Kamala Harris announces $100B plan for black homeownership, tackling racial wealth gap

[DENNYINMI]

Ireland was a British dependency during the entire period of the transatlantic slave trade, so Ireland did not have any independent involvement in that trade. Most of the British slaving ships were based in English ports such as Bristol and Liverpool. Some were based in Glasgow or other Scottish ports. Few were based in Ireland .

@(name removed by moderator) your history is apples and orange’s translated simply you did not have years of free labor with the stigma that followed. I’m sure the Irish working class you speak of were compensated for their labor in Ireland…In our great country it would have be so too if you were hired…“Irish need not apply”…sad past.

 

[tafan2]

There are 40 million African Americans in the US. If we assume an average household of 3, that is around 13.3M. That comes out to aroudnm a $7500 subsidy per family. Now, 41% already own homes, so that will increase it to around $18500 per family who do not currently own homes. Heck of a good deal. Is this part of reparations, or is that in addition to this.

 

[midori]

If we assume an average household of 3, that is around 13.3M.

Oooh. Is this the place where we get to point out 65% of black/African American households are single-parent? Which translates into 6,123,000M (children?) in single-parent households? Vs, say, 556,000 Asian/Pacific Islander kids in single parent households (15%), or 41% of Hispanic/Latino kids (7,283,000) or 24% of non-Hispanic white kids in single parent households (8,623,000).

So, even if we’re assuming a household of 3… what happens when it’s just a single-income mom, plus two schoolkids?

In 2006, 67% of white women in the US between the ages of 25-54 were married, vs 34% of black/African American women in the same age range. In 2009, 42% of black/African American women were never married at all. By 2016, only 29% of black/African Americans were married, and 48% of black/African American women had never been married.

However, up until 1970, black women were more likely to be married than white women were…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I think that’s a very critical piece of the puzzle. If you’re totally on your own, you need to be a very high earner in order to not just take care of your immediate needs and wants, but also have enough left over for saving up. Frequently, these days, we depend on having a double-income in order to do that, although it’s certainly not the only way. But if you don’t have a solid partner to team up with… homeownership is a very distant and unlikely ambition.

So-- perhaps there ought to be more emphasis on traditional values and the cultivation of moral virtues (avoiding drugs, chastity, etc) and marriage — and that will solve a few social problems that will lead to a better economic situation for a particular demographic that’s disproportionately susceptible to incarceration, out-of-wedlock kids, high abortion rates, job loss, and so on.

During the dot-com bust, I remember being a paycheck away from homelessness. That wasn’t where we wanted to be— so you bet we spent the next 10 years working to put ourselves in a better situation. We’ve done well, but it wasn’t an easy road.

 

[Ridgerunner]

think that’s a very critical piece of the puzzle. If you’re totally on your own, you need to be a very high earner in order to not just take care of your immediate needs and wants, but also have enough left over for saving up

Clearly so.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Generational wealth. That’s a new one.

 

[midori]

Generational wealth. That’s a new one.

It’s been around a while, but I’ve noticed it more frequently in the last ten years. Perhaps I’m just paying attention more to it now than I used to?

According to NASDAQ, it’s estimated that 70% of wealthy families will lose their wealth by the second generation. 90% of wealthy families lose it by the third generation. (aka “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”.) There are entire industries built up around protecting people’s fortunes so that they can benefit the future generations, instead of being frittered away carelessly by a shortsighted heir.

The person who builds the fortune is usually disciplined. They sacrifice and they work hard to build what they build. Their kids have usually seen what they had to go through, and they respect it. But by the third generation, the kids don’t see the frugality and effort that went into building the fortune. They just know, “Ahhh, we’ve always had it easy–!” and enjoy the fruits of other people’s work, but they don’t understand what went into gaining it, let alone how to manage or improve it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Generational wealth. That’s a new one.

White fragility.

 

[dvdjs]

Great! now maybe we can get somewhere

Please don’t say “now”. There has never been a denial of the obvious fact that the Senator spoke of hte impact that this program would have on many blacks.

The simple and obvious point is that the idea that the program was targeted to people on the basis of their skin color, and that the Senator was quoted as having said this are plainly false.

 

[dvdjs]

But it still is a burden, because their heirs now have a home that has a value of $1.5M, and is taxed at $1.5M, but they presumably don’t have the income of a millionaire.

You are completely wrong about this. It is still taxed at the purchase value.

A home is not wealth. It is a consumer good that might or might not gain or lose value.

Home ownership is, as a matter of fact, the most significant investment and means of garnering wealth of most Americans.

 

[dvdjs]

I also severely doubt your claim that the rest of world magically stopped all forms of racism upon abolishing slavery.

I made such a claim? Really?

Please stop making assertions without evidence

 

[Xystus]

Xystus:

Great! now maybe we can get somewhere

Please don’t say “now”. There has never been a denial of the obvious fact that the Senator spoke of hte impact that this program would have on many blacks.

The simple and obvious point is that the idea that the program was targeted to people on the basis of their skin color, and that the Senator was quoted as having said this are plainly false.

would you like to answer the question now?

Since you do not deny Harris specifically singled out black families you can now try to explain how “singling out” and “targeting” are different?

Let me help you get started:

Single Out: to choose one person or thing from a group for special attention

Target: to direct an action, advertising, or a product at a particular person or group:

Using “target” instead of “single out” does not change the meaning of what Harris said.

