Trash the kitchen?

[patientrenter]

XBoxBoy, well said.

Those who think that the damage to society from people engaging in these money-for-nothing schemes is concentrated on rich fat bankers who deserve it should think again – most of the damage will be paid for, through govt intervention, by other taxpayers and savers (using future inflation as a silent but very effective tax on savers). Banks are already almost all insolvent. Any additional losses caused by this kind of unethical (but legal) behavior will have to be made up for by the government, who will take it from some of us.

As for the “threat” about trashing the kitchen: I am sure the FA was smart enough to phrase it more subtly while still communicating very effectively how much power the homeowner had to reduce the value of the collateral in a way that would make it impractical for the bank to prosecute.

[PadreBrian]

He should go to jail.

[PadreBrian]

He should go to jail.

[PadreBrian]

He should go to jail.

[PadreBrian]

He should go to jail.

[PadreBrian]

He should go to jail.

[MMrenter]

Thanks for all the feedback. I’ve obviously touched a nerve. I’m glad that others agree this crosses the line. For those who endorse dumping loans and enjoying the free ride, I would argue that even that pushes the envelope of what is acceptable and makes this kind of thinking more common. If one really abides by the contract, shouldn’t you move out of the house as soon as you stop paying your mortgage instead of trying to milk the free ride as long as it will last before someone forces you out? Personally, I liked TG’s ethics summary.

When I heard my friend’s plan and questioned her ethics, I got jumped on by several others in the room who were in a similar situation and also hoping to abandon their mortgages, though hopefully without the vandalism. These days, unethical behavior feels like the newly accepted status quo. Such behavior is emboldened by the lack of consequences that seems inevitable when so many people do the same thing. Reminds me of the looters during the Watts riots.

The other thing that drives this is the seemingly insurmountably large sums involved relative to annual income. It makes people feel like a few years of bad credit is minor relative to the time it would take to pay back the amounts of debt involved. While the piggs saw it coming, most simply couldn’t imagine prices declining so dramatically. 3 yrs ago, many first time home buyers bought a starter condo that they thought they could trade up from in a few years. Now they are stuck with a home they have outgrown and they realize they have made the worst financial decision of their life. They are desperate for a way out. Society, Bush then Obama, whoever, now says it’s okay to foreclose and we’ll help you through it. The removal of consequences is interpreted by many as an implicit endorsement of what was once unacceptable behavior.

Despite all this, I can accept that there may be extreme cases where such genuine hardship is encountered that society is right to show compassion and even clemency. However, current policies are way too broad and far too easily abused.

So we slide down the slippery slope.

[MMrenter]

Thanks for all the feedback. I’ve obviously touched a nerve. I’m glad that others agree this crosses the line. For those who endorse dumping loans and enjoying the free ride, I would argue that even that pushes the envelope of what is acceptable and makes this kind of thinking more common. If one really abides by the contract, shouldn’t you move out of the house as soon as you stop paying your mortgage instead of trying to milk the free ride as long as it will last before someone forces you out? Personally, I liked TG’s ethics summary.

When I heard my friend’s plan and questioned her ethics, I got jumped on by several others in the room who were in a similar situation and also hoping to abandon their mortgages, though hopefully without the vandalism. These days, unethical behavior feels like the newly accepted status quo. Such behavior is emboldened by the lack of consequences that seems inevitable when so many people do the same thing. Reminds me of the looters during the Watts riots.

The other thing that drives this is the seemingly insurmountably large sums involved relative to annual income. It makes people feel like a few years of bad credit is minor relative to the time it would take to pay back the amounts of debt involved. While the piggs saw it coming, most simply couldn’t imagine prices declining so dramatically. 3 yrs ago, many first time home buyers bought a starter condo that they thought they could trade up from in a few years. Now they are stuck with a home they have outgrown and they realize they have made the worst financial decision of their life. They are desperate for a way out. Society, Bush then Obama, whoever, now says it’s okay to foreclose and we’ll help you through it. The removal of consequences is interpreted by many as an implicit endorsement of what was once unacceptable behavior.

Despite all this, I can accept that there may be extreme cases where such genuine hardship is encountered that society is right to show compassion and even clemency. However, current policies are way too broad and far too easily abused.

So we slide down the slippery slope.

[MMrenter]

Thanks for all the feedback. I’ve obviously touched a nerve. I’m glad that others agree this crosses the line. For those who endorse dumping loans and enjoying the free ride, I would argue that even that pushes the envelope of what is acceptable and makes this kind of thinking more common. If one really abides by the contract, shouldn’t you move out of the house as soon as you stop paying your mortgage instead of trying to milk the free ride as long as it will last before someone forces you out? Personally, I liked TG’s ethics summary.

When I heard my friend’s plan and questioned her ethics, I got jumped on by several others in the room who were in a similar situation and also hoping to abandon their mortgages, though hopefully without the vandalism. These days, unethical behavior feels like the newly accepted status quo. Such behavior is emboldened by the lack of consequences that seems inevitable when so many people do the same thing. Reminds me of the looters during the Watts riots.

