Originally posted by Hugh GlassDemand for houses increased due to the subsidy. Consequently prices went up. It's the invisible hand of the market controlling the price. Housing subsidies have been a massive failure in Holland, too. It's just as hard for first time buyers to buy a home, so it simply boils down to a subsidy for the rich since they have the biggest mortgages.
How does one buy a home there? Through a real estate agent? I guess what I'm asking, who was able to raise the price to kill the tax gains?
OT: I wonder if Warren told Obama he should raise taxes for the rich.
Originally posted by FMFCarefully telling it like it is,, do you agree?
So the point of your OP quote is...? Buffett [b]is telling it how it is? Or Buffett is not telling it how it is?[/b]
I have a view of two homes in the .5 million range price wise. At least when they were purchased. One was built by a member of our church, as a spec home. Both have been sitting empty for more than a year. They will continue to do so.
One was purchsed in a bank auction, and now I see a sale by owner sign. I would sure be interested in knowing the purchase price.
The few homes in that price range, have been purchased by folks from California... running to escape the fiasco in that state.
The neighbor behind me was a fireman, the next door neighbor, both he and she were state troopers..... it's cheaper for them to live here than in CA.
Wondering a bit today,, time for my Tea..... Have a good day all.
Originally posted by FMFA question of curiosity, that you don't seem to care about answering.
How is that relevant to my point about subsidizing first time house purchases and about what happened in Australia?
You see I am a craftsman, so I felt compelled to ask.. does that anger you?