What Biden needs to say about the economy if he wants to win

People are so desperate and resentful out here that Donald Trump’s ridiculous “solutions” have real emotional “blow it up” appeal. Attacking Wall Street and real estate funds (like the one operated by Jared Kushner’s family business) that are worsening and profiting from the housing shortage would counter Mr. Trump’s bluster with an honest and powerful emotional appeal of its own.

Kurt Strahm, Reno, Nev.

Both Catherine Rampell in her May 29 Wednesday Opinion column, “Nearly everything Americans think about the economy is wrong,” and President Biden and his administration continue to boast about the booming U.S. economy. While everything Ms. Rampell and the president say is technically true, their arguments ignore the wide swath of the American population living on fixed incomes or whose net income has not kept up with inflation over the last three years.

These folks, from across the political spectrum, are being forced to choose between putting food on the table and necessary prescription medications and are facing eviction because of skyrocketing rents. I urge Mr. Biden to use his considerable rhetorical powers of empathy to tell these citizens that he understands and feels their pain and promise to make their plight a top priority for his administration. The outcome of the election in November might be decided by this demographic.

B.K. Krueger, Ellicott City

What a home is worth

I listened to the May 22 episode of the “Impromptu” podcast, “Is home ownership the wrong dream for America?” From my perspective, the potential financial risks and benefits of homeownership are more complicated than the views The Post’s commentators offered during the episode.

I have owned five different homes in my 70 years. Some of those houses were great investments and some weren’t. On one hand, my ex-wife and I lost quite a bit of money on our Denver home when the oil business crashed in 1986 and I lost my job at a major oil company. On the other hand, I bought a house in a suburb of Austin five years ago, and my monthly mortgage payment is 45 percent less than my millennial neighbors’ monthly rent. I have noticed that most of my millennial neighbors buy fancy new cars, eat out often and aren’t having kids. They aren’t making the choices I would make, but if that’s what they want to do with their lives, good for them. I am very glad I bought my house five years ago.

Ralph Kerr Jr., Leander, Tex.

Realizing the American Dream

Regarding Lee E. Ohanian and James A. Schmitz’s May 29 op-ed, “How the wheels came off affordable housing”:

Mr. Ohanian and Mr. Schmitz rightly acknowledged the important role manufactured housing has in addressing the country’s housing supply shortage. It’s a shame that their argument was so negative about the very homes they wanted to champion. We should be clear: Manufactured housing is safe and highly regulated. Just last week, acting Housing and Urban Development secretary Adrianne Todman touted the robust construction requirements for our homes during a speech on the National Mall. The reason to update federal law to allow manufactured homes to be built with or without a chassis is to expand the range of manufactured home designs available to better fit into communities across the country.

Allowing manufactured homes to be built without a permanent chassis offers a new option, not a replacement, for the homes the industry is constructing today. Today’s manufactured homes are the only type of residential housing subject to robust federal compliance and quality assurance regulations for health, energy efficiency and durability, including construction and installation in compliance with rigorous, engineer-approved rules and HUD codes that account for wind zones. Our consumer research consistently shows how much people love living in our homes and we are excited about offering manufactured housing to more people in need of quality homes with design features that meet today’s lifestyle at price points that are within reach.

In contrast to much of the aging stock for sale or rent, manufactured housing offers consumers modern designs, attractive finishes, smart features and energy efficiencies, all with an average purchase price of $125,000.

Our industry supports removing the federal chassis requirement to create more flexibility for manufactured housing to reach its full potential and to allow the industry to continue to innovate.

To do so, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will need to consult with the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee to establish construction requirements for homes not on a permanent chassis and state laws must be amended to reflect the new definition so that lenders’ and consumers’ rights are not unintentionally compromised.

We all agree that boosting the supply of manufactured housing will strengthen homeownership opportunities and give new options to renters.

Lesli Gooch, Alexandria

The writer is chief executive of the Manufactured Housing Institute.

Don’t target seniors

In the May 29 Metro article “New tax hikes in budget proposal,” The Post reported that the D.C. Council is proposing a tax on interest from out-of-state municipal bonds to help close the budget gap for fiscal 2025. City officials have praised the new budget for not raising income taxes. But these claims ignore the impact one of these proposals in particular would have on city seniors.

Since 1973, D.C. has exempted out-of-state municipal bonds from local taxes because it issues so few bonds compared with other jurisdictions. During financial crises, someone usually proposes removing this exemption. This last happened in 2011 but was voted down when statistical evidence showed the tax would unfairly target retirees and other seniors.

Those who regard municipal bonds as tax loopholes for the rich are uninformed. These securities appeal primarily to those on fixed incomes because of their relative safety and dependability. While municipal bonds offer no growth potential, they provide protection from stock-market fluctuations. In exchange for their tax-exempt status, investors accept a lower rate of return. Many D.C. residents — most of them older and middle-income — have purchased out-of-state municipal bonds in the belief they would remain exempt from D.C. tax. The proposed change would increase their tax burdens substantially — for some, perhaps catastrophically. They couldn’t switch to lower-tax investments without incurring substantial commissions and risking loss of principal. Implementing the tax would completely upend many carefully thought-out retirement plans.

Also, unlike in 2011, there’s no provision in the current draft budget to grandfather existing investments. This could mean that bondholders will be taxed retroactively on interest already earned.

If this tax is implemented, D.C. investors would be stripped of opportunities available to all other U.S. taxpayers. They couldn’t diversify risk if they invested in the few D.C. bonds available (which are rated lower than comparable Maryland and Virginia bonds). Nor could they invest in tax-exempt single-state bond funds, because D.C. can’t support one. D.C. would achieve the dubious distinction of being the only city in the United States whose residents would pay tax on all municipal bonds issued outside its borders.

Finally, it’s likely the tax would produce less revenue than projected, as it doesn’t take into consideration how D.C. taxpayers will respond. Many are likely to turn to still-advantageous alternatives such as stocks that pay qualified dividends. Some might even move to other jurisdictions.

The mayor and council should find another way to address the budget shortfall that doesn’t unfairly target seniors and retirees.

Lorie Leavy, Washington

An unprecedented tax on municipal bonds from any jurisdiction other than D.C. itself would be a huge blow to me and thousands of other senior citizens who have held such bonds for many years.

This tax was never discussed in advance, as far as I know. Citizens had no opportunity to express our views about it. It seems like a very unfair way to do business, and a very unfair tax. If I lived anywhere else in the country, I could invest in a diversified mutual bond fund exempt from local and federal taxes. D.C. already has one of the higher income tax rates in the nation, and is one of only about a dozen states to impose an estate or inheritance tax as well. If the city now adds a municipal bond tax, it will drive a lot of us seniors right out of here to friendlier jurisdictions.

Martha Walters, Washington