 

[midori]

You are completely wrong about this. It is still taxed at the purchase value.

We’re talking property taxes, right?

Purchase value has an effect on property taxes, and taxable value =/= market value, but what county/state in this country has a 50-year history of freezing its property tax rates according to its last purchase price? Especially after it transfers from Original Purchaser A to Heir B? Property tax is the primary source of revenue for local government, and I’ve never heard of any of them being so kindhearted.

My property taxes get adjusted ever year. There are several houses I’ve looked at that I’ve specifically avoided, because I saw the tax rates skyrocketing over the last four years. When I asked the Appraisal District, “Hey, what’s up?” they explained, “Oh, this house used to be appraised at $x, but now it’s appraised at $x + $50k, and so we’re going to continue raising taxes until they reflect the reality.”

I know it’s something that changes from state to state… I know there are programs for certain individuals to help freeze their taxes and make their budgets predictable. In some places, it’s a straight age-related thing, and in other places, it’s a combination of age + low-income. Some places have programs for veterans or people who are more than 50% disabled.

If you could cite the town/state, that would be educational, thank you.

 

[midori]

Home ownership is, as a matter of fact, the most significant investment and means of garnering wealth of most Americans.

Oooooohhhhhh… you’re talking “net worth” kind of wealth.

I think some of us are looking at wealth in a liquidity kind of way.

Net worth is just an imaginary number. It has no practical value in real life.

I can have $500 in my bank account, and I can own the Hope Diamond (value $350M) and I can own a house worth $2M, but when my transmission goes out, neither the Hope Diamond nor my home is of any use to me, because I need $4k to get my car fixed. And yet I have a net worth of $352M.

Having access to liquid assets is far more important in being “wealthy”. You don’t lock your money up in things that you can’t get it back. Or at least— you don’t lock up more money than you can spare.

We were talking about MC Hammer the other day, about how he blew through $70M, even though much of it was a very generous gesture to help out friends and family. He bought 17 luxury cars, a private jet, and 21 racehorses. Then he spent $30M on building a lavish estate. He was earning the current equivalent of $50M in one year— and yet today, he’s a preacher in LA.

Because when the time came to sell the estate— yes, he built it for $30M, but he sold it for $6.8M. His luxury cars, jet, and racehorses were sold during bankruptcy proceedings… and you bet they didn’t sell for their full value/original price. When he needed to pay back his 200 creditors, he had gold-plated driveway gates and two swimming pools— but no actual liquidity. He bought all these expensive material goods— yet he wasn’t a wealthy individual, because he had no liquidity.

As of now, MC Hammer has a net worth of $1.5M, although at his peak, he had an estimated net worth of $33M. But because he didn’t have liquid wealth— that $33M was ultimately an imaginary, meaningless number, because his lifestyle wasn’t sustainable with reality.

 

[dvdjs]

can now try to explain how “singling out” and “targeting” are different?

Let me help you get started:

You help is unnecessary, and the discussion has already been given.
What has not been given is the explanation of why posters here have tried to take this reasonable program that attempts to rectify a problem and falsely spun it into a program targeted for blacks, even going so far as to indicate that Harris was quoted as saying that.
What is the reason for that?

 

[dvdjs]

Oooooohhhhhh… you’re talking “net worth” kind of wealth.
I think some of us are looking at wealth in a liquidity kind of way.

Assets have varying degrees of value and varying degrees of liquidity. They are all a part of one’s wealth. If one has an erroneous value attached to their assets, the the estimate of their wealth is erroneous. But the error is in the assessment, not in the concept of incorporating the asset into the estimate of wealth.

Is Trump wealthy?

 

[midori]

Assets have varying degrees of value and varying degrees of liquidity.

Oh, sure. But we’re talking about houses = major source of wealth. And anyone who’s ever tried selling a house during a down cycle will tell you how frustrating it is to have six figures locked up in a house that takes three or four years to sell.

So that’s the point that’s trying to be made— homeownership is a reflection of preexisting wealth, as in, “I’m now in a situation where I can lock up six figures of my money/future earnings in a structure to store my stuff.” Rather than homeownership being a path to wealth— “I’ve bought this six figure house, and I have trouble keeping the utilities on, but I’m a homeowner, so I’m good!”

 

[dvdjs]

Oh, sure. But we’re talking about houses = major source of wealth

That idea is not is not undercut by the variability of appreciation/depreciation. The basis is the fact that most American families have few other major assets,.

And here’s the median net worth of U.S. families based on the age of the head of household:

Age 35 or younger: $11,100
Age 35-44: $59,800
Age 45-54: $124,200
Age 55-64: $187,300
Age 65-74: $224,100
Age 75 or older: $264,800
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/the-net-worth-of-the-average-american-family.html

 

[qui_est_ce]

My mom was a millionaire in the 1990’s. Then the stock market crashed.

 

[dvdjs]

Purchase value has an effect on property taxes, and taxable value =/= market value, but what county/state in this country has a 50-year history of freezing its property tax rates according to its last purchase price? Especially

Have you never heard of Proposition 13?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Savings accounts, IRA’s, and 401k’s should be utilized. Many employers match savings up to a certain amount. I don’t have the statistics in front of me, but Americans are notorious for buying on credit and not saving. In Germany, they pay cash for just about everything. Many placed don’t even take credit cards.