Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=SD Realtor]How do you pay yourself? Showing W2 income makes it a no brainer.
[/quote]Unless you pay yourself a pretty low salary via w2 to avoid outrageously high payroll taxes…;-)[/quote]
If we want to accommodate gaming of income taxes by the self-employed, then why not have two categories of home loans – one that is deductible if the underwriting for income was based exclusively on income tax returns, and an alternative on which no interest is deductible and which can use income information other than tax returns?
Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=SD Realtor]How do you pay yourself? Showing W2 income makes it a no brainer.
[/quote]Unless you pay yourself a pretty low salary via w2 to avoid outrageously high payroll taxes…;-)[/quote]
If we want to accommodate gaming of income taxes by the self-employed, then why not have two categories of home loans – one that is deductible if the underwriting for income was based exclusively on income tax returns, and an alternative on which no interest is deductible and which can use income information other than tax returns?
Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=SD Realtor]How do you pay yourself? Showing W2 income makes it a no brainer.
[/quote]Unless you pay yourself a pretty low salary via w2 to avoid outrageously high payroll taxes…;-)[/quote]
If we want to accommodate gaming of income taxes by the self-employed, then why not have two categories of home loans – one that is deductible if the underwriting for income was based exclusively on income tax returns, and an alternative on which no interest is deductible and which can use income information other than tax returns?
Participanturbanrealtor, I would lend less to someone who had irregular income than someone with regular income. Isn’t that the way it should be?
In your example, you say that the person newly classified as self-employed had difficulty qualifying for an 80% loan. I assume you meant in Calif – meaning it was a no-recourse loan. That we have arrived at a situation where people are surprised that higher-risk borrowers can’t borrow 80%, w/o recourse, of the price of their home purchase is just an indicator of how irrational the home lending market has been allowed to become.
If they asked for a 50% loan, would they be denied? If so, that means to me that the home lending market has lost its center. A 50% loan is probably so unusual that there are no standard ways to underwrite it. That’s what is wrong with this market. If the people approving the loans were responsible for the losses on non-repayment of the loans, then we’d have lots of good product for higher-risk borrowers as well as others. But the downpayments would be where they should be – much higher than today, and higher for higher-risk borrowers than for others.
Participanturbanrealtor, I would lend less to someone who had irregular income than someone with regular income. Isn’t that the way it should be?
In your example, you say that the person newly classified as self-employed had difficulty qualifying for an 80% loan. I assume you meant in Calif – meaning it was a no-recourse loan. That we have arrived at a situation where people are surprised that higher-risk borrowers can’t borrow 80%, w/o recourse, of the price of their home purchase is just an indicator of how irrational the home lending market has been allowed to become.
If they asked for a 50% loan, would they be denied? If so, that means to me that the home lending market has lost its center. A 50% loan is probably so unusual that there are no standard ways to underwrite it. That’s what is wrong with this market. If the people approving the loans were responsible for the losses on non-repayment of the loans, then we’d have lots of good product for higher-risk borrowers as well as others. But the downpayments would be where they should be – much higher than today, and higher for higher-risk borrowers than for others.
Participanturbanrealtor, I would lend less to someone who had irregular income than someone with regular income. Isn’t that the way it should be?
In your example, you say that the person newly classified as self-employed had difficulty qualifying for an 80% loan. I assume you meant in Calif – meaning it was a no-recourse loan. That we have arrived at a situation where people are surprised that higher-risk borrowers can’t borrow 80%, w/o recourse, of the price of their home purchase is just an indicator of how irrational the home lending market has been allowed to become.
If they asked for a 50% loan, would they be denied? If so, that means to me that the home lending market has lost its center. A 50% loan is probably so unusual that there are no standard ways to underwrite it. That’s what is wrong with this market. If the people approving the loans were responsible for the losses on non-repayment of the loans, then we’d have lots of good product for higher-risk borrowers as well as others. But the downpayments would be where they should be – much higher than today, and higher for higher-risk borrowers than for others.
Participanturbanrealtor, I would lend less to someone who had irregular income than someone with regular income. Isn’t that the way it should be?
