[joestool]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.

If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.

The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.

There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.

[/quote]

Correct, UR.

I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.

Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]

Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.

First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.

Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.

[joestool]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.

If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.

The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.

There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.

[/quote]

Correct, UR.

I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.

Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]

Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.

First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.

Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.

[joestool]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.

If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.

The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.

There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.

[/quote]

Correct, UR.

I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.

Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]

Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.

First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.

Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.

[joestool]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.

If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.

The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.

There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.

[/quote]

Correct, UR.

I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.

Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]

Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.

First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.

Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.

[joestool]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.

If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.

The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.

There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.

[/quote]

Correct, UR.

I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.

Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]

Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.

First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.

Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.

[joestool]

[quote=kewp]
There is a finite supply of money.

If lawyers aren’t getting paid, someone else is. Which is fine by me.

Fire all the lawyers and pay everyone else twice as much. Sounds like a good deal to me!
[/quote]

It doesn’t work that way.

[joestool]

[quote=kewp]
There is a finite supply of money.

If lawyers aren’t getting paid, someone else is. Which is fine by me.

Fire all the lawyers and pay everyone else twice as much. Sounds like a good deal to me!
[/quote]

It doesn’t work that way.

[joestool]

[quote=kewp]
There is a finite supply of money.

If lawyers aren’t getting paid, someone else is. Which is fine by me.

Fire all the lawyers and pay everyone else twice as much. Sounds like a good deal to me!
[/quote]

It doesn’t work that way.

[joestool]

[quote=kewp]
There is a finite supply of money.

If lawyers aren’t getting paid, someone else is. Which is fine by me.

Fire all the lawyers and pay everyone else twice as much. Sounds like a good deal to me!
[/quote]

It doesn’t work that way.

[joestool]

[quote=kewp]
There is a finite supply of money.

If lawyers aren’t getting paid, someone else is. Which is fine by me.

Fire all the lawyers and pay everyone else twice as much. Sounds like a good deal to me!
[/quote]

It doesn’t work that way.

[joestool]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=asianautica]I could be wrong, but I think the $ you borrow will be taxed twice. You’re paying back with after tax $. When you withdraw later, it’ll be taxed again. So, unless I’m wrong or you’re in the 0% tax bracket, it doesn’t make sense to borrow from your 401k to refi. Also, if you quit or get fired, you need to pay that money back immediately. The $ in your 401k is protected from bankruptcy. They can’t go after that $. However, they can go after your house if you filed for bankruptcy.[/quote]

I think that’s absolutely correct. One extra angle of consideration is that you don’t want to put all your eggs in a single basket. So unless you have a huge 401K saving, you don’t want to take it out and put it into a house altogether. After all, house is a depreciating asset right now and stock market could turn around at any time.[/quote]

WRONG WRONG WRONG. Let’s debunk this Suze Orman crap:
Yes, you are paying taxed money into your 401lk that will be taxed again upon distribution. But you just took out a loan of the same amount of untaxed money that’s now in your hand!

NET result is you are not paying any double taxes on the money borrowed from your 401k.

The only money that is double taxed is the extra amount of post tax money you are additionally paying back as interest to yourself. That extra amount of interest is paid back into your 401k to compound tax free until distribution.

You end up paying only a proportionally small amount extra in taxes but this is offset by the cash in hand provided immediately from the loan and at the end of payback, you will end up with more total contributed into your 401k.

Pretty cheap source of funds in all. Just make sure if you take a 401k loan, you can pay it back into the 401k or you will be taxed with penalties for early distribution.

[joestool]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=asianautica]I could be wrong, but I think the $ you borrow will be taxed twice. You’re paying back with after tax $. When you withdraw later, it’ll be taxed again. So, unless I’m wrong or you’re in the 0% tax bracket, it doesn’t make sense to borrow from your 401k to refi. Also, if you quit or get fired, you need to pay that money back immediately. The $ in your 401k is protected from bankruptcy. They can’t go after that $. However, they can go after your house if you filed for bankruptcy.[/quote]

I think that’s absolutely correct. One extra angle of consideration is that you don’t want to put all your eggs in a single basket. So unless you have a huge 401K saving, you don’t want to take it out and put it into a house altogether. After all, house is a depreciating asset right now and stock market could turn around at any time.[/quote]

WRONG WRONG WRONG. Let’s debunk this Suze Orman crap:
Yes, you are paying taxed money into your 401lk that will be taxed again upon distribution. But you just took out a loan of the same amount of untaxed money that’s now in your hand!

NET result is you are not paying any double taxes on the money borrowed from your 401k.

The only money that is double taxed is the extra amount of post tax money you are additionally paying back as interest to yourself. That extra amount of interest is paid back into your 401k to compound tax free until distribution.

You end up paying only a proportionally small amount extra in taxes but this is offset by the cash in hand provided immediately from the loan and at the end of payback, you will end up with more total contributed into your 401k.

