This chart, via (of all things) TurboTax, is not what I expected. California and Florida sure, but Texas? And where is Nevada?

According to GAO, through July 3, 2010, approximately one million claimants claimed $7.3 billion in interest-free loans through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which provided homebuyer assistance in the form of a refundable credit for homes bought after Apr. 8, 2008 and before Jan. 1, 2009; Another 1.7 million claimed $12.1 billion in homebuyer credits using provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and 600,000 claimed $4.1 billion in credits under the provisions of the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009. GAO also provided a state-by-state ranking under three different statistics: the total dollar amount claimed; the dollar amount claimed per resident; and the average dollar amount claimed per tax credit claim.

So this is a total dollar chart, but where are the per capita charts — in which case the bigger more populous states would naturally have more applicants.

Despite the lovely colors, I am going to have to give this map a Fail.


via TurboTax

Category: Digital Media, Real Estate, Taxes and Policy

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

34 Responses to “Homebuyer Tax Credits”

  1. lalaland says:

    Sheeeeit. You could buy a house in Buffalo and MAKE money off the 8k tax rebate. Imagine the same goes for adobe houses and mobile homes in West Texas…

  2. Soylent Green Is People says:

    Investors are buying up Nevada properties. They did not qualify of course, but that sometimes does not stop them from applying for it.

    Texas likely had a number of out of state FTHB’s from all the businesses fleeing California.

    Cali’s buyers simply chewed it up because FTHB’s were about the biggest slice of the purchase market during that time. Banks were (are) holding up their REO portfolios in hopes that the median price returns to a level high enough to make some money back on their poor investments. Move up buyers didn’t have that much to pick through and what little REO came through was all FTHB product.

    Wish the map was a bit more focused on Counties rather than States. The data would be very interesting to see how the FTHB TC helped re-froth the bubble areas like SF/OC/Miami, et al.

    My .02c

    Soylent Green Is People.

  3. franklin411 says:

    Sorry, Soylent, but you’re trading on a myth:

    “There is much talk about the poor business climate in California, but we’re finding that the data tells a different story,” said Doug Henton of Collaborative Economics, a Silicon Valley-based firm that prepared the Index for Next 10.

    “Californians actually pay less overall for electricity due to our state’s energy efficiency standards. We also find that despite the talk of businesses fleeing California, the state is in fact gaining substantially more businesses every year than are closing or leaving.”

  4. DL says:

    As BR notes, things might look a little different on a per-capita basis.

    It’s also worth noting the dearth of red states within the top 10.

  5. @F411: Don’t try to convince us of your rosy assessment of the state of California’s economy. Tell it to the over 2,000,000 unemployed souls that live there of how great things are. The unemployment rate did come down recently. From its probable all-time high of about 12.5% to about 12.4%. Happy days, indeed. Everyone’s working on that green dream it seems.

    And BR, you are correct. This map is a fail. In fact anything that tries to aggregate statistics like this is just nonsense. It’s like saying China’s economy is bigger than Japan’s. True, but meaningless, unless you also know that China has about 9 times as many people as Japan. Then you can understand how relatively impoverished are the Chinese.

    I think Nicholas Sarkozy (sp?), the French President is sort of on to something, except for a different reason than he thinks. GDP means nothing. What matters is per capita GDP. Yet, if aggregate GDP in the US fails to grow by about 1% a year on a real basis, it means we’re getting poorer, on a per capita basis. Maybe that’s why it’s not so sunny in California these days.

  6. richard says:

    I see Long Island seceded from New York.


  7. franklin411 says:

    High unemployment doesn’t mean that California’s regulatory environment is at fault.

    Why don’t you give me some hard numbers that prove that businesses are leaving the state, not because the economy is bad in general, but because the particular way California treats business is prompting them to.


    (PS–Every *real* study has proven that the idea that businesses are leaving CA because of the “bad regulatory business environment” is a complete and utter myth.)

    Are Businesses Fleeing California? Myth-Busting Study Says No

    Miniscule Job Loss Due to Businesses Leaving; Other Factors Have Far Greater Effect on Employment

  8. powerpenguin says:

    I suspect the point of this graph was to show that the funds did not go to the states that were hardest hit by the housing crash, which may or may not have been the idea.

  9. powerpenguin says:

    and @ this whole regulation/business debate; when I think about it, it seems to me regulation impedes a company’s bottom line, not the number of people they hire. Big win for big business by getting average Americans to mix the two up? Or am I missing something?
    And, if I am wrong, can someone give me an example of a specific regulation that impedes job creation? I cannot think of one, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

  10. rktbrkr says:

    NYS backstops property values!
    New York Courts Mandate Lawyers Certify Foreclosures
    By Karen Freifeld – Oct 20, 2010 11:44 AM ET
    Tweet (21) LinkedIn Share Print Email
    New York state courts will require lawyers in residential foreclosure actions to certify they have taken “reasonable” steps to verify the accuracy of documents submitted to the court.

    The new rule, released in a statement by the New York state Unified Court System, is effective immediately.

    Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman introduced the requirement in response to disclosures of deficiencies in residential foreclosure filings nationwide, including notarization and “robo-signing” and affidavits that falsely state the signer has knowledge of the facts, the statement said.

    “We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs — such as a family home — during this period of economic crisis,” Lippman said in the statement.

  11. Thor says:

    The businesses fleeing CA is a joke. Enough of it already. For once, I agree with Franklin.

    We’ve been hearing this BS story since I was in high school in the 80′s. Businesses are fleeing ALL states.

  12. Julia Chestnut says:

    Texas still has an economy – a lot of the bases of business there are still growing, and the downturn hasn’t been as bad as it has other places. Because there also wasn’t a giant bubble in housing in Texas, there also is likely to be a decent amount of trading up still going on there. All things considered, it doesn’t surprise me.

    Wish I were buying a new house in Texas. [sigh]. Real guacamole. The Guadalupe. Gruene Hall. I miss home.

  13. cognos says:

    Fail -

    1m claimants is roughly 1% of households.

    Each claiming $7,300 here.

    Sounds pretty tiny.

  14. lalaland says:

    @Richard: OMG you are totally right. Worse, it’s heading the wrong direction! We definitely don’t want this sucker to end up in Jersey – Connecticut would be fine, but please, no Jersey.

  15. franklin411 says:

    @Andy T
    I’ll ignore the temptation to get snarky on you, and merely point out that:

    Link 1 is a story about one guy. One. Out of a state of 37,000,000 people, they found one guy who was leaving. Hardly a scientific study, wouldn’t you agree?

    Link 2 is an opinion article from a “source” called “Nevada News and Views.” But let’s pretend he doesn’t have an agenda and really is sincerely interested in arriving at the truth. He cites what appears to be a long list of companies that have left. Does he also look at the list of new companies and weigh the losses against the gains? That’s accounting 101.

    Link 3 is a news article that pre-dates the study I liked by a year. And it’s a subjective survey of *sentiment,* not an objective study of *facts.* The link I provided actually looked at the number of businesses that left and those that came/started, and it sought to figure out why they made their decision.

  16. franklin411 says:

    Why, speak of the devil!

    Business Relocation and Homegrown Jobs, 1992–2006
    Jed Kolko
    September 2010
    The majority of California’s job losses and gains in recent decades are “homegrown”—that is, they take place in locally owned and operated businesses. This update shows that only a small fraction of the state’s job losses are caused by businesses leaving the state. Relocation accounts for a smaller share of job gains and losses in California than in most other states, in part because most California businesses lie far from the border of neighboring states.

  17. Chief Tomahawk says:

    “Despite the lovely colors, I am going to have to give this map a Fail.”

    Thank God there are expectations for quality chart porn. Otherwise, who knows how many “back of the envelope” & “cocktail napkin” machinations we’d be subjected to?

  18. Andy T says:

    From just first article listed:

    “The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y.”

    “….. it is the fourth consecutive year that more residents decamped from California for other states than arrived here from within the U.S., according to state demographers. A losing streak that long hasn’t happened in California since the recession of the early 1990s, when departures outstripped arrivals from other states by 362,000 in 1994 alone.”
    Do you dispute those numbers from the article?

    As I mentioned, I spent a 90 whopping seconds….obviously 90 seconds too long …. I could spend a little more time on it and come with more damning evidence, but quite “frank”ly, you’re not worth it.

    Moving on now….

  19. franklin411 says:

    C’mon…you’re smarter than this. #1, your argument about *people* coming or leaving the state has absolutely nothing to do with my claim about *businesses* coming or leaving the state.

    #2, California is #1 in just about everything. When times are good, we see an influx of residents from other states. When times are bad, we see an exodus. One of the things that California is #1 in is population among US states, and naturally we’re going to be #1 in inflow/outflow as well.

    That was just too easy.

  20. Thor says:

    tsk tsk Andy – This is what happens when you start with an opinion first “Businesses are leaving California because of all those pesky regulations” and then try to google your pre conceived opinion into existence.

  21. Andy T says:

    franklin: You have a “dizzying intellect.” You’re just too smart for me. Everything is going great in California and businesses are flocking there in droves. I can see that clearly now…. I know this must be true because the California Public Policy Institute said as much.

  22. kaleberg says:

    Well, I typed the data into a spreadsheet and looked up the state populations. The value of the credits claimed runs from about $6,300 to about $7,200 which makes sense given the maximum claim value. Arizona, Colorado and Georgia were the big winners with a per capita value of about $31 or $32 with about one in 220 people making claims. New York was the big loser getting only $14 per capita with about one in 460 people filing claims. New Jersey didn’t get all that much either, about $19 per capita with about one in 360 filing claims. (The medians for this dataset are about $25 per capita and one in 260 people claiming the credit.)

    One in 312 Californians filed for the credit bringing in about $23 for each person living in the state.

    I don’t have the data for all 50 states, but it looks like New York was way out of the mainstream, possibly because of all the renters in NYC. The chart really does suck with New York, Florida, Texas and California all glowing red hot, but that just shows their population, not anything interesting with regards to the credit. The wide variance in the value of the credit per capita is interesting, with the whining red states, for the most part, the takers, and the stolid blue states the givers.

