urbanMSP

Unfortunately, that and what I see as stabilizing and rising of prices in the urban core are going to push more people to suburbia. This is one of the reasons we should be maintaining our urban housing stock. Many families will just never live in an apartment or condo no matter what. We want those families living in the city!

What if we have to keep 20 families that are willing to live in an apartment out of the city to keep the 1 family that isn't? Not sure "preserve Single Family homes at all costs" is really a good idea, or at the very least isn't the forgone conclusion you see it as.

When have I ever said, "at all costs?"

That said, a lot of people get second mortgages to cover part of the down payment. Is that not done anymore?

I have to imagine that was people borrowing against equity on their first home for the down payment on a second home. I can't imagine any scenario where borrowing the down payment is allowed..

These were first-time homebuyers and I was offered the same option when I bought my (first and only) house. I got the sense it was common practice before the meltdown. I honestly don't know how the banks did it either. But they they do a lot of shady things to make a buck.

Are we talking about 80/20 here? Because that's definitely a thing. It was common before crash, I'm not so sure now. If you have perfect credit I bet you could still get approved, even as a first time buyer (but you really, really should not do this). I'm fairly certain the practice is still very much legal.

http://www.mortgage101.com/article/how-80-20-loans-work

Apparently this is also known as a "piggyback loan".

And FMP - please stop trying to pick arguments with David. Really not the time or place for that here.

So, I sent over a Certificate of Rent Paid to some renters that just moved out of a rental property of ours... They responded that they don't qualify due to the their income. I looked it up out of curiosity, and the rebate (whether Renter's Rebate or Prop Tax Rebate) fades to zero as household income approaches $107,150. Which seems like it would exclude a large number of married couples (another marriage penalty in the tax code). Yet, I still get a homestead credit on my principle residence but my renters don't get any sort of credit/rebate for the house they rent which is non-homesteaded. That seems unfair to renters.

My wife and I in total make around $80k-$90k a year and we were nowhere near close to getting a refund on our $1000/month apartment. I highly doubt we'll get much if anything back on our $1300/month house we rent now either.
E: Sorry for outing myself as some upper middle class yuppie

So, I sent over a Certificate of Rent Paid to some renters that just moved out of a rental property of ours... They responded that they don't qualify due to the their income. I looked it up out of curiosity, and the rebate (whether Renter's Rebate or Prop Tax Rebate) fades to zero as household income approaches $107,150. Which seems like it would exclude a large number of married couples (another marriage penalty in the tax code). Yet, I still get a homestead credit on my principle residence but my renters don't get any sort of credit/rebate for the house they rent which is non-homesteaded. That seems unfair to renters.

Where did you find that number? The household income limit for rental property tax rebate is $58,060:

http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/individu ... efund.aspx

Good catch. That looks like it's the household cap for renters, and $107,150 is the cap for homeowners. Both are ridiculously low. And the max rebate for homeowners is $600 more than the max for renters.

So renter households get (1) less rebate than homeowners, especially if they are middleish income ($58-107k), and (2) do not benefit from the homestead credit that homeowners get directly off the tax bill.

This is an interesting conversation to me in general. We had no such rebate(that I was aware of) when we rented in Chicago. My wife and I do not qualify for it here. If I understand correctly, renters get a rebate because in theory they're helping to pay the landlord's property taxes?

Yes, as I understand the intent, that's correct. Since renters are ultimately paying the landlord's property tax bill, and since non-homesteaded properties are taxed at a higher rate, this is intended to help make up the difference for renters.

I had no idea the income cap was so low. I still qualify, for now, and for the foreseeable future unless I change jobs.

Slight clarification point: It's not straight HH income though. If you have two roomates (two independent filers) on a lease, you should get two CRP forms from the landlord, splitting the rent paid total 50/50. Scenario: Roommate A (higher income) may qualify for a small refund, while Roommate B (lower income) could get a larger refund.

Like if my gf were to move in and join the lease, we would each get our own CRP for 50% of the rent paid. It's not like we file taxes together so they can't really consider our combined HH income when calculating a potential refund.

