing, they were quickly put into the street. The gross unfairness of this fact was lost on the homeowners and loanowners that somehow felt they deserved their special treatment.
It’s also true that renting is a good choice for many Americans, including young people who may need to move often at the outset of their careers.
I guess that means people in their 50s like me who rent are complete losers.
And it’s proper to question whether the mortgage interest tax credit is the best tool for promoting homeownership. Green, for one, advocates replacing it with a refundable tax credit, which could be phased out for wealthier homeowners and wouldn’t encourage people to buy bigger homes than they need just to capture the tax break.
But the worst thing that could happen as a result of the debate over housing is that government policy could reverse. …
No, the best thing that could happen is the government supports for homeownership would disappear. Prices would fall, then they would become less volatile, the government would obtain more tax revenue, and it would have no impact on the homeownership rate, nor would it make home ownership less desirable. Home ownership might be marginally less financially advantageous, but it would never be any less emotionally desirable.
That’s the wrong option. “People still want to be homeowners,” Green observes. Why would we want to stifle an aspiration so beneficial to society and the economy?
Reducing or eliminating government subsidies is not tantamount to stifling home ownership. This is a disingenuous lie. Nobody is proposing doing anything that will actively discourage home ownership. What this country needs is an elimination of all home ownership subsidies, and we need to replace our current policies with an ownership-neutral stance where neither owning or renting is encouraged over the other. That’s the balanced policy approach housing really needs.