Govt planning principal reductions

[SD Realtor]

Well… sadly I am not surprised. Also if you guys think this is all we will see with these sorts of measures you are SADLY mistaken.

Meandale, I did not pay hundreds of thousands in taxes but I did pay around 75k when I add up all of my state andfederal taxes paid by myself and paid by my S corps and I can promise I cannot afford to buy the home I want to buy. People tend to think SS and Medicare are not taxes… except that they are, and they are effectively doubled when you have a small business.

[patientrenter]

[quote=meadandale][quote=patientrenter]
I pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year. I have never bought a home, because I didn’t think I could afford a decent one and, at the same time, save enough for my future retirement and health expenses.[/quote]

Please…

Anyone who pays HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes EVERY YEAR could afford to buy a house if they wanted to.
[/quote]

Not unless you rely on something, meadandale, that is central to the little crisis we’re having right now. People thought they could work and ‘save’ for 10-20 years (after working without saving for another 15-25 years), and then retire with enough to live comfortably until they died, whenever that was.

Saving consisted of borrowing, using a home as collateral, and buying houses and stocks. Usually, the total amount spent on the assets was very little more than the total borrowing, so very little real saving was going on. People were really borrowing to invest at higher returns than the debt. As long as houses and stocks went up by more than the interest rate on their loans, they got “free money” which they considered savings.

I don’t assume any of that nonsense. If I work and save for 20 years, and hope to live after retirement for as long as 40 years, then I must save 2/3 of my net after-tax income. If you restrict your spending (of every type) to 1/3 of your after-tax income, it’s not so easy / responsible to buy a nice home.

[patientrenter]

[quote=meadandale][quote=patientrenter]
I pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year. I have never bought a home, because I didn’t think I could afford a decent one and, at the same time, save enough for my future retirement and health expenses.[/quote]

Please…

Anyone who pays HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes EVERY YEAR could afford to buy a house if they wanted to.
[/quote]

Not unless you rely on something, meadandale, that is central to the little crisis we’re having right now. People thought they could work and ‘save’ for 10-20 years (after working without saving for another 15-25 years), and then retire with enough to live comfortably until they died, whenever that was.

Saving consisted of borrowing, using a home as collateral, and buying houses and stocks. Usually, the total amount spent on the assets was very little more than the total borrowing, so very little real saving was going on. People were really borrowing to invest at higher returns than the debt. As long as houses and stocks went up by more than the interest rate on their loans, they got “free money” which they considered savings.

I don’t assume any of that nonsense. If I work and save for 20 years, and hope to live after retirement for as long as 40 years, then I must save 2/3 of my net after-tax income. If you restrict your spending (of every type) to 1/3 of your after-tax income, it’s not so easy / responsible to buy a nice home.

[patientrenter]

[quote=meadandale][quote=patientrenter]
I pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year. I have never bought a home, because I didn’t think I could afford a decent one and, at the same time, save enough for my future retirement and health expenses.[/quote]

Please…

Anyone who pays HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes EVERY YEAR could afford to buy a house if they wanted to.
[/quote]

Not unless you rely on something, meadandale, that is central to the little crisis we’re having right now. People thought they could work and ‘save’ for 10-20 years (after working without saving for another 15-25 years), and then retire with enough to live comfortably until they died, whenever that was.

Saving consisted of borrowing, using a home as collateral, and buying houses and stocks. Usually, the total amount spent on the assets was very little more than the total borrowing, so very little real saving was going on. People were really borrowing to invest at higher returns than the debt. As long as houses and stocks went up by more than the interest rate on their loans, they got “free money” which they considered savings.

I don’t assume any of that nonsense. If I work and save for 20 years, and hope to live after retirement for as long as 40 years, then I must save 2/3 of my net after-tax income. If you restrict your spending (of every type) to 1/3 of your after-tax income, it’s not so easy / responsible to buy a nice home.

[patientrenter]

[quote=meadandale][quote=patientrenter]
I pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year. I have never bought a home, because I didn’t think I could afford a decent one and, at the same time, save enough for my future retirement and health expenses.[/quote]

Please…

Anyone who pays HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes EVERY YEAR could afford to buy a house if they wanted to.
[/quote]

Not unless you rely on something, meadandale, that is central to the little crisis we’re having right now. People thought they could work and ‘save’ for 10-20 years (after working without saving for another 15-25 years), and then retire with enough to live comfortably until they died, whenever that was.

