Ask most agents what they charge to sell a house, and you'll get the standard response: that their fees are negotiable. Ask any agent what they charge to help you find and buy a house, and they'll say the fee is set by the seller's agent and comes out of that agent's commission.

Only the latter statement is true: The agents that buyers use to visit houses and write up a contract are paid their share of the sales commission by the seller's agent. They are paid whatever the seller's agent offers -- usually half of whatever the seller's agent charges.

As far as the listing agent goes, commissions are negotiable -- at least in theory. In practice, though, they hardly ever are, according to a hard-hitting report from the Consumer Federation of America.

In its analysis of 17,800 home sales in 35 cities throughout the country, the CFA found that in 10 cities, at least 87% of sales had identical commission rates. And in 18 others, 70% had the same rate.

In a competitive marketplace, that wouldn't be the case. Rather, the report says, commissions would "vary considerably" because agents have different skill sets and experience levels. They might have to work harder to sell some properties than others, and would likely charge accordingly.

In that perfect world, "it would be very unusual for more than half of all service providers to be charging the same rate for their services," reads the report.

Says CFA Senior Fellow Stephen Brobeck, the report's author, "this rate uniformity is striking evidence of the lack of price competition."

Of course, the industry as a whole does not engage in price setting; that would be patently illegal. Instead, rates are set by individual brokerage firms, Brobeck says. If an agent wants to charge less, they have to seek individual approval from their broker/boss. And if they are given the OK, they usually have to absorb the entire difference.

"Prices are not set in smoked-filled rooms," Brobeck says, hearkening to bygone days of the industry, "... but the effect on consumers is still the same. When an agent tries to deviate from the norm, he runs into difficulty."

Brobeck says sellers' agents also run into trouble if they try to cut into a buyer's agent's fee, because some agents tend not to show houses on which they make less money. Even if the buyer's agent's fee is raised to draw interest, showings diminish because an agent doesn't want to be seen as only taking buyers to places where he or she will make more money.

The way out of this conundrum is to "uncouple" the buyer-side portion of the commission from the seller-side, the CFA report advocates. Previous reports have argued similarly: that allowing each side to pay their own agents will improve the bargaining position of both.

As a rule, listing agents -- technically, the brokers under whose names they hang their licenses -- decide how much the buyer's agent receives. Splits are all over the ballpark, depending on whatever deal the agent and broker can strike. But usually, the broker takes half the fee the listing agent earns, and the buyer's agent splits the remaining half with their own broker.

Because the listing agent sets the other agent's fee, it effectively denies buyers the ability to bargain with their own agents. So says the CFA report -- and so do several lawsuits, including one in Missouri that has been certified as a class action. The Department of Justice is also investigating the situation.

Most multiple listing services require that all brokers specify what cut the buyer-side agent will receive. And that, says the report, is the "linchpin" of a system with uniform commissions. All agents can see the buyer-side fee offered on all listings, which tends to "reinforce the legitimacy" of standard rates, as well as discipline agents who are tempted to deviate from the norm.

"Uncoupling" commissions is not likely to happen anytime soon. The powerful 1.4-million member National Association of Realtors maintains if it happened, buyers would have to pay more at closing. That's true; the buyer would have to pay their agent's fee at settlement.

But the CFA does not find that argument very persuasive. Since commissions tend to be added to homes' asking prices, Brobeck believes the final sales price would be that much lower if there was no buyer-side fee. It may also be possible to add the charge to the buyer's loan amount.

Until an uncoupling day arrives, if it ever does, buyers can ask their agents to rebate a portion of their share of the commission. While a large majority of agents don't offer rebates, some do.

In March, the CFA asked 1,040 buyers if they had sought such a rebate. Sixteen percent did, but only 7% actually received one. Of those who bought in the past five years, 29% asked, but only 6% received. Moreover, nine states -- Alabama, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon and Tennessee -- have seen fit to outlaw these rebates.

Still, you can ask, and should. You never know. If enough buyers request rebates, says Brobeck, maybe the industry will sit up and take notice.

Deborah Foss is a 67-year-old grandmother in New Bedford, Massachusetts, who survives on a small fixed income from Social Security. She has several medical conditions, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, COPD and neuropathy.

She used to be a homeowner, but now resides in her car.

She no longer has a roof over her head -- largely because an investor in tax liens took the equity she had in her home. But with the help of a nonprofit legal group, she is fighting back.

Foss has filed suit against Massachusetts, challenging a law that allows private investors to confiscate all the equity owners have in their homes -- above and beyond what they owe in back taxes and interest on the unpaid balance.

Pacific Legal Foundation is the nonprofit representing Foss, as well as homeowners in other states who have suffered the same fate. Between 2014 and 2020, according to PLF, Massachusetts has allowed the taking of some $37 million more than what owners owed in property taxes. In Foss' case, she was delinquent on roughly $30,000 in back taxes, yet the private investor who purchased her tax lien foreclosed, taking a house that was valued at $241,600.

That's what makes investing in tax liens so profitable. Though PLF does not have an exact count, "it's fairly safe to say" investors have raked in "hundreds of millions" nationally, senior attorney Christina Martin told me. She called the practice "despicable."

While it's entirely legal to collect on tax liens, PLF argues that collecting more than what's owed amounts to "equity theft." Says Martin: "We believe it's not only unconstitutional, but excessive punishment." And the Sacramento-based legal group is having none of it.

PLF, which defends people from government overreach, says 11 states -- Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Oregon -- allow this sort of thing, which can affect commercial and residential property owners alike. A handful of other states have loopholes that allow the practice.

But a few states have seen the folly of legalized tax lien thievery and changed their rules. Last month, Wisconsin modified its law to ensure that property taxes are paid, while providing that former homeowners receive whatever is left over from the sale of their property. North Dakota and Montana have done the same.

In Michigan, meanwhile, the state's supreme court found the old lien law violated the state's constitution, ruling that people have a right to any surplus equity in their homes after back taxes are settled. In the case that spurred that ruling, Oakland County sold Uri Rafaeli's house at auction for $24,500 because he underpaid his property tax by $8.41. The county took all of the proceeds.

Nevertheless, PLF is now working with eight homeowners in their suit against the same county Michigan's high court ruled against. They are seeking to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity lost when the county treasurer took their homes as payment for tax debts totaling only a fraction of their value.

According to PLF, the city of Southfield, Michigan (where Rafaeli lived), took advantage of a loophole in the state law that lets cities buy foreclosed homes from the county for the cost of the tax debt -- while not paying former owners the difference. While this scheme is a boon to some well-connected businesses in the area, it perpetuates the predatory seizure of home equity, says attorney Martin.

"When the government takes private property, it must pay just compensation, no matter how it acquires the property," she says. "The government has compensated homeowners with forgiveness of debts worth only a fraction of the homes that the government took. That is unconstitutional and unjust."

In New Jersey, the group is aiding an East Orange property owner who is challenging a state tax scheme that allowed the city to take her commercial property because she paid her taxes late. The property was worth about $80,000 more than she owed.

Lynette Johnson purchased the property in 2014 but claims she never received her tax bill for that year. Unbeknownst to her, the city purchased a lien on her property, foreclosed and sold the property to private investors for $101,000 in 2018. The city kept every penny from the sale, leaving Johnson with nothing.

"Although the government can take property to settle back taxes, it isn't entitled to anything more than it's owed," says David Deerson, the PLF attorney representing Johnson. "When the government takes more than someone owes, it's stealing, and it's wrong."

Even in places where owners are allowed to keep what's left over, state and local jurisdictions can sell tax liens to investors, usually for pennies on the dollar. Not only can those investors force the sale of the property, they can often charge whatever interest rate they want until the lien is finally satisfied.

Still, the news isn't all bad, says Martin, citing Florida as an example. The Sunshine State requires investors to compete on the interest rates they charge. The winning bidder is the one offering the lowest rate, meaning delinquent owners will owe less interest. Investors can still foreclose to satisfy liens in the state, but what's left over must be returned to the former owner.

There are several lessons here, with No. 1 being, "Pay your taxes." States aren't the only entities that can take your house in lieu of payment: Private investors can, too. So can Uncle Sam, if you don't pay your income taxes.

Short-term interest rate buy-downs and free or discounted upgrades may soon be coming to a housing market near you.

Right now, the market is hot -- "too hot for its own good," says Ali Wolf, chief economist at Zonda, a research and marketing advisory firm. Builders are either staying the course or capping sales so their construction crews can keep up with demand.

