- This topic has 70 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
Bob.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 3, 2009 at 7:39 AM #409736June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM #409751
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM #410059Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM #409512Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM #410210Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM #409997Participant[quote=danthedart]Inherently fair?
What a joke. Take this example:
2 people bought a home in 2005 in the same neighborhood for the same price 600k lets say. It’s worth only 400k now.
Person A makes 300k a year and person B makes only 70k a year. Person B gets a principle reduction and person A does not under Zandi’s plan.
[/quote]
Not that I like Zandi’s “plan” but this is not necessarily true. For example, if Person B were making 200K when they bought and put more than 10% down, they would not qualify.
If you add one additional caveat to his plan such as not allowing a bailout to those who lied about their income, then this “plan” would apply to very few people.
June 3, 2009 at 9:00 AM #410128Huckleberry
ParticipantNo matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
June 3, 2009 at 9:00 AM #410067ParticipantNo matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
June 3, 2009 at 9:00 AM #410280ParticipantNo matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
June 3, 2009 at 9:00 AM #409582ParticipantNo matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
June 3, 2009 at 9:00 AM #409821ParticipantNo matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
June 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM #410300outtamojo
ParticipantActually, he works for Moody’s, aka Triple A rubber stampers- their fee’s need to be clawed back imo.
June 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM #410148ParticipantActually, he works for Moody’s, aka Triple A rubber stampers- their fee’s need to be clawed back imo.
June 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM #409602ParticipantActually, he works for Moody’s, aka Triple A rubber stampers- their fee’s need to be clawed back imo.
June 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM #410087ParticipantActually, he works for Moody’s, aka Triple A rubber stampers- their fee’s need to be clawed back imo.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.