Johnny Isakson panders to the well-off
Sen. Johnny Isakson, Republican from Georgia, considers himself a fiscal conservative, but he spearheaded a wholly unnecessary, red-ink-swelling giveaway to the affluent with his expanded tax credit for homebuyers.
I wasn’t crazy about the idea of a tax credit for first-time homebuyers, but in this wretched economy, it wasn’t the worst idea to come down the pike. But Isakson, who used to head a large real estate agency, talked his colleagues into expanding the tax credit to people who already own a home.
To qualify, the home must be no more than $800,000. The program also restricts eligibility to individuals who make no more than $125,000 annually and couples who make more no more than $225,000. Anyone who collects the tax credit but sells the home within three years of buying it must return the refund.
Folks in that income bracket don’t need the help! As the conservative Heritage Foundation put it:
As the United States Senate recently surveyed the wreckage of the economy in search of victims needing government assistance, several stumbled upon a heretofore neglected corner of human misery: the plight of America’s very rich families who are unwilling to use their own vast resources to trade up to a bigger, higher quality house.
Congress really ought to resist pandering to the well off. There are too many average Americans who need assistance and can’t get it.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
23 comments Add your comment
jconservative
November 6th, 2009
12:20 pm
Sounds like another big government give away by the Republicans. Honestly, in the past 30 years the line between Republican & Democrat has gotten thinner & thinner. Now you can hardly tell them apart.
Rant
November 6th, 2009
12:31 pm
Finally, from New Zealand, a common sense approach to the increasing drain on social services, high crime rates. and the ever increasing taxes on the responsible contributors of society (though sterilization is cheaper and comes with a better guarantee) –
Mr Laws goes on to write: “it would be far better for this appalling underclass to be offered financial inducements not to have children, given the toxic environment that they would provide for any child in their care.”…”the consequent financial and social savings to our community would be considerable.
“There are too many people who should not have children.”
John
November 6th, 2009
1:12 pm
Enter your comments here
3rd Party Guy
November 6th, 2009
1:22 pm
Whenever the “two” parties get together and “compromise”, only two groups benefit at the expense of the middle class: the connected wealthy and the disconnected poor.
Joan
November 6th, 2009
1:22 pm
Well, I agree, for once, with you on this one. Not because the money is given to income earners or their houses cost a lot more than most can afford, but simply because the government needs to stop giving away taxpayers’ and their children’s futures to prop up an economy that would be a lot better off without all this financial engineering. We need to cut out all the bailouts, the handouts, and the giveaways, and let the smart, the hardworking, the strong survive. If we do that we will be a better, stronger country, and maybe we will cut down on the whiners, moaners, the people who lie around eating and scream about equality–so sorry Cynthia, I didn’t mean to get back to you and your chosen.
Call it like it is.
November 6th, 2009
1:28 pm
Woman, you kill me. I love how you pick and chose what facts you want to include. How about this nugget straight from the article. “”The legislation represents an effort by Democrats to strengthen the anemic economy.”" You pick on Johnny as if this was another evil plan by the right, but yet the article clearly states this is a democrat led effort.
Your efforts to continue to paint the right in a negative tone, is beyond being upsurd and unworthy from a reporter from a major newspaper.
And where do you see this as a tax break for the wealthy? It says homes UP to $800,000. Not 8K and above but up to. And why would you not want to create an incentive to buy homes. And people who are in homes that get the break are going to turn right around a put that money back into the economy, by more then likely adding to their home. New windows, roof and so forth.
You can not continue to “steal” from those that have and give to those that don’t.
I for one and glad the Democrats are maning up and doing the right thing on this.
Peaches
November 6th, 2009
1:48 pm
Cynthia Tucker panders to the stupid.
El Jefe
November 6th, 2009
2:18 pm
Hmm, Cynthia might qualify – with her new digs in DC – I am sure there are plenty of low cost housing in DC.(that is low cost for DC)
Wonder is anyone on Manhattan island would qualify?
