[patb]

[quote=XBoxBoy]

As to your friend. There really is no other word for what he’s proposing regarding the kitchen. It’s extortion, plain and simple. He probably has rationalized to himself that it’s okay because the bank doesn’t really care. True, banks don’t have feelings, they are companies, not people. But he’s still demanding payment for not destroying something that belongs to someone else. And that my friends is extortion.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Banks extort money from people.

They extort 28% APR from you while paying 2% to account holders.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter]scaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.

If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.

If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically. [/quote]

Actually, You presume Social value to Income.

Sure, some person could move to Wall Street and make millions while
adding no social value and perhaps that person is working where they
are running a charity medical clinic.

The greatest flaw of the Libertarian Right is presuming income correlates to value.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter]scaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.

If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.

If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically. [/quote]

Actually, You presume Social value to Income.

Sure, some person could move to Wall Street and make millions while
adding no social value and perhaps that person is working where they
are running a charity medical clinic.

The greatest flaw of the Libertarian Right is presuming income correlates to value.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter]scaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.

If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.

If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically. [/quote]

Actually, You presume Social value to Income.

Sure, some person could move to Wall Street and make millions while
adding no social value and perhaps that person is working where they
are running a charity medical clinic.

The greatest flaw of the Libertarian Right is presuming income correlates to value.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter]scaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.

If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.

If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically. [/quote]

Actually, You presume Social value to Income.

Sure, some person could move to Wall Street and make millions while
adding no social value and perhaps that person is working where they
are running a charity medical clinic.

The greatest flaw of the Libertarian Right is presuming income correlates to value.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter]scaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.

If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.

If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically. [/quote]

Actually, You presume Social value to Income.

Sure, some person could move to Wall Street and make millions while
adding no social value and perhaps that person is working where they
are running a charity medical clinic.

The greatest flaw of the Libertarian Right is presuming income correlates to value.

[patb]

[quote=CONCHO]A

Whether or not global warming is happening or is caused by humans burning too many fossil fuels, a tax on CO2 emissions isn’t going to do a damn thing to stop it. The price of gas is mostly taxes and we burn more of the stuff than ever. Cigarette smoking is down not because of the incredibly high cigarette taxes, but because people don’t feel like giving themselves cancer as much as they used to. Taxes don’t do a lot to reduce consumption — and with this one there’s not much to reduce.

..[/quote]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

[patb]

[quote=CONCHO]A

Whether or not global warming is happening or is caused by humans burning too many fossil fuels, a tax on CO2 emissions isn’t going to do a damn thing to stop it. The price of gas is mostly taxes and we burn more of the stuff than ever. Cigarette smoking is down not because of the incredibly high cigarette taxes, but because people don’t feel like giving themselves cancer as much as they used to. Taxes don’t do a lot to reduce consumption — and with this one there’s not much to reduce.

..[/quote]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

[patb]

[quote=CONCHO]A

Whether or not global warming is happening or is caused by humans burning too many fossil fuels, a tax on CO2 emissions isn’t going to do a damn thing to stop it. The price of gas is mostly taxes and we burn more of the stuff than ever. Cigarette smoking is down not because of the incredibly high cigarette taxes, but because people don’t feel like giving themselves cancer as much as they used to. Taxes don’t do a lot to reduce consumption — and with this one there’s not much to reduce.

..[/quote]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

[patb]

[quote=CONCHO]A

Whether or not global warming is happening or is caused by humans burning too many fossil fuels, a tax on CO2 emissions isn’t going to do a damn thing to stop it. The price of gas is mostly taxes and we burn more of the stuff than ever. Cigarette smoking is down not because of the incredibly high cigarette taxes, but because people don’t feel like giving themselves cancer as much as they used to. Taxes don’t do a lot to reduce consumption — and with this one there’s not much to reduce.

..[/quote]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

[patb]

[quote=CONCHO]A

Whether or not global warming is happening or is caused by humans burning too many fossil fuels, a tax on CO2 emissions isn’t going to do a damn thing to stop it. The price of gas is mostly taxes and we burn more of the stuff than ever. Cigarette smoking is down not because of the incredibly high cigarette taxes, but because people don’t feel like giving themselves cancer as much as they used to. Taxes don’t do a lot to reduce consumption — and with this one there’s not much to reduce.

