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.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Response rates from 10.9k Democrats voters.
87% Yes |
13% No |
87% Yes |
13% No |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 10.9k Democrats voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 10.9k Democrats voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Democrats voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@9ZJSZ8Z7mos7MO
No, the government should focus on lowering interest rates and inflation, which would lower the cost of home buying for first time buyers.
@9RSDVGN10mos10MO
No, but they should incentivize construction of more housing and residential buildings to reduce prices.
@9RZY5CM10mos10MO
I'd rather the government make landlords illegal and take over all their properties. And charge a much lower amount to rent to non-homeowners.
@7WDP6PT 3mos3MO
Yes, this would help ease the burden of bills of the first time home buyer and make people want to get a house as well
@9RFDC4V10mos10MO
Depends on income and the type of house being developed. If it is for purely ownership of the house to be used by the owner and used as the primary residence by the family then yes it should be subsidized.
@B5K8DNH2wks2W
RFK Jr.’s proposal for a 3% discounted mortgage rate for first time homebuyers, rather than other types of monetary subsidy
@B5K2WBQ2wks2W
No, because this could repeat 2008 and/or raise housing prices from people attempting to still gain money.
@B5JPL6F2wks2W
If they are employed, working and a taxpayer, then they should be able to earn it. We should also focus on reducing the cost of housing through nationwide housing projects.
Join in on the most popular conversations.