Smasharoo wrote:
Um... You're really asking that question? You'd be hard pressed to find any social policy organization in the last half century who would argue otherwise.
Nope.
Most argue vehemently that the most important difference between those stuck in poverty and those who succeed is the opportunity for home ownership.
False. What a crazy bullsh*t idea. "If only we could get these catastrophically poor people into a loan for an overvalued home that they can't afford, THEN we might get some where."
No one has thought this, ever.
Now some have gone too far with this and caused the whole housing bubble, but the basic idea is true.
The housing bubble HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR PEOPLE BUYING HOUSES. NOTHING
Let it sink it. It's a ludicrous "blame the poor people" fallacy that's never been even vaguely close to true. 93% of housing defaults tied to toxic mortgage securities were from homes that were not the owners primary residence.
If it's at all possible for someone to spend their housing dollars on buying a home rather than renting, that person's fortunes and the fortunes of his children and grandchildren will be affected for the better.
Nope.
How does that help society as a whole?
It doesn't. It helps banks.
Lower crime. More responsibility. People who own rather than rent are much less likely to engage in vandalism and a host of other forms of crime. They're much more likely to be gainfully employed. Most importantly, when we get to second generation effects, they are less subject to a "wage slave" state. Owning property means that housing costs are much lower for successive generations. Losing a job when you own a home outright is bad, but not nearly as bad as if you are renting (or still buying). You have many more options, and can afford to take a lower paying job in the meantime rather than be "stuck" in a "must earn X dollars or not work at all" situation.
The benefits across the board for greater home ownership within a society are pretty significant. While I'm not surprised that you'd oppose it (cause your ideology more or less requires people remain as poor as possible), I am surprised you'd be so blatant about your opposition. I kinda expected you to be a bit more coy about it.
The reason I'm so "blatant" about my opinion is that it's based on data, not a wild guess and what I saw on "Meet The Press" twenty years ago and sort of vaguely remember.
The Home Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction is pointless and basically a gift to the upper middle class. It should be eliminated and the dependent deduction increased for people below certain income thresholds.
Having societal value gained from widespread home ownership was a thing in popular academia until fairly recently. Post crisis,
policy institutions have started reevaluating this view. Saying there is no basis for this idea is fairly silly, as the view of this subject in the research is still evolving. Gbaji's cultural information is fairly well known to be 5-20 years out of date, when there was an attribution of a home ownership social boon. Now, granted, there have been a lot of
self-interest driven studies by financial institutions which muddied the water on this issue, but assuming that the populous is plugged into things
like the NPR piece on the 30-yr fixed seems overly rose-tinted , I mean, you seem to know at least something about the information transfer dynamics of low-information voters, so this can't be entirely new.