Our Washington Post online column today is another cry in the wilderness against the homebuyer tax credit.
There are many arguments against the tax credit. One argument we
make is that the tax credit is a benefit for sellers of houses more
than for buyers of houses. This is simplest to see if you imagine a
permanent credit available for all buyers: “Imagine the credit were
expanded to all home buyers and made permanent. This would simply boost
housing prices at the low end of the market by close to $8,000, since
all buyers would be willing to pay $8,000 more. (Prices would rise by a
little less than $8,000 because at higher prices, more people would be
willing to sell.)”
It turns out Nemo had made a similar argument already.
Small point: Nemo (in a follow-up post) says that the tax credit should boost prices by exactly $8,000
(leaving aside leverage for now), because in the short term the supply
curve is vertical. I’m not convinced. The reason we said “close to
$8,000″ is that the supply curve is typically upward-sloping, not
vertical, as shown on the graph in that follow-up post. The supply of
houses can shift quickly, because people can decide to sell their
houses (say, retirees planning to move to apartments in the city can
move that decision forward). Also, if the credit is not available to
everyone, it won’t shift the demand curve by exactly $8,000 at every
point, because the demand curve for houses is the sum of every
individual’s demand for houses, so only some people’s demand will
change. This is why expanding the tax credit to everyone is such a bad
idea. When you restrict it to first-time homebuyers, they get at least
some of the benefit.
Bigger point: Nemo points out that the $8,000 increases the
homebuyer’s ability to make a down payment; since mortgages provide
leverage, this means the potential impact on prices is much higher. If
you are buying a house with 3.5% down, then arguably an extra $8,000 in
cash (which some states will advance you) can boost your buying power
by $200,000. Now, this is a complicated issue, since unless you can get
a no-doc loan, you still need to qualify for the monthly payments.
(Nemo discusses this here.)
But I think it’s fair to say that at least some buyers are constrained
by the down payment more than by the monthly payments, especially with
interest rates so low (I saw this in my summer legal services job). So
the potential impact on a household’s buying power could be a lot more
than $8,000, as Nemo says.
The net effect is that the buyer pays an inflated price for a house,
which will get deflated when the tax credit prop gets taken away. I
believe in some places you can effectively use the tax credit as your
down payment; this means you will have close to zero equity when the
credit goes away, unless housing prices rise.
Originally published at
The Baseline Scenario and reproduced here with the author's permission.
Opinions and comments on RGE EconoMonitors do not necessarily
reflect the views of Roubini Global Economics, LLC, which encourages a
free-ranging debate among its own analysts and our EconoMonitor
community. RGE takes no responsibility for verifying the accuracy of
any opinions expressed by outside contributors. We encourage
cross-linking but must insist that no forwarding, reprinting,
republication or any other redistribution of RGE content is permissible
without expressed consent of RGE.