- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 25, 2012 at 2:11 am #774341
JoBParticipantkootch..
thsoe who were selling that product understood full well exactly what they were selling…
and the large financial institutions knew exactly what they were buying…
but
” They had the full faith and credit of a taxling and borrowing government to backstop them.”
Those they sold the fraudulent product to not only didn’t know what they were buying but they didn’t have the full faith and credit of their government to back them up, did they?
Yet you think the guys who did what they knew was wrong because it would make them money and they knew their backsides were covered aren’t the real problem.. the suckers are?
something is very wrong with your priorities kootch..
not to mention your sense of right and wrong
that argument sort of reminds me of the one that men who battered women used to use..
if she wasn’t so willing to be beaten i couldn’t beat her :(
October 25, 2012 at 12:45 pm #774342
redblackParticipantko0o0tch:
Redblack… uh.. you don’t get mortgage deductions on five homes… just two. The other three are non deductible.
my bad.
October 25, 2012 at 4:59 pm #774343
JoBParticipantredblack..
but not if you rent them even as a vacation rental one time a year..then your mortgage interest is an expense..
yes.. i do know people who do that
October 26, 2012 at 2:51 am #774344
kgdlgParticipantOctober 26, 2012 at 4:23 am #774345
redblackParticipantOctober 26, 2012 at 4:54 am #774346
JoBParticipantOctober 26, 2012 at 5:00 am #774347
JoBParticipantkgdlg..
pretty basic stuff really..
” people who have more money are more likely to have expensive homes and bigger mortgages. They may also have second homes, and under the current rules, mortgage interest may be deducted on those as well, up to a cap of $1 million in debt.
The other factor is that the value of the subsidy increases along with your tax bracket.
For households in the 15 percent bracket, the tax benefit for every $1,000 of mortgage interest deducted is $150. That benefit rises to $350 for households in the 35 percent tax bracket. “
of course the mortgage deduction is worth more to those who are making more…
but the assumption is that the mortgage deduction stands alone.. the truth is that it is the gateway deduction to those homeowners with lower incomes.
October 26, 2012 at 9:06 am #774348
kootchmanMemberGood consumer..JoB… you get $150 back to assume a 1000 debt… bankers love ya… home builders love ya… property tax levies love ya…
I’ll make is simple for ya… shit happens. two familes buy a 400K house.. one takes out a 15 year 20 per cent down loan. Second one, takes out a zero down, 30 year mortgage… in year 7 catastrophe hits.. better job comes along, yo need some equity to finance a business….
Who has access to a tangible asset that can be converted to cash? How much? End of lesson. Your debt to asset ratio makes sure you never get to the starting line .. let alone win the race. Curious.. how much interest expense will the two incur? And how much tax offset do they get.. effectively? Whoa … you got nothing. You haven’t made a dent in the principal… all you did was pay interest expense.
October 26, 2012 at 6:25 pm #774349
JoBParticipantkootch..
you scenario kind of overlooks the folks who bought their homes when prices weren’t inflated but interest rates were, invested in them, paid off their investments and when they are ready to downsize suddenly find the home they have spent a lifetime paying for and upgrading isn’t worth much more than it was when they bought it…
i wonder why you don’t talk about people like that kootch?
don’t those folks fit your irresponsible consumer responsible for overloading our economy model?
October 27, 2012 at 4:46 am #774350
kootchmanMemberBetter reason yet to get debt paid off as fast as possible. I held on to one property as a rental for 7 years, with a positive cash flow, and sold when the bubble started to rise… a bubble created by lowered credit standards. Like I have said over, and over, and over again… ANYTHING you buy and hold with the expectation that it will rise in value is NOT an investment, it is speculation. See, holding things that are in demand, that have limited supply, are good speculative chances. See comercial zoning? Demand, limited supply by zoning…. in the long term, a better investment than single family homes.. which are not so limited in supply. 401K’s are built on speculation.. rising stock prices. See how much they fluctuate? Your 401K purchases stock not for dividends.. but market prices.. volatility.
October 27, 2012 at 4:33 pm #774351
JoBParticipantkootch..
God knows.. someone has to stand up for the shysters…
the freedom to fleece others must be there in the constitution…
i can’t wait for you to point it out to me.
October 27, 2012 at 10:43 pm #774352
kootchmanMemberLook. this is as simple as it gets. When the CRA was full blown… Fannie Mae pioneered mortgage backed securities. Banks were encourage to make sub prime loans with the assurance that Fannie was going to buy them and “bundle” them with good loans. That pointed the way. It was the guiding light. Banks sold those crap assets to Fannie, and went one better. If there was a market for them.. well,hell.. sell em’ around the world… and buy insurance so that if they did go to hell… enter credit default swaps. Your government was the shyster… we are trying to stand up against it.
October 28, 2012 at 1:09 am #774353
kgdlgParticipantI would gladly give up my home deduction so that there could be a reduced section 8 waiting list. Give the housing assistance to those that really need it.