..[/quote]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

[patb]

[quote=Eugene]Both answers are incorrect.

The correct answer is, refinance the first while it’s still beneficial to do that (or don’t – 5% 30-year fixed is quite good to begin with). Miss a payment on HELOC, then call them, inform them that you’re upside down, inform them that they’ll be wiped in the event of a foreclosure, and offer to settle for $5,000 cash.

Of course, this answer is not suitable to be printed in a real estate tips section of The Washington Post.[/quote]

That’s what I was aiming at.

The HELOC is utterly underwater, screw them, they have nothing.

What are they going to spend 50K on foreclosure?

Keep paying the first and ride out the wave.

or

Stop paying both, save the money and when the first comes
to foreclose string it out, and move into an apartment.

It makes no sense for someone in California who is -35% on equity
to pay into a mortgage that is never going to see the surface in
our lifetimes, unless you really expect the inflation rates to explode.

if we go into 100% inflation, then sure, he has a decent asset,
but, I kind of doubt that will happen.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene]Both answers are incorrect.

The correct answer is, refinance the first while it’s still beneficial to do that (or don’t – 5% 30-year fixed is quite good to begin with). Miss a payment on HELOC, then call them, inform them that you’re upside down, inform them that they’ll be wiped in the event of a foreclosure, and offer to settle for $5,000 cash.

Of course, this answer is not suitable to be printed in a real estate tips section of The Washington Post.[/quote]

That’s what I was aiming at.

The HELOC is utterly underwater, screw them, they have nothing.

What are they going to spend 50K on foreclosure?

Keep paying the first and ride out the wave.

or

Stop paying both, save the money and when the first comes
to foreclose string it out, and move into an apartment.

It makes no sense for someone in California who is -35% on equity
to pay into a mortgage that is never going to see the surface in
our lifetimes, unless you really expect the inflation rates to explode.

if we go into 100% inflation, then sure, he has a decent asset,
but, I kind of doubt that will happen.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene]Both answers are incorrect.

The correct answer is, refinance the first while it’s still beneficial to do that (or don’t – 5% 30-year fixed is quite good to begin with). Miss a payment on HELOC, then call them, inform them that you’re upside down, inform them that they’ll be wiped in the event of a foreclosure, and offer to settle for $5,000 cash.

Of course, this answer is not suitable to be printed in a real estate tips section of The Washington Post.[/quote]

That’s what I was aiming at.

The HELOC is utterly underwater, screw them, they have nothing.

What are they going to spend 50K on foreclosure?

Keep paying the first and ride out the wave.

or

Stop paying both, save the money and when the first comes
to foreclose string it out, and move into an apartment.

It makes no sense for someone in California who is -35% on equity
to pay into a mortgage that is never going to see the surface in
our lifetimes, unless you really expect the inflation rates to explode.

if we go into 100% inflation, then sure, he has a decent asset,
but, I kind of doubt that will happen.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene]Both answers are incorrect.

The correct answer is, refinance the first while it’s still beneficial to do that (or don’t – 5% 30-year fixed is quite good to begin with). Miss a payment on HELOC, then call them, inform them that you’re upside down, inform them that they’ll be wiped in the event of a foreclosure, and offer to settle for $5,000 cash.

Of course, this answer is not suitable to be printed in a real estate tips section of The Washington Post.[/quote]

That’s what I was aiming at.

The HELOC is utterly underwater, screw them, they have nothing.

What are they going to spend 50K on foreclosure?

Keep paying the first and ride out the wave.

or

Stop paying both, save the money and when the first comes
to foreclose string it out, and move into an apartment.

It makes no sense for someone in California who is -35% on equity
to pay into a mortgage that is never going to see the surface in
our lifetimes, unless you really expect the inflation rates to explode.

if we go into 100% inflation, then sure, he has a decent asset,
but, I kind of doubt that will happen.

[Author]

Posts