Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsHousing IssuesStarted 7mos agoActive 4wks ago

Should the government provide subsidies for first-time homebuyers?

These subsidies are financial aids from the government to help individuals purchase their first home, making homeownership more accessible. Proponents argue that it helps people afford their first home and promotes homeownership. Opponents argue that it distorts the housing market and could lead to higher prices.

30 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7mos7MO

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7mos7MO

No

 @9ZHRVZKIndependentfrom British Columbia  agreed…1mo1MO

If you increase demand without increasing supply, you will shift market equilibrium towards higher prices.

 @9VBQB2HNew Democraticfrom Pennsylvania  disagreed…3mos3MO

they take too slow and sellers will most likely go with the buyer who is not using first time home buyer programs for a faster sell.

 @9ZVY22Cfrom British Columbia  answered…4wks4W

No, and the government should tax those who purchase 2 or more homes

 @9WPFLK6Liberalanswered…2mos2MO

To a certain degree. The buyer must show they have worked towards buying, or a reason why the initial downpayment is hard to do, but can support the mortagage.

 @9VJ6C4Kfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

Yes but only if it is going to be their permanent residence.

 @9TXBP2YIndependentfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

To any buyer wanting to get into market or move up the market.

 @9TWMYBXfrom Pennsylvania  answered…3mos3MO

Their is already subsidies for first-time homebuyers in Canada.

 @9TFK3T8from Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

Yes but only a certain amount so the prices don't skyrocket

 @9T6LHXR from British Columbia  answered…4mos4MO

Yes, but verify if the first time homebuyer is buying for themselves or for someone else

 @9WYDMSDfrom British Columbia  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, first time homebuyers should be able to take out longer mortgages, pay no interest, pay as low as 5% for a downpayment and have 10-20k of their mortgage debt wiped.

 @9WQY7BPCommunistfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, and offer public mortgages with below market interest rates

 @9SPT6M5from British Columbia  answered…4mos4MO

No but instead make home ownership more affordable through government involvement in building housing.

 @9RZPX67from Alberta  answered…5mos5MO

it should provide every incentive possible to natural citizens, not foreigners who use loopholes for owning property in canada

 @9RJ6K3Vfrom Ontario  answered…5mos5MO

Yes, but only if they can afford to own the home on their own income.

 @9RFBPZVanswered…5mos5MO

Yes, because the barrier to entry is unattainable for most below the upper middle class. But a concern is it will just inflate contractor prices making the subsidy useless

 @9QW7TQZfrom Ontario  answered…6mos6MO

No, focus on renters and institute a Land value Tax

 @9PS2HQ7Conservativefrom British Columbia  answered…6mos6MO

Yes, if they can prove to be financially responsible

 @9FGSKLL from British Columbia  answered…7mos7MO

Yes, but give an online questionnaire to see how much people are eligible for

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How do you feel about the idea of paying taxes to support homeownership programs — would you be willing to contribute to help others buy homes?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How would owning your first home change your life, and what obstacles do you currently see in reaching that goal?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that it’s better for the government to focus on building more affordable housing than to provide direct financial help to buyers?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

What values or priorities do you think should determine who qualifies for assistance in buying a home?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

If you could design a program to help young people achieve homeownership, what important features would you include or exclude?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Do you think financial aid from the government for homebuyers should be prioritized over other public services? Why or why not?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How important do you think owning a home is to achieving stability and personal success?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Have you or anyone you know been impacted by the high cost of housing, and what emotions does that bring up for you personally?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Do you believe government programs that help first-time homebuyers could lead to unintended consequences like rising home prices?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Is owning a home something you think everyone should aspire to, or is renting a better fit for some people’s lifestyles?

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 12hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree