[beanmaestro]

[quote=flu]
$250,000 household income isn’t “wealthy” in some higher costs states like CA/NY, that’s Single people making $125k/year. Particularly, by definition “household” usually includes “children” and no, despite what some people may think about having a tax benefit for having a child, you still come out negative UNLESS you happen to be like the octet mom who completely depends on state disability and welfare.
[/quote]

C’mon FLU… $250k is a lot of money even in CA & NY, and yes, I’ve lived in both. Sure, a couple living in Manhattan might want that kind of money to keep up appearances, but paying 2-4% on the income over $250k isn’t going to break them, force them to leave the country, or make them quit and take unemployment.

Besides, the point of married income being less than 2x single is that it’s not half-bad if someone stays home with the kids. And the folks making $200k each probably won’t go bankrupt if one goes part-time.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=flu]
$250,000 household income isn’t “wealthy” in some higher costs states like CA/NY, that’s Single people making $125k/year. Particularly, by definition “household” usually includes “children” and no, despite what some people may think about having a tax benefit for having a child, you still come out negative UNLESS you happen to be like the octet mom who completely depends on state disability and welfare.
[/quote]

C’mon FLU… $250k is a lot of money even in CA & NY, and yes, I’ve lived in both. Sure, a couple living in Manhattan might want that kind of money to keep up appearances, but paying 2-4% on the income over $250k isn’t going to break them, force them to leave the country, or make them quit and take unemployment.

Besides, the point of married income being less than 2x single is that it’s not half-bad if someone stays home with the kids. And the folks making $200k each probably won’t go bankrupt if one goes part-time.

[beanmaestro]

*bump*

[beanmaestro]

*bump*

[beanmaestro]

*bump*

[beanmaestro]

*bump*

[beanmaestro]

*bump*

[beanmaestro]

It was a decent speech… kinda sad if that was his best one.

Something tells me they’re both relieved to be done giving distasteful attack speeches. McCain just didn’t see any other options… have to wonder if McCain, Kerry, Gore regret following the script, and not taking a higher road during the last month of their campaigns.

[beanmaestro]

It was a decent speech… kinda sad if that was his best one.

Something tells me they’re both relieved to be done giving distasteful attack speeches. McCain just didn’t see any other options… have to wonder if McCain, Kerry, Gore regret following the script, and not taking a higher road during the last month of their campaigns.

[beanmaestro]

It was a decent speech… kinda sad if that was his best one.

Something tells me they’re both relieved to be done giving distasteful attack speeches. McCain just didn’t see any other options… have to wonder if McCain, Kerry, Gore regret following the script, and not taking a higher road during the last month of their campaigns.

[beanmaestro]

It was a decent speech… kinda sad if that was his best one.

Something tells me they’re both relieved to be done giving distasteful attack speeches. McCain just didn’t see any other options… have to wonder if McCain, Kerry, Gore regret following the script, and not taking a higher road during the last month of their campaigns.

[beanmaestro]

It was a decent speech… kinda sad if that was his best one.

Something tells me they’re both relieved to be done giving distasteful attack speeches. McCain just didn’t see any other options… have to wonder if McCain, Kerry, Gore regret following the script, and not taking a higher road during the last month of their campaigns.

[beanmaestro]

Two hunches and an observation here:

1. I do think moral hazard will prevent many folks with liar loans from seeing a bailout. They’re the homedebtors who have the least defensible position when they go into default, and the (initial, at least) bailout plans will require that they prove their stated income was legit. The Option ARM, subprime, and prime defaulters will get sympathy, but I’m guessing the liars get thrown under a bus. Given the number of those folks in SoCal, this may limit the effect on the market.

2. With prices dropping at 3% a month, and already at cash-flow prices in some areas, prices may drop most of the way before a more-aggressive foreclosure act takes effect. Especially with the global market crises getting increased attention, I suspect any morally egregious foreclosure relief will wait till next year, but which time we’re down another 10%.

But we all did see major loan forgiveness coming, though, right? Last year, when it was obvious that 25% of California was going to end up upside-down, you knew that either through laws or loss-mitigation, someone would do something to limit foreclosures… it’s just not in the loan holder’s interest to foreclose on a quarter of the state. To assume that wouldn’t happen is to be as shortsighted as the banks that made the loans.

[beanmaestro]

Two hunches and an observation here:

1. I do think moral hazard will prevent many folks with liar loans from seeing a bailout. They’re the homedebtors who have the least defensible position when they go into default, and the (initial, at least) bailout plans will require that they prove their stated income was legit. The Option ARM, subprime, and prime defaulters will get sympathy, but I’m guessing the liars get thrown under a bus. Given the number of those folks in SoCal, this may limit the effect on the market.

2. With prices dropping at 3% a month, and already at cash-flow prices in some areas, prices may drop most of the way before a more-aggressive foreclosure act takes effect. Especially with the global market crises getting increased attention, I suspect any morally egregious foreclosure relief will wait till next year, but which time we’re down another 10%.

But we all did see major loan forgiveness coming, though, right? Last year, when it was obvious that 25% of California was going to end up upside-down, you knew that either through laws or loss-mitigation, someone would do something to limit foreclosures… it’s just not in the loan holder’s interest to foreclose on a quarter of the state. To assume that wouldn’t happen is to be as shortsighted as the banks that made the loans.

[beanmaestro]

Two hunches and an observation here:

1. I do think moral hazard will prevent many folks with liar loans from seeing a bailout. They’re the homedebtors who have the least defensible position when they go into default, and the (initial, at least) bailout plans will require that they prove their stated income was legit. The Option ARM, subprime, and prime defaulters will get sympathy, but I’m guessing the liars get thrown under a bus. Given the number of those folks in SoCal, this may limit the effect on the market.

2. With prices dropping at 3% a month, and already at cash-flow prices in some areas, prices may drop most of the way before a more-aggressive foreclosure act takes effect. Especially with the global market crises getting increased attention, I suspect any morally egregious foreclosure relief will wait till next year, but which time we’re down another 10%.

But we all did see major loan forgiveness coming, though, right? Last year, when it was obvious that 25% of California was going to end up upside-down, you knew that either through laws or loss-mitigation, someone would do something to limit foreclosures… it’s just not in the loan holder’s interest to foreclose on a quarter of the state. To assume that wouldn’t happen is to be as shortsighted as the banks that made the loans.

[Author]

Posts