Skip to comments.Payroll tax cut to cost homebuyers $5,000
Posted on 12/22/2011 12:38:06 PM PST by hiho hiho
Most homebuyers will pay an increased fee to finance their mortgage as part of a U.S. Senate compromise approved today to continue a 2 percentage point cut in payroll taxes and extend unemployment benefits until February.
In a last-minute compromise reached Friday night, the Senate agreed to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits but only for two months and to pay the estimated $30 billion to $40 billion cost by increasing the fees on new mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The increase is expected to cost a new homebuyer about $17 a month for a $200,000 mortgage and would tack on an estimated $5,000 to the cost over the life of the loan, according to the Associated Press.
(Excerpt) Read more at lansner.ocregister.com ...
And Mitchy says this is a good thing.
Goodbye middle class.
At least then taxpayers can recoup a little of their money until the borrower defaults.
Which means, with a two month tax break, homeowners will PUT OFF buying that house until March... so no income to offset the decrease to social security.
Gee, another great idea from Mr. Reid.
I’d like to see how he gets a guy sober.
Why am I not surprised that the MSM isn’t reporting this?
This is just too difficult for Brian Williams to explain to us poor saps.
I think the Fannie/Freddie fee increase is permanent.
If this is how they "pay" for a two month tax decrease, will they permanently sextuple the new fees to cut the Social Security tax for the rest of the year.
Why the F should homebuyers pay for this.
The tax on Home buyers will be permanent.
Oh, that’s rich.
They put in a permanent fee to pay for a temporary tax reduction? And that helps the struggling housing market how...?
My tag line says it all.
I’m desperately trying to close on a purchase by the end of the month. This just adds to the reasons. Words fail me in describing my unimpressedness with the “wisdom” of our elected stooges.
The replacements can be replaced too, until we get it right.
From the beginning, it has been about whether we become more of a socialist country.
Do each of us pay for our own retirement or do we force some of us to pay for everyone else;s retirement?
Social security was meant to be a form of insurance. First they robbed the trust fund so that there is no trust fund and the money paid does not grow as it would in a true investment trust, and now they rig it so that each worker no longer is maintaining his own “trust”.
This is not a two month deal and it is not a one year deal. This is the way it will be forever until the Marxists in our midst change it so that only the 10% at the top pay for everyone else.
Robbing Peter to bribe Paul.
Ain't that the truth! And another thing: In accounting/finance terms, it would be "paying for it" if the payment (however deranged) occurred in the same period as the expenses. That's the elementary principle of matching costs and income.
Here, if I understand what's been proposed, TWO MONTHS of Social Security payroll rebates are to be paid for by 20 or 30 YEARS of expense capitalized onto the wholly unrelated category of homeowner mortgages. Am I missing something?
I can remember when it cost $thousands X-tra a car of taxpayers’ money, when Obama wanted to bribe Americans to purchase a car.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.