But in a recent webinar, Wolf advised her clients to "begin strategizing" about what they need to do to keep selling when the market slows, as it will inevitably do. And the most frequent tactics builders employ when sales are hard to come by are temporary buy-downs and incentives.

Actually, because of skyrocketing mortgage rates and house prices, builders are already having trouble satisfying entry-level and midrange buyers. "Qualification is starting to become an issue," said Tim Sullivan, Zonda's managing principal.

Most new home sales these days are being made to what Wolf referred to as "people of wealth," who are "a lot less sensitive" to rising prices and higher mortgage rates.

Nevertheless, 97% of builders surveyed by Zonda are raising their prices every month. Six out of 10 of those are hiking prices by $10,000 or more monthly, some by as much as $300 a day -- pricing out even well-heeled would-be buyers by the thousands.

In addition, financing costs are close to 5% at this writing, pushing aside buyers who can't come up with a 20% down payment and don't have excellent credit scores.

Take a gander at what happens with a 30-year, $350,000 mortgage with a 5% down payment. The difference in payments for principal and interest between 4% and 5% is $51 a month, $612 a year and $18,360 over the life of the loan.

Another way to look at the problem: According to CoreLogic, those who financed their houses using government-insured mortgages, many of whom were first-time buyers, walked away with a $1,710 monthly payment in the second half of last year. That's $282 more -- almost a 20% increase -- above what they would have paid at prepandemic loan rates.

"Just looking at the math" makes Wolf "nervous," she said.

One way builders can combat the problem, obviously, is to lower their asking prices, but they are loath to do that. They see buy-downs as a better method of reaching deeper into the market because they allow more buyers to qualify for funding.

A typical buy-down, known as a "2-1," calls for a rate that's 2 percentage points below market for the first year. In the loan's second year, the rate rises to 1 percentage point below market; after two years, it goes up to the original market rate, where it remains for the life of the mortgage.

Other popular versions include a "3-2-1" buy-down, in which the rate is 3 points below market the first year, 2 points during the second year and 1 point in the third, and a "condensed" buy-down, in which the rate rises every six months instead of every 12. In all cases, the builder pays the lender a fee to drop the rate.

On a $250,000, 30-year mortgage with a start rate of 6.25% and 10% down, a 2-1 buy-down would work like this: For the first year, the rate would be 4.25%, resulting in a $1,230 payment. In year two, the rate rises to 5.25% and the payment would rise $151 a month to $1,381.

Then, beginning in year three, the rate would bounce to 6.25% and the payment would go up $159 more to $1,540. The savings over the two-year period: $5,628.

Adjustable-rate mortgages also start at a somewhat discounted rate, though not usually as much. And even though they tend to come with periodic and life-of-the-loan caps -- meaning the rate you pay can only go up so much at each adjustment interval, and never more than a certain amount -- they are somewhat unpredictable.

Yes, you'll know when rate changes will occur -- ARMs are usually of the one-, two- or five-year variety -- but never by exactly how much. There's no uncertainty with a buy-down, though. You know when you'll pay more and by exactly how much. And you'll know that once your rate reaches a certain point, it won't go any higher.

The big advantage, of course, is that you'll be able to qualify for financing at the lower rate. Beware, though: Some builders will jack up their prices to cover the cost of buying down your interest rate. And some might require you to use their own affiliated mortgage company, or at least one of their choosing.

Builders also almost always roll out the freebies when the going gets tough. The most popular "giveaways" are options and upgrades at a reduced cost -- or at no cost at all -- and a percentage discount off the total price of the house. Paying the buyer's closing costs is another popular way to land customers. Sometimes they'll even throw in a new automobile.

It's impossible to predict how many builders will go that route this time around, or what they will offer. But in 2008, when the housing market last imploded, nearly two-thirds offered one goody or another, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

Buyers should realize, though, that not all giveaways are created equal: Not all upgrades add value, and you'll likely be told the item is worth far more than what it actually cost the builder.

For example, if a builder claims they're offering you $25,000 in kitchen upgrades, they likely paid about half that for the materials and appliances in question. What you'll really be getting is a $12,000 kitchen. And you may be able to secure a better deal for a tricked-out refrigerator at a local discount store.

Also, as with a buy-down, realize that some builders offer incentives only if you obtain your financing from a certain lender. There may be nothing wrong with that, but it's always best to shop around to be sure.