  23. dss says:

    Hey Andy, why don’t you use your “dizzying intellect” to figure out that your response about people leaving the state has NOTHING to do with his claim about businesses leaving the state.

    He never said that everything was going great in CA or that businesses were flocking there in droves. If you have an issue with what he asserts, at least try to use “teh Google” to give actual examples disproving his assertions.

    It is very obvious that you had nothing to add to the conversation so you decide to use “teh Google” for 90 seconds to prove something Franklin never asserted.

    You really might want to see someone about your unresolved anger and bitterness issues. Really. Your daily attacks are predictable as night follows day.


    Silly Pollyanna

  24. Andy T says:


    I just took a look at the last two links YOU provided. That last study is analysis of business creation between 1992 and 2006!

    WTF man! I can’t believe I was engaging in an argument with you and THAT was your basis….that study?!?

    Yeah, no shit man….California created shit-tons of jobs in the 1990s and early 2000′s….you might have noticed there were some other macro factors at play during the same period.

    The first link you provided from that PPIC was dated from Oct 2005. What the hell man?!? And you wrote this to me: “Link 3 is a news article that pre-dates the study I liked by a year.”
    Note to self: Don’t engage with Franklin again. That was my mistake. I’m kicking myself…. I apologize to my family for wasting those moments of my day.

    I’m definitely moving on from this discussion now….

    Now, “that” was just too easy.

  25. Andy T says:


    Ok. Yeah, economic history is littered with examples of people leaving areas when businesses are being created. It seems pretty “intuitive” that folks move to where jobs are…but maybe that’s just some wild/crazy thought…..

    I give up for tonight….

    Please note my comments at 10.07. Franklin was using some really long-dated analysis (before 2006) and making a claim about the current state of affairs in California with the old data.

    It was ridiculous. Signing out now.

  26. Ramstone says:

    Too lazy to do the per household divisions but I will point out that some skew toward lower income states should be expected, since the MAGI phase out began at $75K, then $125K for Tax Credit II.

  27. Andy T says:

    BR and all. Apologies for the diction at 10.07. That’s about as apoplectic as I get in written form with another individual.

  28. dss says:


    Why don’t you just admit that you decided to attack Franklin because you had a bug up your rear, again?

    Just like your other drive by attacks.

    You can’t even justify your pathetic attack, you have to resort to ad hominem put downs because you look like an idiot for misconstruing his comments.

    Day after day you come here with the intent to ridicule and then terrorize others. Maybe we should put up a list of your greatest hits? Maybe you are unaware how angry and disturbed your comments sound. Like I and others have said, your constant unprovoked attacks are getting old and they certainly are disruptive.

  29. Andy T says:

    @dss 10.27.

    Ok, yeah, I admit, this vicious drive-by attack must have been really tough for Franklin to handle. We need to check his emotional state after I uttered this horrible line to him at 8.52: “I spent about 90 seconds on Google and found a sampling for you….”

    Seriously, that’s all I wrote to Franklin…..that was the extent of my “attack.”

    If you think that’s an “attack,” then it may be you who is need of some help. Fragile?

    Other than that, franklin has been properly “called” out for using 1992-2006 data to support a theory on business affairs as they exist today. End of this story madam.

  30. dss says:


    Seriously, all you wrote was “I spent about 90 seconds on Google and found a sampling for you…”?

    Do you think we are stupid and think that there is another Andy posting under your name?

    Andy T Says:
    October 20th, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    franklin: You have a “dizzying intellect.” You’re just too smart for me. Everything is going great in California and businesses are flocking there in droves. I can see that clearly now…. I know this must be true because the California Public Policy Institute said as much.

    Do you want me to dredge up a few more choice tidbits of yours?

    Your history is well known. You just lied when you said “that was the extent of my attack”, when conveniently forgot to mention that you told him he had a “dizzying intellect”. Are you that senile that you conveniently forgot that ad hominem attack, just seconds before?

    You just got called out for attacking Franklin, using false comparisons to refute his arguments and now you lie about what you said about him.

    We all have your number Andy. Whether you are attacking BR or me or someone else, everyone can see that you have nothing to say or add to the conversation. You can’t debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks and now you lie about doing so. Seriously, you need to get your problems under control as you have lost a great deal of credibility. You might want to ask yourself why do you need to communicate with others in such an aggressive and negative manner, day after day?

  31. Ira Scible says:


    You do know that that study ( is 5 years old. Got anything more recent? I think things might have changed a bit!

  32. Andy T says:


    No worries sweetheart. You seem to have an odd obsession with me in these comment sections–consistently showing up to “defend” people from my verbal “terrorism” and “attacks.” It’s interesting, though, that you’re the ONLY person to have taken such offense to my comments and I’ve never even had an argument/discussion with you here. Funny stuff, that.

    Anyway, no worries–I won’t be making any comments here again for awhile. I don’t want my verbal “terrorism” to disrupt the homogeneous groupthink environment or offend your delicate sensibilities.

    Peace out.