3 ms·

One of the program requirements is that you buy a house there and live in it for five years.

by khuey 2y ago

more_corn 2y ago
But houses there cost about a nickel.
yergi 2y ago
...and at the current admin's burn rate of almost 10% GDP deficit / year via printing of money, that 10K gonna be worth more like 5k at the present clip in 5 years. Honestly, reducing gov't spending by 50% to fit within the confines of the tax base simply isn't going to happen. So, with that in mind, that 5k (in future real terms) to move to a state with terrible rental laws for landlords (if that's the long term goal) just simply doesn't make any sense at all.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  There is no linear relationship between national debt and inflation. There is no possible way to conclude that because of any particular change in the deficit or debt that $1 today will be worth more or less in 5 years. You don't know, and neither does anybody else.
anticorporate 2y ago
This is pretty important. I suspect the people who are motivated by $2k a year to move there are not the people who are going to be bringing a large influx of capital to a place that very much needs it. Although actually, it looks like there are two separate programs, which you can be eligible for both of: The relocation credit, and the restoration or down payment credit, which is more of a match, so the actual amount is more like $20k total.
- delichon 2y ago
  > I suspect the people who are motivated by $2k a year to move there are not the people who are going to be bringing a large influx of capital to a place that very much needs it. You are correct, they are the people who will be available to be employed by those considering bringing a large influx of capital and taxable revenue. They're the bait.
  - klingoff 2y ago
    Offering $10-20k to move somewhere that doesn't have jobs isn't going to build a labor market. Retirees and remote workers can decide to live in a labor nowhere to stretch their house buying power, lower cost of living, etc.
j_m_b 2y ago
That actually explains a lot. They are trying to expand their tax base. The improvements stipend will allow them to assess the property at a higher value!
- e1g 2y ago
  "Reduced local taxes by $2k/yr for five years" doesn't have the same ring.
- beowulfey 2y ago
  Yes I would guess this is to try and encourage remote workers to move there, would be a valuable influx

One of the program requirements is that you buy a house there and live in it for five years.

by khuey 2y ago

One of the program requirements is that you buy a house there and live in it for five years.

more_corn 2y ago

But houses there cost about a nickel.

yergi 2y ago

...and at the current admin's burn rate of almost 10% GDP deficit / year via printing of money, that 10K gonna be worth more like 5k at the present clip in 5 years. Honestly, reducing gov't spending by 50% to fit within the confines of the tax base simply isn't going to happen. So, with that in mind, that 5k (in future real terms) to move to a state with terrible rental laws for landlords (if that's the long term goal) just simply doesn't make any sense at all.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
There is no linear relationship between national debt and inflation. There is no possible way to conclude that because of any particular change in the deficit or debt that $1 today will be worth more or less in 5 years. You don't know, and neither does anybody else.

anticorporate 2y ago

This is pretty important. I suspect the people who are motivated by $2k a year to move there are not the people who are going to be bringing a large influx of capital to a place that very much needs it. Although actually, it looks like there are two separate programs, which you can be eligible for both of: The relocation credit, and the restoration or down payment credit, which is more of a match, so the actual amount is more like $20k total.

delichon 2y ago
> I suspect the people who are motivated by $2k a year to move there are not the people who are going to be bringing a large influx of capital to a place that very much needs it. You are correct, they are the people who will be available to be employed by those considering bringing a large influx of capital and taxable revenue. They're the bait.
- klingoff 2y ago
  Offering $10-20k to move somewhere that doesn't have jobs isn't going to build a labor market. Retirees and remote workers can decide to live in a labor nowhere to stretch their house buying power, lower cost of living, etc.

j_m_b 2y ago

That actually explains a lot. They are trying to expand their tax base. The improvements stipend will allow them to assess the property at a higher value!

e1g 2y ago
"Reduced local taxes by $2k/yr for five years" doesn't have the same ring.
beowulfey 2y ago
Yes I would guess this is to try and encourage remote workers to move there, would be a valuable influx