The other thing that drives this is the seemingly insurmountably large sums involved relative to annual income. It makes people feel like a few years of bad credit is minor relative to the time it would take to pay back the amounts of debt involved. While the piggs saw it coming, most simply couldn’t imagine prices declining so dramatically. 3 yrs ago, many first time home buyers bought a starter condo that they thought they could trade up from in a few years. Now they are stuck with a home they have outgrown and they realize they have made the worst financial decision of their life. They are desperate for a way out. Society, Bush then Obama, whoever, now says it’s okay to foreclose and we’ll help you through it. The removal of consequences is interpreted by many as an implicit endorsement of what was once unacceptable behavior.

Despite all this, I can accept that there may be extreme cases where such genuine hardship is encountered that society is right to show compassion and even clemency. However, current policies are way too broad and far too easily abused.

So we slide down the slippery slope.

[MMrenter]

Thanks for all the feedback. I’ve obviously touched a nerve. I’m glad that others agree this crosses the line. For those who endorse dumping loans and enjoying the free ride, I would argue that even that pushes the envelope of what is acceptable and makes this kind of thinking more common. If one really abides by the contract, shouldn’t you move out of the house as soon as you stop paying your mortgage instead of trying to milk the free ride as long as it will last before someone forces you out? Personally, I liked TG’s ethics summary.

When I heard my friend’s plan and questioned her ethics, I got jumped on by several others in the room who were in a similar situation and also hoping to abandon their mortgages, though hopefully without the vandalism. These days, unethical behavior feels like the newly accepted status quo. Such behavior is emboldened by the lack of consequences that seems inevitable when so many people do the same thing. Reminds me of the looters during the Watts riots.

The other thing that drives this is the seemingly insurmountably large sums involved relative to annual income. It makes people feel like a few years of bad credit is minor relative to the time it would take to pay back the amounts of debt involved. While the piggs saw it coming, most simply couldn’t imagine prices declining so dramatically. 3 yrs ago, many first time home buyers bought a starter condo that they thought they could trade up from in a few years. Now they are stuck with a home they have outgrown and they realize they have made the worst financial decision of their life. They are desperate for a way out. Society, Bush then Obama, whoever, now says it’s okay to foreclose and we’ll help you through it. The removal of consequences is interpreted by many as an implicit endorsement of what was once unacceptable behavior.

Despite all this, I can accept that there may be extreme cases where such genuine hardship is encountered that society is right to show compassion and even clemency. However, current policies are way too broad and far too easily abused.

So we slide down the slippery slope.

[MMrenter]

Thanks for all the feedback. I’ve obviously touched a nerve. I’m glad that others agree this crosses the line. For those who endorse dumping loans and enjoying the free ride, I would argue that even that pushes the envelope of what is acceptable and makes this kind of thinking more common. If one really abides by the contract, shouldn’t you move out of the house as soon as you stop paying your mortgage instead of trying to milk the free ride as long as it will last before someone forces you out? Personally, I liked TG’s ethics summary.

When I heard my friend’s plan and questioned her ethics, I got jumped on by several others in the room who were in a similar situation and also hoping to abandon their mortgages, though hopefully without the vandalism. These days, unethical behavior feels like the newly accepted status quo. Such behavior is emboldened by the lack of consequences that seems inevitable when so many people do the same thing. Reminds me of the looters during the Watts riots.

The other thing that drives this is the seemingly insurmountably large sums involved relative to annual income. It makes people feel like a few years of bad credit is minor relative to the time it would take to pay back the amounts of debt involved. While the piggs saw it coming, most simply couldn’t imagine prices declining so dramatically. 3 yrs ago, many first time home buyers bought a starter condo that they thought they could trade up from in a few years. Now they are stuck with a home they have outgrown and they realize they have made the worst financial decision of their life. They are desperate for a way out. Society, Bush then Obama, whoever, now says it’s okay to foreclose and we’ll help you through it. The removal of consequences is interpreted by many as an implicit endorsement of what was once unacceptable behavior.

Despite all this, I can accept that there may be extreme cases where such genuine hardship is encountered that society is right to show compassion and even clemency. However, current policies are way too broad and far too easily abused.

So we slide down the slippery slope.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]I believe in living by the letter of contracts.

But I don’t believe in being destructive, especially when being destructive does not bring any benefit to me.

For example, when I leave my hotel room, I turn off all the lights and the A/C. I don’t believe in being destructive and causing other people to lose money when there’s no benefit to anyone.

Now, living for free in the house as long a possible and stringing along the bank would be very beneficial to the homeowner. That, I would recommend. The bank took the risk, they always knew that default was a possibility. And they can always exercise their right to foreclose promptly.

[/quote]

And this is why so many of us were warning about moral hazard in the pre-bailout days.

