[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[/quote]

“Fair and equal treatment for all”? “Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class”? Huh? What? Who said anything about fairness?

The problem here is that capitalism and democracy don’t inherently mix very well. Although the vast majority under capitalism are better off than they would be otherwise, resources tend to get concentrated at the top (that’s the nature of the system), and those beneath the top will always see some injustice in their relative positioning regardless of their absolute status. Democracy ensures that those beneath the top will, through the legislative process, take a big chunk of those resources from those at the top to distribute amongst themselves. And that’s just the way it is. It will never change. Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, after all.

In my view, all I ask of the government is that it attempt to balance two opposing objectives: (1) Keep taxes low enough so that distortions (and encroachments on freedom) in the economy are somewhat minimized (no, they don’t do a particularly good job of this), and (2) Keep taxes high enough such that “the masses” don’t revolt and burn down the house, so to speak (they do a slightly better job at this).

While I’m a “small-l” libertarian, I accept the fact that we live in a democracy and that if the masses get upset enough, they’ll revolt… and the benefits of lower taxes and greater economic freedom will be worthless. Yes, the government horribly mismanages our tax dollars; that’s the nature of the beast. But, in my view, taxes are the price we pay for social stability.

If you’re searching for “fairness” or “economic utility” in the tax code, you’ll be left wanting. Look at it as a system of bribes or extortion, if you like. But it keeps the system humming along. And that’s nothing to sneeze at. Just my two cents.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[/quote]

“Fair and equal treatment for all”? “Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class”? Huh? What? Who said anything about fairness?

The problem here is that capitalism and democracy don’t inherently mix very well. Although the vast majority under capitalism are better off than they would be otherwise, resources tend to get concentrated at the top (that’s the nature of the system), and those beneath the top will always see some injustice in their relative positioning regardless of their absolute status. Democracy ensures that those beneath the top will, through the legislative process, take a big chunk of those resources from those at the top to distribute amongst themselves. And that’s just the way it is. It will never change. Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, after all.

In my view, all I ask of the government is that it attempt to balance two opposing objectives: (1) Keep taxes low enough so that distortions (and encroachments on freedom) in the economy are somewhat minimized (no, they don’t do a particularly good job of this), and (2) Keep taxes high enough such that “the masses” don’t revolt and burn down the house, so to speak (they do a slightly better job at this).

While I’m a “small-l” libertarian, I accept the fact that we live in a democracy and that if the masses get upset enough, they’ll revolt… and the benefits of lower taxes and greater economic freedom will be worthless. Yes, the government horribly mismanages our tax dollars; that’s the nature of the beast. But, in my view, taxes are the price we pay for social stability.

If you’re searching for “fairness” or “economic utility” in the tax code, you’ll be left wanting. Look at it as a system of bribes or extortion, if you like. But it keeps the system humming along. And that’s nothing to sneeze at. Just my two cents.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[/quote]

“Fair and equal treatment for all”? “Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class”? Huh? What? Who said anything about fairness?

The problem here is that capitalism and democracy don’t inherently mix very well. Although the vast majority under capitalism are better off than they would be otherwise, resources tend to get concentrated at the top (that’s the nature of the system), and those beneath the top will always see some injustice in their relative positioning regardless of their absolute status. Democracy ensures that those beneath the top will, through the legislative process, take a big chunk of those resources from those at the top to distribute amongst themselves. And that’s just the way it is. It will never change. Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, after all.

In my view, all I ask of the government is that it attempt to balance two opposing objectives: (1) Keep taxes low enough so that distortions (and encroachments on freedom) in the economy are somewhat minimized (no, they don’t do a particularly good job of this), and (2) Keep taxes high enough such that “the masses” don’t revolt and burn down the house, so to speak (they do a slightly better job at this).

While I’m a “small-l” libertarian, I accept the fact that we live in a democracy and that if the masses get upset enough, they’ll revolt… and the benefits of lower taxes and greater economic freedom will be worthless. Yes, the government horribly mismanages our tax dollars; that’s the nature of the beast. But, in my view, taxes are the price we pay for social stability.