Pretty cheap source of funds in all. Just make sure if you take a 401k loan, you can pay it back into the 401k or you will be taxed with penalties for early distribution.

[joestool]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=asianautica]I could be wrong, but I think the $ you borrow will be taxed twice. You’re paying back with after tax $. When you withdraw later, it’ll be taxed again. So, unless I’m wrong or you’re in the 0% tax bracket, it doesn’t make sense to borrow from your 401k to refi. Also, if you quit or get fired, you need to pay that money back immediately. The $ in your 401k is protected from bankruptcy. They can’t go after that $. However, they can go after your house if you filed for bankruptcy.[/quote]

I think that’s absolutely correct. One extra angle of consideration is that you don’t want to put all your eggs in a single basket. So unless you have a huge 401K saving, you don’t want to take it out and put it into a house altogether. After all, house is a depreciating asset right now and stock market could turn around at any time.[/quote]

WRONG WRONG WRONG. Let’s debunk this Suze Orman crap:
Yes, you are paying taxed money into your 401lk that will be taxed again upon distribution. But you just took out a loan of the same amount of untaxed money that’s now in your hand!

NET result is you are not paying any double taxes on the money borrowed from your 401k.

The only money that is double taxed is the extra amount of post tax money you are additionally paying back as interest to yourself. That extra amount of interest is paid back into your 401k to compound tax free until distribution.

You end up paying only a proportionally small amount extra in taxes but this is offset by the cash in hand provided immediately from the loan and at the end of payback, you will end up with more total contributed into your 401k.

Pretty cheap source of funds in all. Just make sure if you take a 401k loan, you can pay it back into the 401k or you will be taxed with penalties for early distribution.

[joestool]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=asianautica]I could be wrong, but I think the $ you borrow will be taxed twice. You’re paying back with after tax $. When you withdraw later, it’ll be taxed again. So, unless I’m wrong or you’re in the 0% tax bracket, it doesn’t make sense to borrow from your 401k to refi. Also, if you quit or get fired, you need to pay that money back immediately. The $ in your 401k is protected from bankruptcy. They can’t go after that $. However, they can go after your house if you filed for bankruptcy.[/quote]

I think that’s absolutely correct. One extra angle of consideration is that you don’t want to put all your eggs in a single basket. So unless you have a huge 401K saving, you don’t want to take it out and put it into a house altogether. After all, house is a depreciating asset right now and stock market could turn around at any time.[/quote]

WRONG WRONG WRONG. Let’s debunk this Suze Orman crap:
Yes, you are paying taxed money into your 401lk that will be taxed again upon distribution. But you just took out a loan of the same amount of untaxed money that’s now in your hand!

NET result is you are not paying any double taxes on the money borrowed from your 401k.

The only money that is double taxed is the extra amount of post tax money you are additionally paying back as interest to yourself. That extra amount of interest is paid back into your 401k to compound tax free until distribution.

You end up paying only a proportionally small amount extra in taxes but this is offset by the cash in hand provided immediately from the loan and at the end of payback, you will end up with more total contributed into your 401k.

Pretty cheap source of funds in all. Just make sure if you take a 401k loan, you can pay it back into the 401k or you will be taxed with penalties for early distribution.

[joestool]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=asianautica]I could be wrong, but I think the $ you borrow will be taxed twice. You’re paying back with after tax $. When you withdraw later, it’ll be taxed again. So, unless I’m wrong or you’re in the 0% tax bracket, it doesn’t make sense to borrow from your 401k to refi. Also, if you quit or get fired, you need to pay that money back immediately. The $ in your 401k is protected from bankruptcy. They can’t go after that $. However, they can go after your house if you filed for bankruptcy.[/quote]

I think that’s absolutely correct. One extra angle of consideration is that you don’t want to put all your eggs in a single basket. So unless you have a huge 401K saving, you don’t want to take it out and put it into a house altogether. After all, house is a depreciating asset right now and stock market could turn around at any time.[/quote]

WRONG WRONG WRONG. Let’s debunk this Suze Orman crap:
Yes, you are paying taxed money into your 401lk that will be taxed again upon distribution. But you just took out a loan of the same amount of untaxed money that’s now in your hand!

NET result is you are not paying any double taxes on the money borrowed from your 401k.

The only money that is double taxed is the extra amount of post tax money you are additionally paying back as interest to yourself. That extra amount of interest is paid back into your 401k to compound tax free until distribution.

You end up paying only a proportionally small amount extra in taxes but this is offset by the cash in hand provided immediately from the loan and at the end of payback, you will end up with more total contributed into your 401k.

Pretty cheap source of funds in all. Just make sure if you take a 401k loan, you can pay it back into the 401k or you will be taxed with penalties for early distribution.

[Author]

Posts