3 ms·

It's not free money it's a loan, and the bank would still be doing means testing to ensure you can afford the larger loan (well I'd hope). It's all being paid b

It's not free money it's a loan, and the bank would still be doing means testing to ensure you can afford the larger loan (well I'd hope). It's all being paid back. This is a good measure to stop that widening inequality and I'd wager one of the reasons inequality was lower back in the day when 100% loans were normal.

junofan 4y ago
It is automatically discharged after five years and demands no interest of the borrower. I think that strains most conceptions of “loan.”
- chii 4y ago
  i see people balk at this but not at student loans, which have similar properties ('cept with the zero interest and the discharges).
  - mrep 4y ago
    > 'cept with the zero interest and the discharges Lol, that's the main reason we are balking at it. It's basically a free cash handout. The article doesn't even say it has to be a first home so you could probably take advantage of it and move every 5 years and get what is effectively a free years wage paid for by uncle sam.
    - genocidicbunny 4y ago
      The program does require you to be a first-time homebuyer, so presumably you can only get this once: https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homebuyer/programs/forgivable.htm https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homebuyer/programs/forgivable.htm
      - mrep 4y ago
        Good find. Still crazy to me.
      - prepend 4y ago
        The definition of first time home buyer [0] is someone who hasn’t owned a home for the past three years. So one could repeat this cycle every 8 years, not every 5. [0] https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homebuyer/borrower.htm#first-time https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homebuyer/borrower.htm#first-time
        genocidicbunny 4y ago
        Yes, with the caveat that after 5 years you would have to sell your home and then rent for the next 3 to qualify again.
        prepend 4y ago
        Exactly. You’d sell your california house making gains from 5 years. Rent for three years and then get 10% back. I think you’d make more money just holding onto the house as I think the appreciation over three years would be higher than the 10% loan.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Wouldn't this count as income at the Federal level?
- effingwewt 4y ago
  Like businesses that one and all took their 'loans' for payroll yet fired most employees and paid themselves. My father lobes to bitch and moan about socialism and taxation==theft, safety nets are for the lazy (though he definitely used them when he needed them when I was young!), blah blah. Yet he was first in line for the PP 'loan' though he has no real employees but himself. Something about 'money left on the table' if he didn't. Sometimes things are so bad people need help. When businesses fail they don't become homeless, destitute, and possibly dead. Why do we do so much more to protect predatory evil companies than our own brothers/sisters.
setr 4y ago
According to the article, if you live there for 5 years you don’t need to pay it back.

junofan 4y ago

It is automatically discharged after five years and demands no interest of the borrower. I think that strains most conceptions of “loan.”

chii 4y ago
i see people balk at this but not at student loans, which have similar properties ('cept with the zero interest and the discharges).
- mrep 4y ago
  > 'cept with the zero interest and the discharges Lol, that's the main reason we are balking at it. It's basically a free cash handout. The article doesn't even say it has to be a first home so you could probably take advantage of it and move every 5 years and get what is effectively a free years wage paid for by uncle sam.
  - genocidicbunny 4y ago
    The program does require you to be a first-time homebuyer, so presumably you can only get this once: https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homebuyer/programs/forgivable.htm https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homebuyer/programs/forgivable.htm
    - mrep 4y ago
      Good find. Still crazy to me.
    - prepend 4y ago
      The definition of first time home buyer [0] is someone who hasn’t owned a home for the past three years. So one could repeat this cycle every 8 years, not every 5. [0] https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homebuyer/borrower.htm#first-time https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homebuyer/borrower.htm#first-time
      - genocidicbunny 4y ago
        Yes, with the caveat that after 5 years you would have to sell your home and then rent for the next 3 to qualify again.
        prepend 4y ago
        Exactly. You’d sell your california house making gains from 5 years. Rent for three years and then get 10% back. I think you’d make more money just holding onto the house as I think the appreciation over three years would be higher than the 10% loan.
sidewndr46 4y ago
Wouldn't this count as income at the Federal level?
effingwewt 4y ago
Like businesses that one and all took their 'loans' for payroll yet fired most employees and paid themselves. My father lobes to bitch and moan about socialism and taxation==theft, safety nets are for the lazy (though he definitely used them when he needed them when I was young!), blah blah. Yet he was first in line for the PP 'loan' though he has no real employees but himself. Something about 'money left on the table' if he didn't. Sometimes things are so bad people need help. When businesses fail they don't become homeless, destitute, and possibly dead. Why do we do so much more to protect predatory evil companies than our own brothers/sisters.

setr 4y ago

According to the article, if you live there for 5 years you don’t need to pay it back.