If you’re searching for “fairness” or “economic utility” in the tax code, you’ll be left wanting. Look at it as a system of bribes or extortion, if you like. But it keeps the system humming along. And that’s nothing to sneeze at. Just my two cents.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[/quote]

“Fair and equal treatment for all”? “Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class”? Huh? What? Who said anything about fairness?

The problem here is that capitalism and democracy don’t inherently mix very well. Although the vast majority under capitalism are better off than they would be otherwise, resources tend to get concentrated at the top (that’s the nature of the system), and those beneath the top will always see some injustice in their relative positioning regardless of their absolute status. Democracy ensures that those beneath the top will, through the legislative process, take a big chunk of those resources from those at the top to distribute amongst themselves. And that’s just the way it is. It will never change. Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, after all.

In my view, all I ask of the government is that it attempt to balance two opposing objectives: (1) Keep taxes low enough so that distortions (and encroachments on freedom) in the economy are somewhat minimized (no, they don’t do a particularly good job of this), and (2) Keep taxes high enough such that “the masses” don’t revolt and burn down the house, so to speak (they do a slightly better job at this).

While I’m a “small-l” libertarian, I accept the fact that we live in a democracy and that if the masses get upset enough, they’ll revolt… and the benefits of lower taxes and greater economic freedom will be worthless. Yes, the government horribly mismanages our tax dollars; that’s the nature of the beast. But, in my view, taxes are the price we pay for social stability.

If you’re searching for “fairness” or “economic utility” in the tax code, you’ll be left wanting. Look at it as a system of bribes or extortion, if you like. But it keeps the system humming along. And that’s nothing to sneeze at. Just my two cents.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[/quote]

“Fair and equal treatment for all”? “Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class”? Huh? What? Who said anything about fairness?

The problem here is that capitalism and democracy don’t inherently mix very well. Although the vast majority under capitalism are better off than they would be otherwise, resources tend to get concentrated at the top (that’s the nature of the system), and those beneath the top will always see some injustice in their relative positioning regardless of their absolute status. Democracy ensures that those beneath the top will, through the legislative process, take a big chunk of those resources from those at the top to distribute amongst themselves. And that’s just the way it is. It will never change. Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, after all.

In my view, all I ask of the government is that it attempt to balance two opposing objectives: (1) Keep taxes low enough so that distortions (and encroachments on freedom) in the economy are somewhat minimized (no, they don’t do a particularly good job of this), and (2) Keep taxes high enough such that “the masses” don’t revolt and burn down the house, so to speak (they do a slightly better job at this).

While I’m a “small-l” libertarian, I accept the fact that we live in a democracy and that if the masses get upset enough, they’ll revolt… and the benefits of lower taxes and greater economic freedom will be worthless. Yes, the government horribly mismanages our tax dollars; that’s the nature of the beast. But, in my view, taxes are the price we pay for social stability.

If you’re searching for “fairness” or “economic utility” in the tax code, you’ll be left wanting. Look at it as a system of bribes or extortion, if you like. But it keeps the system humming along. And that’s nothing to sneeze at. Just my two cents.

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Holy cow.

I just recently happened across this thread and I have to agree with a previous poster’s freeway wreck characterization.

Marion, you’re banned. Your antics have made for some amusing exchanges in the past, but on this thread you haven’t just crossed the line — you’ve plunged headlong over it. I’m deleting the last couple posts above as well, because I just don’t want that kind of garbage on this site.

Your conduct is, incidentally, astonishingly similar to that of a frequent poster from the past who also ended up as one of this site’s very few banned users. I guess I have a type.

In any event, I wish you the best but you are no longer welcome here.

Rich
[/quote]

How did I miss this entire thread? And Marion gets banned? Well, all things considered, I guess I should have seen that coming. Oh well… buh bye, Marion. It was real (well, sort of real).