Saving consisted of borrowing, using a home as collateral, and buying houses and stocks. Usually, the total amount spent on the assets was very little more than the total borrowing, so very little real saving was going on. People were really borrowing to invest at higher returns than the debt. As long as houses and stocks went up by more than the interest rate on their loans, they got “free money” which they considered savings.

I don’t assume any of that nonsense. If I work and save for 20 years, and hope to live after retirement for as long as 40 years, then I must save 2/3 of my net after-tax income. If you restrict your spending (of every type) to 1/3 of your after-tax income, it’s not so easy / responsible to buy a nice home.

[patientrenter]

[quote=meadandale][quote=patientrenter]
I pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year. I have never bought a home, because I didn’t think I could afford a decent one and, at the same time, save enough for my future retirement and health expenses.[/quote]

Please…

Anyone who pays HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes EVERY YEAR could afford to buy a house if they wanted to.
[/quote]

Not unless you rely on something, meadandale, that is central to the little crisis we’re having right now. People thought they could work and ‘save’ for 10-20 years (after working without saving for another 15-25 years), and then retire with enough to live comfortably until they died, whenever that was.

Saving consisted of borrowing, using a home as collateral, and buying houses and stocks. Usually, the total amount spent on the assets was very little more than the total borrowing, so very little real saving was going on. People were really borrowing to invest at higher returns than the debt. As long as houses and stocks went up by more than the interest rate on their loans, they got “free money” which they considered savings.

I don’t assume any of that nonsense. If I work and save for 20 years, and hope to live after retirement for as long as 40 years, then I must save 2/3 of my net after-tax income. If you restrict your spending (of every type) to 1/3 of your after-tax income, it’s not so easy / responsible to buy a nice home.

[Anonymous]

A better use of the money would be to for the government to write relatively low rate (maybe 4.5%) fixed mortgages at 80% LTV to qualifying buyers (owners or investors) over an intermediate time period (e.g., 10 year balloon). This would make homes more affordable for responsible owners as well as investors (who would buy foreclosures or whatever and rent them out). The net effect would be slowing home deprecation and bottoming out at a higher level.

FB’s would be shut out but they can always rent or get room mates.

[Anonymous]

A better use of the money would be to for the government to write relatively low rate (maybe 4.5%) fixed mortgages at 80% LTV to qualifying buyers (owners or investors) over an intermediate time period (e.g., 10 year balloon). This would make homes more affordable for responsible owners as well as investors (who would buy foreclosures or whatever and rent them out). The net effect would be slowing home deprecation and bottoming out at a higher level.

FB’s would be shut out but they can always rent or get room mates.

[Anonymous]

A better use of the money would be to for the government to write relatively low rate (maybe 4.5%) fixed mortgages at 80% LTV to qualifying buyers (owners or investors) over an intermediate time period (e.g., 10 year balloon). This would make homes more affordable for responsible owners as well as investors (who would buy foreclosures or whatever and rent them out). The net effect would be slowing home deprecation and bottoming out at a higher level.

FB’s would be shut out but they can always rent or get room mates.

[Anonymous]

A better use of the money would be to for the government to write relatively low rate (maybe 4.5%) fixed mortgages at 80% LTV to qualifying buyers (owners or investors) over an intermediate time period (e.g., 10 year balloon). This would make homes more affordable for responsible owners as well as investors (who would buy foreclosures or whatever and rent them out). The net effect would be slowing home deprecation and bottoming out at a higher level.

FB’s would be shut out but they can always rent or get room mates.

[Anonymous]

A better use of the money would be to for the government to write relatively low rate (maybe 4.5%) fixed mortgages at 80% LTV to qualifying buyers (owners or investors) over an intermediate time period (e.g., 10 year balloon). This would make homes more affordable for responsible owners as well as investors (who would buy foreclosures or whatever and rent them out). The net effect would be slowing home deprecation and bottoming out at a higher level.

FB’s would be shut out but they can always rent or get room mates.

[kev374]

well my point is why should the idiots who can’t make the payments stay in their home? Can’t the reduced principle be given to a new buyer with better credit instead?

[kev374]

well my point is why should the idiots who can’t make the payments stay in their home? Can’t the reduced principle be given to a new buyer with better credit instead?

[kev374]

well my point is why should the idiots who can’t make the payments stay in their home? Can’t the reduced principle be given to a new buyer with better credit instead?

[kev374]

well my point is why should the idiots who can’t make the payments stay in their home? Can’t the reduced principle be given to a new buyer with better credit instead?

[Author]

Posts