Shananeeeeee Fananeeeeeeee
November 6th, 2009
2:33 pm
Good news for me! Now Fraud-bama on the other hand panders to the idiots out there. “As President all existing buisnesses will get a $3,000 tax credit for each additional full time employee hired.” Who fell for that one? “As President to reform healthcare I am going to have round table meetings televised on CSPAN with doctors, insurance companies, and myself so the public can stay informed during this process.” – That was a good one. ” As President I will end all income tax for all seniors making less than $50,000 a year.” I’m sure a lot of Grandparents out there liked this promise. “No lobbyists in my White House.” HaHaHaHaHaHa – good one sir. “You Lie” – Joe Wilson
Sunshine and Thunder
November 6th, 2009
2:56 pm
I thought the idea was to stimulate the economy. To do that we need to sell dormant houses and make room for new construction jobs. But noooooooooo…!!, we can’t stimulate anything if those who earn a lot of money would benefit. We must march to the beat of brain dead class warfare and continue to divide the country.
What incredibly ignorant tripe.
Cosby Smith
November 6th, 2009
3:13 pm
One of the few times I have agreed with Ms tucker. Do not agree with the tired old get the rich mentality but it is true good old Johnny is helping his $1,000 plate donors in the realty industry. Just another example of why the government should butt out and let the market take care of itself. For bashing the rich, Ms tucker, did you ever ask a poor person for a job…think about it. Another great example for The FAIR TAX, then the politicians could not use the tax code for political pandering.
Stone Thrower
November 6th, 2009
3:14 pm
And why wouldn’t he pander to the well off? The poor don’t vote nor do they contribute so they don’t matter.
Spartann
November 6th, 2009
4:17 pm
Ms. Cindy Lou gurrrrl.. With all the cheap pot shots you take at the GOP, it would come as no surprise to learn your D.C. pier de terre is surrounded by a S.W.A.T. team.
Steve
November 6th, 2009
4:22 pm
Here’s your sign Cynthia
SouthGaDawg
November 6th, 2009
4:45 pm
Ughh…its a tax credit. The idea is to stimulate the economy Cynthia, and by making it so the people who HAVE the money have an extra incentive to buy houses, the hope is that the real estate market, and the economy will be stimulated.
However, your reaction to this tax credit just demonstrated what the “stimulus” plan really is all about: welfare.
bob
November 6th, 2009
4:49 pm
How can Isakson do this with a dem controlled house and senate ? I’m tired of people getting breaks but if gov is giving them, why not let people that actually pay fed taxes get it.
Eric
November 6th, 2009
5:06 pm
Yup–there’s little difference anymore between Dem. and Rep. on spending and tax breaks for the wealthy and big business. Who can deny this?
TnGelding
November 6th, 2009
8:00 pm
They don’t need the help, but they do need an incentive to get them to move. But like so many govt. programs, it’s just another give-away to the wealthy.
Why were people so willing to pay two or three times what it cost to build a house? We need comsumer education, badly.
dmac
November 7th, 2009
10:51 am
Mrs. Tucker is exactly correct. During the enitre mortgage/credit/Wall Street crisis, Isakson has not supported measures aimed at reducing foreclosure rates. Oh sure, he voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout, saying that it would help everyone. HA!
Isakson’s legislation should be called “Leave No Realtor Behind Act”.
MAC
November 7th, 2009
11:27 am
First, I’m not for this program but…. $125K/$225K a year is not “rich” especially if you live in the Northeast or CA. Plus a $800,000 home in metro CA, even after the meltdown, is a 1500 sf 3BR 2BA ranch on a small lot.
If Atlantans get the benefit of more reasonable cost of living, so what?
Michael
November 8th, 2009
3:01 pm
I bet we can go online and see how much money the NAHB and the NAR gave to his 2010 re-election campaign war chest. This is welfare for the real estate and home building industry. Oh by the way, Isakson voted for the Wall Street welfare bill known as TARP to help out his banking buddies. He sponsored this bill to help out his real estate buddies. So what’s the surprise here? It’s this type of crap legislation that indicates why we urgently need the Fair Tax, and something someone like Isakson will never support. Time for REAL change. Hopefully Herman Cain will run and kick this scoundrel out of office!
Turd Feguson
November 9th, 2009
7:45 am
Ms Tucker you pander to the lazy.
klarek
November 10th, 2009
8:03 am
Isakson just gave his industry pals a multi-billion dollar payout with this credit. It’s harmful to our economy and costs the taxpayers billions. This guy has to go, he has to be the most evil senator there is.