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Holy cow.

I just recently happened across this thread and I have to agree with a previous poster’s freeway wreck characterization.

Marion, you’re banned. Your antics have made for some amusing exchanges in the past, but on this thread you haven’t just crossed the line — you’ve plunged headlong over it. I’m deleting the last couple posts above as well, because I just don’t want that kind of garbage on this site.

Your conduct is, incidentally, astonishingly similar to that of a frequent poster from the past who also ended up as one of this site’s very few banned users. I guess I have a type.

In any event, I wish you the best but you are no longer welcome here.

Rich
[/quote]

How did I miss this entire thread? And Marion gets banned? Well, all things considered, I guess I should have seen that coming. Oh well… buh bye, Marion. It was real (well, sort of real).

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Holy cow.

I just recently happened across this thread and I have to agree with a previous poster’s freeway wreck characterization.

Marion, you’re banned. Your antics have made for some amusing exchanges in the past, but on this thread you haven’t just crossed the line — you’ve plunged headlong over it. I’m deleting the last couple posts above as well, because I just don’t want that kind of garbage on this site.

Your conduct is, incidentally, astonishingly similar to that of a frequent poster from the past who also ended up as one of this site’s very few banned users. I guess I have a type.

In any event, I wish you the best but you are no longer welcome here.

Rich
[/quote]

How did I miss this entire thread? And Marion gets banned? Well, all things considered, I guess I should have seen that coming. Oh well… buh bye, Marion. It was real (well, sort of real).

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Holy cow.

I just recently happened across this thread and I have to agree with a previous poster’s freeway wreck characterization.

Marion, you’re banned. Your antics have made for some amusing exchanges in the past, but on this thread you haven’t just crossed the line — you’ve plunged headlong over it. I’m deleting the last couple posts above as well, because I just don’t want that kind of garbage on this site.

Your conduct is, incidentally, astonishingly similar to that of a frequent poster from the past who also ended up as one of this site’s very few banned users. I guess I have a type.

In any event, I wish you the best but you are no longer welcome here.

Rich
[/quote]

How did I miss this entire thread? And Marion gets banned? Well, all things considered, I guess I should have seen that coming. Oh well… buh bye, Marion. It was real (well, sort of real).

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Holy cow.

I just recently happened across this thread and I have to agree with a previous poster’s freeway wreck characterization.

Marion, you’re banned. Your antics have made for some amusing exchanges in the past, but on this thread you haven’t just crossed the line — you’ve plunged headlong over it. I’m deleting the last couple posts above as well, because I just don’t want that kind of garbage on this site.

Your conduct is, incidentally, astonishingly similar to that of a frequent poster from the past who also ended up as one of this site’s very few banned users. I guess I have a type.

In any event, I wish you the best but you are no longer welcome here.

Rich
[/quote]

How did I miss this entire thread? And Marion gets banned? Well, all things considered, I guess I should have seen that coming. Oh well… buh bye, Marion. It was real (well, sort of real).

[davelj]

[quote=gandalf]davelj, how does this apply after the loan has been pooled, sold and securitized, with ownership of the debt instrument transferred from originating bank to whatever corporate vehicle owns the pool behind a given security? Bank servicing the loan is typically no longer the owner, just an agent of the owner, correct? If so, how do the above rules apply? Just curious if you had some insights into how this works.[/quote]

Totally different set of rules apply to securitization trusts because they’re not FDIC-insured institutions. Theoretically, the servicer has to keep accurate records for the pool – e.g., late payment history (30, 60, 90, 180 days delinquent, etc.), foreclosures, recoveries, etc. But other than servicing and record-keeping, that’s all the servicer cares about. Now, it’s possible that servicers (who are servicing the securitizations) also don’t have enough manpower to handle their REOs and/or are feeling pressure from the government to avoid foreclosing. But I don’t think they have any real economic (that is, “avoiding losses”) incentive to keep REOs from getting sold. Does that make sense?

[Author]

Posts