Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
regularguy

"Maryland reaches fair housing agreement with federal government"

59 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, sparky1 said:

I think you have a point there. I do not know much about the new bus service after the reorganization, but In general I would say that there is a good reason why richer areas have poor bus service. I think every new industrial park should have a rail or bus line to it, and if a developer wants to turn a cornfield or cowpasture into a macmansion farm they should be wholly responsible for building the roads and sewer lines to it, building out the local schools.

I totally agree about the industrial park....Coveington should be the bench mark for such thing...and it should EASILY tie into the existing light rail ESPECIALLY and bus routes.

I think tying in the port via light rail....would be a REAL SHOT IN THE ARM ....to get the millennias to start the next step i public transportation. I hate to say it....cause I will be declared a racists.....but buses have a stigma at least in BC....that is ...it is used only by poor people....and who wants to rub elbows with poor people while sipping my starbucks coffee and checking out my stocks on my latest Iphone. ;):D

I will add in NYC that stima doesn't exist....well except for Donald and his 1%ers. :lol:

Getting developers to 'pay in' to the infrastructure is very very location dependent. And laws there in a given county. When I lived in NJ..my town of South River had a developer come in and build a tract of homes (Sunset homes). The town counsel said fine but you have to pay for the roads/gas and water lines and importantly create a fund for schools that would have to be built to accomidate the influx of child bearing age families.....etc. Deal was done....they paid....tract built. A new high school was built and others expanded.

But that was in the mid 60's....not now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<<<Psst--Guido.  In Maryland it's the Independence Card.>>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a little unclear to me

what's stopping the people who are being "moved" to the areas of opportunity from living there now?

in other words, if they could afford it they could live there, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, boink said:

this is a little unclear to me

what's stopping the people who are being "moved" to the areas of opportunity from living there now?

in other words, if they could afford it they could live there, right?

Of course they could.  Seems to me they are being trained to expect others to pay for their shortcomings.

Not even getting into how the people that worked to buy into the various housing areas will feel about their new subsidized neighbors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being born into poverty is a shortcoming that should not be a lifetime sentence. 

People who live in various "affluent' housing area are subsidived as well, just under different names. Economically having the government pay a portion of rent is not much different than being given part of you  mortgage interest back on your taxes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sparky1 said:

Being born into poverty is a shortcoming that should not be a lifetime sentence. 

People who live in various "affluent' housing area are subsidived as well, just under different names. Economically having the government pay a portion of rent is not much different than being given part of you  mortgage interest back on your taxes. 

 

 Not hardly. The government pays landlords at least 60% of the rent.   How many people do you  know who are paying 60% interest on a home loan? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not an exact equivalent of course, merely an attempt to help those in the lower end of the socio-socioeconomic ladder to better themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sparky1 said:

It is not an exact equivalent of course, merely an attempt to help those in the lower end of the socio-socioeconomic ladder to better themselves. 

It's not only "not exact," it's not even in the same galaxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you were asserting the point that the those in more affluent areas do not "get" anything from the government. They do. 

You are right it is not equal. 

You math obscures the fact that they are percentages. paying a percentage of a rent, and the amount of interest on a home mortgage that could be any rate and many hundreds of thousands of dollars are not "galaxies" apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sparky1 said:

Being born into poverty is a shortcoming that should not be a lifetime sentence. 

 

It's not. 

Signed, 

a guy born into poverty who got out with no government assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blowboatbethesda said:

 Not hardly. The government pays landlords at least 60% of the rent.   How many people do you  know who are paying 60% interest on a home loan? :rolleyes:

If you don't mind I will clarify your last statement ....so the sssslllllllooooooowwwwww will get it. OK?

How many people do you know that are getting 60% of their mortgage paid for by the gooooberment?

And yes .....true homeowners MAY be able to deduct interest. In NO way does that work out for the average middle class homeowner. Maybe for the !%ers and Trump-olites. Not you and me. 

A LOT depends on how much they are making in the first place and second do they meet certain thresholds to be able to deduct interest on said mortgage in the first place.

I speak from experience.When my wife and I first married....we weren't dirt poor....but both on teachers salaries. Due to our wonderful tax code system, what we could deduct was a pitance of the interest relative to our earnings.

So we did something silly.....like took charge...figured the math....took control of our lives and paid the house off ASAP. Yeah it was tough...but the net return in the long run outweighed the so called benefit of the 'deduction'....stretched over years/decades.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sparky1 said:

Being born into poverty is a shortcoming that should not be a lifetime sentence. 

People who live in various "affluent' housing area are subsidived as well, just under different names. Economically having the government pay a portion of rent is not much different than being given part of you  mortgage interest back on your taxes. 

 

Maybe NOT being born into poverty in the first place might prevent that. Meaning....don't have kids you can't afford or don't care to take care of.

 

8 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

It's not. 

Signed, 

a guy born into poverty who got out with no government assistance.

Yes ....many ....like your self do that. And I bet you had a caring family that worried and took care of you and instilled the 'You can do it, you can get out of this' in your head.

Hope i am not being too presumptive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Maybe NOT being born into poverty in the first place might prevent that. Meaning....don't have kids you can't afford or don't care to take care of.

 

Yes ....many ....like your self do that. And I bet you had a caring family that worried and took care of you and instilled the 'You can do it, you can get out of this' in your head.

Hope i am not being too presumptive.

Dad wasn't around much, but mom worked two jobs, and still had time to get in my arse when I brought home a C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmore_ken said:

Dad wasn't around much, but mom worked two jobs, and still had time to get in my arse when I brought home a C

Good for you/her. See that is when parenting....regardless of single or married or whatever. MEANT SOMETHING. It was a responsibility....not something to pawn of to others (goooberment and schools and social workers) as we see a lot of now.

Your kid....your responsibility.

Kudo's to your Mom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great mom.

That is not really in the realm of the question. Policy is not made on the anectdotal. The policy goal is could living in a higher income area help people who live in poverty. If you think it can, than this is a policy that may help. If not, then perhaps another policy would work better. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 8:55 AM, sparky1 said:

 Areas that are more affluent often have lower overall crime rates....

And homeowners in those areas would like to keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. that is why more people want to live there. I think we have reached a point of agreement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sparky1 said:

Great mom.

That is not really in the realm of the question. Policy is not made on the anectdotal. The policy goal is could living in a higher income area help people who live in poverty. If you think it can, than this is a policy that may help. If not, then perhaps another policy would work better. 

 

Actually it is. Your posts make it seem like those who make bad decisions in life should be rewarded. You want to live in a higher income area, make decisions that afford you that type of income. It's not the government's job to save you from your own decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 11:19 AM, Baltimatt said:

The Metro was opposed in Anne Arundel County because it was though it would bring the "wrong people" into the county.  

You might have a point if the Metro skipped North Avenue and Upton, but I don't think so.  Where is the best bus service?  Certainly not in the richer areas.

Light a rail is known as crime rail at either end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, sparky1 said:

Exactly. that is why more people want to live there. I think we have reached a point of agreement. 

Hmm, I noticed in my little part of harford county.  Years ago they started subsidizing renters at the seasons apartments.

Interesting things happened after that.  The safeway started locking the second door in the evening.  The safeway had a guard at night.  The bank near the apartments was robbed a few times.  Police brought a dog in.  The dog went to the subsidized apartments. 

So maybe, the "less fortunate", want to move to nicer areas for better pickings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, overtaxed said:

Hmm, I noticed in my little part of harford county.  Years ago they started subsidizing renters at the seasons apartments.

Interesting things happened after that.  The safeway started locking the second door in the evening.  The safeway had a guard at night.  The bank near the apartments was robbed a few times.  Police brought a dog in.  The dog went to the subsidized apartments. 

So maybe, the "less fortunate", want to move to nicer areas for better pickings.

Woodlawn is not a bad area nor is it a rich area. But as consistent as the sun coming up. Almost, everytime some former city dweller moves in....bad things happen subsequently.

Robbing poor people is not a good 'business' model. Sometimes I think that the gooooberment is subsidizing not only a place to stay....but crime that is being exported to the burbs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2017 at 2:02 PM, bmore_ken said:

Man. Hst2 is slipping. When I saw the title, I thought he would already have 20 posts on it. :lol:

don't fall for hst2's  s h t i c k

he likes his nice white neighborhood just the way it is

Edited by boink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 9:25 AM, sparky1 said:

Being born into poverty is a shortcoming that should not be a lifetime sentence. 

People who live in various "affluent' housing area are subsidived as well, just under different names. Economically having the government pay a portion of rent is not much different than being given part of you  mortgage interest back on your taxes. 

 

Not really.  Not when you consider that our progressive tax codes ensure that those homeowners play plenty of taxes.  The middle class carries the heaviest tax burden. 

And the mortgage interest tax deduction average is less than $2000 a year.  Annual property taxes will exceed that for most and the 2% transfer taxes on the Baltimore County average home price would be $4600.  So don't go around thinking average Harry homeowners are breaking the bank and walking away with millions.  

https://www.fool.com/mortgages/2015/01/11/why-your-mortgage-interest-isnt-actually-tax-deduc.aspx

http://www.choicefinance.net/maryland-closing-costs.htm

https://www.zillow.com/baltimore-county-md/home-values/

Edited by Bawlmerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 6:07 AM, Bawlmerian said:

Not really.  Not when you consider that our progressive tax codes ensure that those homeowners play plenty of taxes.  The middle class carries the heaviest tax burden. 

And the mortgage interest tax deduction average is less than $2000 a year.  Annual property taxes will exceed that for most and the 2% transfer taxes on the Baltimore County average home price would be $4600.  So don't go around thinking average Harry homeowners are breaking the bank and walking away with millions.  

https://www.fool.com/mortgages/2015/01/11/why-your-mortgage-interest-isnt-actually-tax-deduc.aspx

http://www.choicefinance.net/maryland-closing-costs.htm

https://www.zillow.com/baltimore-county-md/home-values/

Don't disagree with a single thing you are saying.

If memory serves....the interest deduction was put in place years ago to motivate people to take on owning a home...with the idea that it would help the construction industry in the long run.

However IMHO .....the concept/image of joe six pack getting a 'break' has been bastardized due to the more affluent buying McMansions and 2nd and 3rd homes using varous tax loopholes in conjunction with the original one.

Again IMHO....I have no issue with the deduction being removed. PROVIDED, that those that are receiving it are grandfathered in and would only affect new home buyers.

BTW I have no skin in this since I paid my home off 20 years ago.

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not only the ability to write off the interest on mortgage loans (up to a million $ per year), it is also the ability to deduct the state and local property taxes on the house. Of course an added bonus is the accumulated value of the asset that the homeowner gets to keep. Home ownership is the single greatest way to accumulate wealth a lower or middle class family has available to it. The government encourages this. . .

The downside is that this can be/ was denied to some group though redlining and other means. Most of those practices have thankfully ended now, but the head start given to my grandfather who was able to pay off his house and pass the proceeds to my parents who were able to use it to put a down payment on their first house. The appreciation on that allowed them to buy another in a nicer neighborhood, take out the loans to send me and my brother to college. The second mortgage on that allowed them to lend me the money to buy my house and start my family. 

Starting from scratch takes away more than a fifty year head start for some. Allowing some to move and be able to rent, not buy in an area that is not stricken with the woes often described here is really not much to give them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0