<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Housing and inequality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://povertyblog.net/2009/08/27/housing-and-inequality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://povertyblog.net/2009/08/27/housing-and-inequality/</link>
	<description>understanding trends and what to do about them</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:17:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big Brother</title>
		<link>http://povertyblog.net/2009/08/27/housing-and-inequality/#comment-182</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Big Brother]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:13:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://povertyblog.net/?p=648#comment-182</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the things you need to keep in mind is that you can&#039;t overgeneralize these trends.  I heard about a year about that about 80% of the foreclosures occurred in only about 39 counties -- many on the West coast.  So, when you&#039;re talking about a &quot;real-estate bust,&quot; you&#039;re probably talking most about California -- there wasn&#039;t as much of a boom (and so not as much of a bust) in much of mid-America.

That being said, this shows the dangers of government trying to set &quot;housing policy.&quot;  If you don&#039;t give folks a deduction, then folks will argue that the government is standing in the way of lower and middle income consumers owing their own homes.  But, if you grant the deduction, folks will argue that the government is discriminating again non-homeowners.

Here&#039;s a thought.  How about folks only buying homes they can afford?  They put 20-25% down, get a 15-year mortgage, make an extra payment every year and pay it off early.  Then, all the money they were putting towards home ownership can then go to savings or establishing a higher standard of living.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the things you need to keep in mind is that you can&#8217;t overgeneralize these trends.  I heard about a year about that about 80% of the foreclosures occurred in only about 39 counties &#8212; many on the West coast.  So, when you&#8217;re talking about a &#8220;real-estate bust,&#8221; you&#8217;re probably talking most about California &#8212; there wasn&#8217;t as much of a boom (and so not as much of a bust) in much of mid-America.</p>
<p>That being said, this shows the dangers of government trying to set &#8220;housing policy.&#8221;  If you don&#8217;t give folks a deduction, then folks will argue that the government is standing in the way of lower and middle income consumers owing their own homes.  But, if you grant the deduction, folks will argue that the government is discriminating again non-homeowners.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a thought.  How about folks only buying homes they can afford?  They put 20-25% down, get a 15-year mortgage, make an extra payment every year and pay it off early.  Then, all the money they were putting towards home ownership can then go to savings or establishing a higher standard of living.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