In your example, you say that the person newly classified as self-employed had difficulty qualifying for an 80% loan. I assume you meant in Calif – meaning it was a no-recourse loan. That we have arrived at a situation where people are surprised that higher-risk borrowers can’t borrow 80%, w/o recourse, of the price of their home purchase is just an indicator of how irrational the home lending market has been allowed to become.
If they asked for a 50% loan, would they be denied? If so, that means to me that the home lending market has lost its center. A 50% loan is probably so unusual that there are no standard ways to underwrite it. That’s what is wrong with this market. If the people approving the loans were responsible for the losses on non-repayment of the loans, then we’d have lots of good product for higher-risk borrowers as well as others. But the downpayments would be where they should be – much higher than today, and higher for higher-risk borrowers than for others.
Participanturbanrealtor, I would lend less to someone who had irregular income than someone with regular income. Isn’t that the way it should be?
In your example, you say that the person newly classified as self-employed had difficulty qualifying for an 80% loan. I assume you meant in Calif – meaning it was a no-recourse loan. That we have arrived at a situation where people are surprised that higher-risk borrowers can’t borrow 80%, w/o recourse, of the price of their home purchase is just an indicator of how irrational the home lending market has been allowed to become.
If they asked for a 50% loan, would they be denied? If so, that means to me that the home lending market has lost its center. A 50% loan is probably so unusual that there are no standard ways to underwrite it. That’s what is wrong with this market. If the people approving the loans were responsible for the losses on non-repayment of the loans, then we’d have lots of good product for higher-risk borrowers as well as others. But the downpayments would be where they should be – much higher than today, and higher for higher-risk borrowers than for others.
ParticipantI find it interesting that someone who is self-employed would assume that getting a loan for a home requires something different and not publicly well-known.
As others have pointed out, if you pay taxes, then you have your tax returns. If there is a big discrepancy between what your tax returns show and what you really earn and can afford to pay, then…..
ParticipantI find it interesting that someone who is self-employed would assume that getting a loan for a home requires something different and not publicly well-known.
As others have pointed out, if you pay taxes, then you have your tax returns. If there is a big discrepancy between what your tax returns show and what you really earn and can afford to pay, then…..
ParticipantI find it interesting that someone who is self-employed would assume that getting a loan for a home requires something different and not publicly well-known.
As others have pointed out, if you pay taxes, then you have your tax returns. If there is a big discrepancy between what your tax returns show and what you really earn and can afford to pay, then…..
ParticipantI find it interesting that someone who is self-employed would assume that getting a loan for a home requires something different and not publicly well-known.
As others have pointed out, if you pay taxes, then you have your tax returns. If there is a big discrepancy between what your tax returns show and what you really earn and can afford to pay, then…..
ParticipantI find it interesting that someone who is self-employed would assume that getting a loan for a home requires something different and not publicly well-known.
As others have pointed out, if you pay taxes, then you have your tax returns. If there is a big discrepancy between what your tax returns show and what you really earn and can afford to pay, then…..
Participantsocratt, it’s probably not a great idea if we all cut our spending back to near zero. But I agree that we really could have used a serious change in what we spend our time doing, and many would have accepted and even welcomed that. However, the folks steering the economic ship are doing everything they can to minimize any change.
It’s a bit like those few months after 9/11, when people would have accepted making common sacrifices in efforts to make us safer. Instead, most people were encouraged to spend like nothing happened.
Clearly, we cannot forever keep consuming material goods like we we have. With China and India on the road to match our consumption, we must all consume less in material goods. That’s OK in most respects. I know I am most happy with better quality, not more quantity, in almost all aspects of my material consumption.
That means we need to continue expanding our ability to entertain and enrich each other. And nurture a small but very important sector of our economy devoted to advancing our technology. I am not much interested in mandatory restrictions on the hours that people can work, but I do think that 200 years from now people will look back at us and consider us deprived of recreational time. We should consider cultural changes that make less time at work more acceptable. (But full-time retirements will probably have to be cut back. We can’t have a younger generation doing nothing but taking care of the baby boomers as they play golf and need diaper changes.)
-
AuthorPosts
