Mar 31

without having to pay taxes?

It would be a great way to improve our real estate market!

6 comments so far...

  • Sharon T Said on March 31st, 2010 at 9:27 pm:

    Absolutely not!

  • Wayne Z Said on March 31st, 2010 at 9:41 pm:

    Normally, No.

    There is one exception. A “self-directed IRA”. Unfortunately, I believe that they are pretty expensive to set up and the rules on what you can do and not do are very strict.

    Also, due to the tax advantages that rental real estate can create, it is not smart to hold these in an IRA.

  • Gershon b Said on March 31st, 2010 at 10:32 pm:


    I’m not so sure that giving the housing industry a boost is a good idea. When I bought my first house in 1977, I was required to put 20% down and prove that I’d saved the money myself through old bank statements.

    My house payment could not exceed 25% of my income and my total bill payments could not exceed 36% of my income.

    That house cost me $35,000 for a duplex. Now that same house is about $250,000 based on looking at listings in that area.

    At the time, I was making about $25,000. The price of the house has gone up about 7 times. To be able to afford that house now, I’d have to make $175,000 a year. This is for a small town in upstate New York where I suspect not many make that much.

    Artificially inflating the price of houses through methods like you suggest doesn’t help the consumer. In fact, it hurts us as we pay interest on a higher loan amount. And it has led to 30 year mortgages as well as adjustible rate mortgages and a relaxation of loan requirements which have gotten the consumer in trouble.

    Personally, I’d love to go back to the old standards. Sure, my house might plummet overnight to half its value. But does it really? If I need to move, the house I’m buying will have also plummeted.

    The country would benefit as lower income buyers would actually be able to afford a home after a few years of saving instead of being tricked into mortgages that will never be paid off.

    If you ask the same question concerning another commodity you will see what I mean. Suppose people could cash in their IRA’s to buy a car. This inflow of cash would raise the prices of cars for everyone, including those who have no IRA to cash in. We surely need to stimulate the car industry as the big 3 are all but bankrupt. But do we need to tempt people to lose their retirement savings to do it?



  • Jss Said on March 31st, 2010 at 11:25 pm:

    $10,000 for first time home buyers.
    Read about Trad IRA

  • auntb93 Said on March 31st, 2010 at 11:57 pm:

    It would take an act of Congress, but it’s a far better idea than the Bush proposed bailout. Have you looked closely at the proposed legislation? It creates an awful lot of power and attempts to give more power to the administers of the program than the Constitution allows.

  • The angels have the phone box. Said on April 1st, 2010 at 12:23 am:

    Gershon is absolutely right. All of the fudges we create to make it easier for people to come up with loads of money only help the property tycoons make even more money.

    Housing is a basic human need and should be a right, not a privilege. Or a source of ridiculous wealth for those who already have plenty.

leave a reply

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Page Ranking Tool