October 28, 2012 at 6:13 am #774354
kootchmanMemberI wouldn’t. This “war on poverty” if 50 years old. We have more poverty. We aren’t winning. We have a 40 year old Department of Education, with 40 successive years of decline in international standings… we have a government directing national housing policy, and we had a collapse of monumental proportions. Yet.. to my utter amazement, Section 8 is the solution? ANOTHER beef up of another government program. I am leery. I prefer to give my money directly to non government charity and let them develop housing for those that need it. They do a better job.
October 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm #774355
miwsParticipantOctober 28, 2012 at 5:29 pm #774356
kgdlgParticipantWell the real war on poverty pretty much ended with reagan, so not sure it is fair to say it has failed when it was so radically dismantled over time.
I am one of those nonprofit builders of affordable housing, and it would not be possible without the low income housing tax credit and other subsidy. And yet, the need is so great still, especially for seniors and disabled.
So yeah, I would argue that vouchers are one of the most successful entitlement programs because they directly impact a market failure (the mismatch between rental costs and income). It makes no sense to me to have. 6 year long section 8 wait lists with 25k people on it when I get a deduction for owning a home. Priorities.
October 28, 2012 at 7:32 pm #774357
JoBParticipantOctober 28, 2012 at 7:40 pm #774358
JoBParticipantkootch..
our government didn’t promote lending money at the highest return possible to the brokers and lending institutions and then turn around and package loans they knew they wouldn’t be holding the paper on when they failed as secure investments…
our financial institutions did that.
did the government change the laws that once kept that from happening. Yup, they did.
You can thank a republican congress for that even though you blame the democratic president who signed the law they crafted…
but our government did not require those financial institutions to abuse the latitude they were given.. they did that all by themselves because it was profitable.
they are still doing it because it is profitable.. and will continue to do so until laws are passed that prevent them or until they are all thrown in jail.
personally, i would like to see those who have profited the most prosecuted for the fraud they perpetrated.
I think a few of the largest profiteers losing the fruits of their criminal enterprises just might be the example it would take to make those who are still intentionally defrauding others question whether or not the personal risk is worth their ill-gotten gains.
October 29, 2012 at 2:13 pm #774359
redblackParticipantkootch: just ’cause i’m out of town doesn’t mean you can start peddling that fannie mae story again. this ain’t CNBC, you ain’t kudlow, and i’m keeping an eye on you from afar. all of your b.s. will be answered when i get home. :)
for anyone who wants to do his or her own research on how full of shite koo00tch is regarding mortgage backed securities and who was really peddling that bad paper and why, search for the following terms:
– tax reform act of 1986
– REMIC
– graham-leach-bliley
– countrywide
MBS were, indeed, pioneered by fannie, but they were changed and used by wall street to get their hands on americans’ interest payments.
the only way in which government was involved in the financial collapse was through republican deregulation.
by the way, the ignorant among us can continue to blame the socialist u.s. government. but i’d like to remind them who was there with a check in hand when wall street had to admit they blew a trillion dollar hole in the economy. and that was just the damage above the water line. it got much worse, but the liberal media decided to bury that story for the people who actually own the liberal media.
and kootchman knows it. he just enjoys “stirring the pot.”
November 10, 2012 at 4:42 pm #774360
hooper1961Membersimplify the tax code and get rid of it. this should make JoB happy since the biggest beneficiaries of this deduction are people who own expensive homes.
November 12, 2012 at 1:44 pm #774361
redblackParticipantyeah, but for those of us who don’t own five houses, it’s the only deduction we get that matters.
personally, i could survive if it went away. but i know that millions of other homeowners couldn’t.
like i said, eliminate it for more than one home, and over a certain threshold.
and, sorry, hooper. we’re not going to flatten the tax code. people in this country make money a myriad of ways and our tax code needs to reflect that. and it needs to ensure that everyone pays his fair share.
all of that flat tax talk benefits people at the top, and it will make it easier for them to hide money from the IRS.
why are you helping them?
November 12, 2012 at 4:21 pm #774362
JoBParticipanthoo[..
you have just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don’t really read my posts…
if you did, you would know that eliminating the mortgage deduction will not make me happy…
nor will a unilateral flat tax….
eliminating the distinction between earned income and investment income would make me happy…
tightening up the ability to abuse business deductions would make me happy…
capping the mortgage deduction would make me happy.. that would affect only the fat cats….
but eliminating the mortgage deduction would not make me happy
November 13, 2012 at 12:57 am #774363
hooper1961Memberredblack i never said anything regarding flattening the tax code.
JoB – eliminating the mortgage deduction would raise revenue primarily from more affluent people!
Simplifying the tax code by getting rid of deductions/exemptions makes sense, however adversely affect accountants who would have less work.
November 13, 2012 at 2:11 am #774364
JoBParticipanthoop
eliminating the mortgage deduction would ensure that those who work for a living wouldn’t get any deductions since the mortgage deduction is the gateway deduction….
while those who don’t would.
why on earth would you want to take more money out of the pockets of actual consumers?
November 13, 2012 at 5:13 pm #774365
hooper1961MemberJoB
for once I will go to your left – what about the millions of renter’s that get no deductions!
the mortgage interest deduction by far favors owners of expensive homes.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.