By bailing out anyone who is underwater or took on more debt than they could afford, the govt absolutely opened up the box for everyone else to demand a bailout, too. The home “owners” have the banks over a barrel, and they’re seizing this rare opportunity to collectively make demands (principal reductions, forebearance, interest rate reductions, etc.) that they wouldn’t normally be able to make.

I fault the govt 100% for the mess they’ve created. What they should have done is stand behind the original FDIC and SIPC insurance, and let the chips fall where they may. Since they’re bailing out the fat cats, they will be forced to bail out everyone below them, too.

Though we’ve always paid all of our bills on time (or sooner), and never stolen from anybody, I’d feel like a chump if we were paying the original terms of our mortgage. Unfortunately, we rent, so we don’t get any freebies. See..only renters get evicted if they don’t pay.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]I believe in living by the letter of contracts.

But I don’t believe in being destructive, especially when being destructive does not bring any benefit to me.

For example, when I leave my hotel room, I turn off all the lights and the A/C. I don’t believe in being destructive and causing other people to lose money when there’s no benefit to anyone.

Now, living for free in the house as long a possible and stringing along the bank would be very beneficial to the homeowner. That, I would recommend. The bank took the risk, they always knew that default was a possibility. And they can always exercise their right to foreclose promptly.

[/quote]

And this is why so many of us were warning about moral hazard in the pre-bailout days.

By bailing out anyone who is underwater or took on more debt than they could afford, the govt absolutely opened up the box for everyone else to demand a bailout, too. The home “owners” have the banks over a barrel, and they’re seizing this rare opportunity to collectively make demands (principal reductions, forebearance, interest rate reductions, etc.) that they wouldn’t normally be able to make.

I fault the govt 100% for the mess they’ve created. What they should have done is stand behind the original FDIC and SIPC insurance, and let the chips fall where they may. Since they’re bailing out the fat cats, they will be forced to bail out everyone below them, too.

Though we’ve always paid all of our bills on time (or sooner), and never stolen from anybody, I’d feel like a chump if we were paying the original terms of our mortgage. Unfortunately, we rent, so we don’t get any freebies. See..only renters get evicted if they don’t pay.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]I believe in living by the letter of contracts.

But I don’t believe in being destructive, especially when being destructive does not bring any benefit to me.

For example, when I leave my hotel room, I turn off all the lights and the A/C. I don’t believe in being destructive and causing other people to lose money when there’s no benefit to anyone.

Now, living for free in the house as long a possible and stringing along the bank would be very beneficial to the homeowner. That, I would recommend. The bank took the risk, they always knew that default was a possibility. And they can always exercise their right to foreclose promptly.

[/quote]

And this is why so many of us were warning about moral hazard in the pre-bailout days.

By bailing out anyone who is underwater or took on more debt than they could afford, the govt absolutely opened up the box for everyone else to demand a bailout, too. The home “owners” have the banks over a barrel, and they’re seizing this rare opportunity to collectively make demands (principal reductions, forebearance, interest rate reductions, etc.) that they wouldn’t normally be able to make.

I fault the govt 100% for the mess they’ve created. What they should have done is stand behind the original FDIC and SIPC insurance, and let the chips fall where they may. Since they’re bailing out the fat cats, they will be forced to bail out everyone below them, too.

Though we’ve always paid all of our bills on time (or sooner), and never stolen from anybody, I’d feel like a chump if we were paying the original terms of our mortgage. Unfortunately, we rent, so we don’t get any freebies. See..only renters get evicted if they don’t pay.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]I believe in living by the letter of contracts.

But I don’t believe in being destructive, especially when being destructive does not bring any benefit to me.

For example, when I leave my hotel room, I turn off all the lights and the A/C. I don’t believe in being destructive and causing other people to lose money when there’s no benefit to anyone.

Now, living for free in the house as long a possible and stringing along the bank would be very beneficial to the homeowner. That, I would recommend. The bank took the risk, they always knew that default was a possibility. And they can always exercise their right to foreclose promptly.

[/quote]

And this is why so many of us were warning about moral hazard in the pre-bailout days.

By bailing out anyone who is underwater or took on more debt than they could afford, the govt absolutely opened up the box for everyone else to demand a bailout, too. The home “owners” have the banks over a barrel, and they’re seizing this rare opportunity to collectively make demands (principal reductions, forebearance, interest rate reductions, etc.) that they wouldn’t normally be able to make.

I fault the govt 100% for the mess they’ve created. What they should have done is stand behind the original FDIC and SIPC insurance, and let the chips fall where they may. Since they’re bailing out the fat cats, they will be forced to bail out everyone below them, too.

Though we’ve always paid all of our bills on time (or sooner), and never stolen from anybody, I’d feel like a chump if we were paying the original terms of our mortgage. Unfortunately, we rent, so we don’t get any freebies. See..only renters get evicted if they don’t pay.

[Author]

Posts