Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Well legalized pot would be a libertarian principle because a law on its regulation does not need a victim. A libertarian principle is that the state cannot have a case unless it can produce a citizen making the complaint.
|
Beings we aren't a libertarian society, the idea of legalizing is for economic gain and truthfully, another source of tax revenue. However, where da guberment gets it wrong, is they use that tax money for BS causes.
This country
could have a surplus if partisan and emotional BS was put aside.
Cut the social safety nets. Or at least cut back and only pay a smaller portion out to leave the individual to work a part time or minimum wage job. Workfare instead of welfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Tough to say who was manipulating whom. It has been claimed that da gubement forced sub prime loans for minorities. However that makes a fine excuse to make those loans with da guberment guarantees. So its hard to really suggest anything other than bankers and da guberment working in tandem.
|
Not just minorities... I know people I went to college with that were told they qualified for up to 325k worth of house debt
on a 40 year fixed rate with a combined income of wait for it... 70-90k
Guess what cost wasn't factored in?
LOL taxes! Living expenses.
Guess who lost their houses? Idiots that fell hook line and sinker. Same with college debts. They weren't minorities either...
Just because the bank says you can doesn't mean it is necessarily so.
That's just being daft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
If we want to increase "liquidity" then tax cuts or directly funding FICA to create a deficit is a lot cheaper than bankers collecting mortgage interest and driving up real estate prices. Public money is interest free.
Now I have no trouble with loans not secured by real estate ground rents which is even better than deficits. However cash flows from bank credit to make loans for raw real estate is complete crap. Real estate is a da guberment created monopoly as it is , thus it is a horrible idea to see it absorb credit because no amount of money will ever make more of it. . It does not produce capital.
|
Which is why I didn't go to a bank when I bought my first house when I lived in NY.
15k down in cash. Agreed to 700 per month and property and school tax was my responsibility with strict terms that if I defaulted after 3 be it consecutive or total I have 2 weeks to be gone. Any damages or projects started but not finished I was financially responsible for. Sellers fell hook line and sinker for it. For all they knew was I was a college aged punk that claimed to be handy with a level saw and pencil. They would make more in "interest" collected from me directly than they would a 1 time cut check from a bank on my behalf. For a term of 15 years.
That one bit them square in the ass. I had that house paid for in full and renovated in 5 years.
No loans no banks.
Granted it was an 1,100 sqft lake side bungalow for an agreed purchase price of 50k with 15k cash down payment.
Some months I paid as much as 3k and killed the principle and interest. But I didn't have a bank to deal with who could sell the debt for profit or mess my credit up.
When I sold. The assessed value was 315k
LOL hell no I sold it for 65k I wasn't paying NY tax on 250-300k I sold it to a local not a cityiot either. I took 65k in a check.
Anyways...
I have been making friends with Bank asset managers...
Wait for another crash and scoop up the properties and do the exact same thing I did in NY with my house. Oh... that artificial value is 180k you say? Hold my beer because I bought it for 60-90k and I'm going to sell it for 80-110k
That's how you stop that real quick. Oh but Muh property valuez!
Pfft. It's artificial, it isn't real... A home value truly only goes up if the following.
Demand exceeds inventory.
Massive remodeling/renovations.
The idea that your home you bought and paid for simply goes up in value because the sky is blue is justification to pay higher taxes...
I would do that in a heart beat. I'd buy 30-40 houses that were defaulted on for between 20-90k tops and address any structural integrity issues, damages, or maintenance things, requiring labor therfore I pay and stimulate the local level economy. Then. Blast everyone's home values down significantly and I list the houses for less than "market value" or town assessed value
everyone wins.
Say I buy a place that's been defaulted on for 35 40k
It needs 5k in drywall and some minor electrical code violation things brought up to code. Everything else is sound. I'd put a in ground swimming pool in. I have the equipment to do that. My cost... eh. 20k after permits pumps filters solar heater and paying my guys labor...
Rip up the concrete driveway and put a paver drive way in. 2 reasons.
1. Not a permanent fixture/structure. Less tax revenue.
2. Looks better.
I'm sitting on a total investment of say 100k I'm only going to sell it for 120k tops. Yet the town says hey. That property is worth 220k+
LOL no. No its not. Just because you say so doesn't mean so.
I'd even make the same contract as I had with the people I bought from too. I count on them defaulting. I can sell that property 2-3 times before someone can truly afford it actually buys it. Who comes out ahead? Me of course, but even if they default, no record of it on their credit report.
I'd do that in a heart beat. Town would hate me. Neighbors would hate me.
I'm trying to get 225k for my house and it's not fair you sold the one across the street for half and the one next door to me for a third!
LOL ohwell... not my problem. Looks like you better uh... put something in that house to make it worth 225k oh you can't because you took a mortgage and planned poorly thinking your house is a net investment? And you could sell it at an artificial price to buy your bondage out from a banks debt for more than what you owe? LOL oops. Didn't see this happening did ya?