The Senate's version of the plan sweetened the $7,500 homebuyer tax credit provision proposed by the House, doubling it to $15,000 or 10% of the home's purchase price (whichever is lower). What's more, the credit applies to all buyers - not just those purchasing their first homes.

The Senate credit also has no income limits. The House version, in comparison, allows only those with incomes up to $75,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples to qualify for the full amount. (In that bill, those earning up to $95,000 and $170,000, respectively, can qualify for a partial credit.)

Also, unlike the tax credit passed last summer as part of the Housing Recovery Act, this one does not have to be repaid. The old credit acted more like a no-interest loan than a true credit and, as a result, had little impact on home sales.

"This will bring pent-up demand back into the marketplace," said Jerry Howard, president of the National Association of Homebuilders. "We believe you can't effectively stimulate the economy until you find a way to stop the downward movement of home values."

The National Association of Realtors estimated the Senate measure will attract an additional one million buyers who would otherwise have remained on the sidelines. "Consumers will view the tax credit as they do lower home prices," said Lawrence Yun, NAR's chief economist. "And more people will qualify [for buying homes]."

That, combined with low mortgage rates, could help reverse the sentiment of many potential homebuyers who are waiting for prices to fall further before they act.

"Consumers are saying, 'Why buy now?' With money on the table, more would jump at the opportunity," said Yun.

The Senate tax credit, unlike the House proposal, is also non-refundable. That means, if your tax obligation is less than the credit, you only receive an amount equal to your tax bill, no more. The average taxpayer pays considerably less than $15,000 a year in federal income taxes and so would not qualify for the entire credit. For example, if your total tax bill is $8,000, your debt would be zeroed out, but you wouldn't receive the remaining $7,000 as a refund.

But homebuyers can take the credit spread out over two tax years. So in the above example, the taxpayer could claim the remaining $7,000 on next year's taxes.

Another difference is that the Senate credit is good for one year following its enactment and is not retroactive. Homebuyers who make purchases before the credit takes effect cannot claim it; under the House bill, they can because the credit is retroactive to the start of 2009 and expires at the end of June. In both bills, buyers must live in the home for two years or forfeit the credit.

Still, many critics doubt that the credit will have as deep of an impact as Yun and Howard predict - and some have been scathing in their critiques. "This is the biggest, most hare-brained scheme," said Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "If this passes, I'll be amazed."

One major objection is that the credit is available to existing homeowners, who would essentially be selling house A to buy house B and thus have no stimulus impact on the economy. Baker called it a "house-flipping subsidy."

Plus, he added, it gives a credit to others who would buy anyway.

"I actually like this bill," Baker said sarcastically, "because, with home prices in Washington plummeting, I'm considering buying a house."

He also raised the possibility that it could be gamed: What's to prevent two people from selling their houses to each other, in name only, just to claim the $15,000 each?

The Tax Policy Center gave the credit a mediocre C+ grade in its Tax Stimulus Report Card.

TPC spokesman Bob Williams agrees that the credit is poorly targeted and does nothing to address the issue that's holding most buyers back: suspicion that prices will keep falling.

"As long as people are uncertain about what markets are going to do, this won't help much," he said. "It's not enough to change that."

If approved, applying for the credit will be easy - or at least as easy as doing your income taxes. Just claim it on your return. No other forms or papers have to be filed. It can be claimed on 2008 returns; taxpayers who have already completed their returns can file amended returns for 2008 that claim the credit.

Once the Senate passes its stimulus bill, which is expected to happen on Tuesday, a committee will meet with House members to reconcile the differences between the two bills.

Jaret Seiberg, who has been analyzing the stimulus package for the Stanford Group, said the odds favor the Senate provisions because they enjoy broad support among lenders, home builders and lawmakers.

"You have to have something in the stimulus bill to help housing, and there's very little else in there that's on point," said Seiberg. 

 

 

 

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- There are two things you may have heard about the Federal Reserve Board, both of which are wrong.

The first is that the Fed controls U.S. interest rates.

The second is that the Fed has made so many commitments that it's in danger of running out of cash or Treasury securities. Which would mean it couldn't carry out its declared policy of putting cash into the world financial system or its undeclared policy of keeping institutions that it deems worthy afloat. Let me show you why both of these beliefs are myths, not reality.

Let's do interest rates first. It's the more common myth, created partly by sloppiness among people in my business who write (and say) things like, "The Fed cut interest rates today."

In fact, we should always insert "short-term" before "interest rates" when we talk about the Fed's control. That because the Fed controls only some short-term rates, primarily the so-called Federal funds rate that financial institutions charge each other for overnight loans. The financial markets set long-term rates, which often don't move in the same direction as the Fed funds rate.

The case in point: the relationship - or lack of one - between the Fed funds rate and the interest rate on long-term mortgages.

Since September, the Fed has reduced the Fed funds rate by 62% - to 2% from the previous 5.25%. But long-term mortgage rates are higher than on Sept. 18, when the Fed began its rate cuts, as you can see from the adjacent graphic, which is based on numbers from mortgage experts HSH Associates.

The rate on a 30-year fixed-rate conforming mortgage - "conforming" means that the mortgage is eligible for sale to mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) or Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) - was 6.44% the week before the Fed's first cut, and was recently 6.51%. Jumbo mortgages - mortgages too big to be considered conforming - were going for 7.63%, up from 7.26%. (All of these numbers include up-front points that borrowers pay, in addition to their basic interest rate.)

The Fed and Treasury - along with many of the world's big financial players - would love to have U.S. mortgage rates decline, because that would lend support to home prices, which could use it.

Falling home values - what we have in most U.S. housing markets - increase foreclosures, which increase borrowers' pain and lenders' losses. The declining value of houses as collateral for mortgages makes mortgage lenders less eager to lend, and makes potential home purchasers far less eager to buy. It's a vicious cycle that will end sooner or later - everything does - but it's not something that the Fed (or any individual regulator or player) can control.

The Fed cut short-term rates to help mitigate the panics that have been sweeping the world financial markets for more than a year. In addition, those lower rates - in theory, at least - help prop up the U.S. economy.

But you can also argue that the Fed's lowering of short-term rates has raised inflation fears and contributed to the decline of the dollar in international markets, which in turn has affected commodities prices, whose massive increases are a major factor in U.S. inflation. So repeat after me: the Fed can set only short-term rates. Which may contribute to having long-term rates act in ways that the Fed didn't intend, and doesn't particularly like.

...

(Excerpt from CNNMoney.com - "Two Fed myths that need debunking")