Yes, but there's a tax table that you calculate this with, so the refund is contingent both on your income and the rent you pay. In other words, if you have an otherwise qualifying income level, but pay cheap rent (because you're splitting an apartment with a girlfriend, for example), you'll find that your refund evaporates.

That's right. I was mostly just talking myself through the scenario, since my gf is probably moving in next year.

In theory, a pair of young professionals making $55k apiece and renting a $2k+/month apartment at Flux are probably still gonna get refunds. Whereas if they chose to rent a cheaper apartment (for say $850/month), their refund is probably close to nil. It's weird how that works - at any given income level under the limit, in a sense, you are rewarded for paying more money in rent.

Makes sense in a messed up way, since homeowners are rewarded for buying expensive homes with the mortgage interest deduction.

God I wish we'd just get rid of all this crap and simply have everyone pay their taxes. Keep something for the very poor but that's it.

Slight clarification point: It's not straight HH income though. If you have two roomates (two independent filers) on a lease, you should get two CRP forms from the landlord, splitting the rent paid total 50/50. Scenario: Roommate A (higher income) may qualify for a small refund, while Roommate B (lower income) could get a larger refund.

This is exactly what happened the last three years I lived with a roommate.

I had various jobs after college including an AmeriCorps stint, some lousy retail work, and various contract gigs. In other words, my income was pretty low. His was low-ish, but higher than mine through his PhD's graduate assistantship and various bits of work. My refund for our $1000/month apartment was probably 90-95% of what the amount stated on the form. He got maybe half of what I got.

Of course, as soon as I got a permanent job and saw even a modest rise, my CRP return was slashed 60% from the total on the form. And because that was a partial year of full employment, I couldn't have earned more than $26k. It's insane how quickly you can slide right off the scale.

God I wish we'd just get rid of all this crap and simply have everyone pay their taxes. Keep something for the very poor but that's it.

To my understanding that's pretty much exactly how it's set up: it refunds tax payments to only those who can least afford to pay it.

God I wish we'd just get rid of all this crap and simply have everyone pay their taxes. Keep something for the very poor but that's it.

To my understanding that's pretty much exactly how it's set up: it refunds tax payments to only those who can least afford to pay it.

I agree that's generally good. But the result is also that, unless your income is very low, a middle income renter is punished by the existing tax code relative to a middle income homeowner. That's why I put the initial link in the Renting vs. Owning thread, as it seems like that's the distinction that's unfair under the current scenario.

Right. I meant that the rules should be the same for everyone. Homeowners should not get a deduction for mortgage interest. That's just terrible policy.

Really, everyone should pay *all* taxes (including a progressive income tax and no FICA income limits) and the very poor should get a rebate back. Enough with the deductions and tax expenditures.

Screw it, minimum guaranteed income for everyone.

There's so much good urban policy around paying your fair share that can be attacked (and sometimes rightly so) is disproportionately hurting the poor. The inability of the poor to truly participate in markets (parking market, housing market, transportation market, etc etc) really holds all of us back.

Rather than guaranteed income, I'd like to see socialization of all life necessities: housing, food health care, education, transportation and probably a bunch of other things I can't think of right now. If "money is security" as Suze Orman likes to say, let's take security out of the money game. Make money be a tool for satisfying wants, not needs. One shouldn't need money to live.

Providing for basic needs through government funding would alleviate a bunch of stress and help people live longer, plus it would solve the homeless problem, the health care problem, the nutrition problem and a bunch of other problems I'm not smart enough to even know about.

Yes, we'd have to decide what is a life necessity and that definition can change over time but I'm pretty sure there are some foundational things everyone can agree upon.

There's so much good urban policy around paying your fair share that can be attacked (and sometimes rightly so) is disproportionately hurting the poor.

That's true. I used to be a "Lexus Lanes" guy but I changed my mind after conversation with others. The key is to have alternatives available to the poor. HOT lanes, yes, because transit can use them too, but we also need more transit to really spread out the benefits of such lanes.