Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Should we ban the Christian Coalition?[/quote]
Well, considering this country was found on Judea-Christian values that would be self destructive now wouldn’t it.[/quote]
Banning speech of any almost kind would be destructive. Including the imaginary speech supporting Sharia law. Judeo-Christian values have nothing to do with it.
Participant[quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Should we ban the Christian Coalition?[/quote]
Well, considering this country was found on Judea-Christian values that would be self destructive now wouldn’t it.[/quote]
Banning speech of any almost kind would be destructive. Including the imaginary speech supporting Sharia law. Judeo-Christian values have nothing to do with it.
Participant[quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Should we ban the Christian Coalition?[/quote]
Well, considering this country was found on Judea-Christian values that would be self destructive now wouldn’t it.[/quote]
Banning speech of any almost kind would be destructive. Including the imaginary speech supporting Sharia law. Judeo-Christian values have nothing to do with it.
Participant[quote=ninaprincess]OK, I accept that PMI is higher. However, the finance amount is different in the two documents. I need to borrow $405,700 but the truth in lending document shows only $400,881 but the payment is still $2,175.41. $2,175.41 should be the payment for $405,700 and not $400,881 at 4.99%.
[/quote]
The difference is almost certainly the points and other fees that are being financed. Which is also why the differece between the interest rate and the APR.
Participant[quote=ninaprincess]OK, I accept that PMI is higher. However, the finance amount is different in the two documents. I need to borrow $405,700 but the truth in lending document shows only $400,881 but the payment is still $2,175.41. $2,175.41 should be the payment for $405,700 and not $400,881 at 4.99%.
[/quote]
The difference is almost certainly the points and other fees that are being financed. Which is also why the differece between the interest rate and the APR.
Participant[quote=ninaprincess]OK, I accept that PMI is higher. However, the finance amount is different in the two documents. I need to borrow $405,700 but the truth in lending document shows only $400,881 but the payment is still $2,175.41. $2,175.41 should be the payment for $405,700 and not $400,881 at 4.99%.
[/quote]
The difference is almost certainly the points and other fees that are being financed. Which is also why the differece between the interest rate and the APR.
Participant[quote=ninaprincess]OK, I accept that PMI is higher. However, the finance amount is different in the two documents. I need to borrow $405,700 but the truth in lending document shows only $400,881 but the payment is still $2,175.41. $2,175.41 should be the payment for $405,700 and not $400,881 at 4.99%.
[/quote]
The difference is almost certainly the points and other fees that are being financed. Which is also why the differece between the interest rate and the APR.
Participant[quote=ninaprincess]OK, I accept that PMI is higher. However, the finance amount is different in the two documents. I need to borrow $405,700 but the truth in lending document shows only $400,881 but the payment is still $2,175.41. $2,175.41 should be the payment for $405,700 and not $400,881 at 4.99%.
[/quote]
The difference is almost certainly the points and other fees that are being financed. Which is also why the differece between the interest rate and the APR.
ParticipantI’m not sure what you think is fraudulent. There might be fraud, but not based on anything you’ve presented here. The worst you have is an error yesterday was corrected today. PMI increased by $45 a month. If you don’t want to pay that much PMI, walk and look elsewhere. I have no idea if PMI is fixed price, exactly the same % for every loan, but if so, it is what it is.
ParticipantI’m not sure what you think is fraudulent. There might be fraud, but not based on anything you’ve presented here. The worst you have is an error yesterday was corrected today. PMI increased by $45 a month. If you don’t want to pay that much PMI, walk and look elsewhere. I have no idea if PMI is fixed price, exactly the same % for every loan, but if so, it is what it is.
ParticipantI’m not sure what you think is fraudulent. There might be fraud, but not based on anything you’ve presented here. The worst you have is an error yesterday was corrected today. PMI increased by $45 a month. If you don’t want to pay that much PMI, walk and look elsewhere. I have no idea if PMI is fixed price, exactly the same % for every loan, but if so, it is what it is.
ParticipantI’m not sure what you think is fraudulent. There might be fraud, but not based on anything you’ve presented here. The worst you have is an error yesterday was corrected today. PMI increased by $45 a month. If you don’t want to pay that much PMI, walk and look elsewhere. I have no idea if PMI is fixed price, exactly the same % for every loan, but if so, it is what it is.
ParticipantI’m not sure what you think is fraudulent. There might be fraud, but not based on anything you’ve presented here. The worst you have is an error yesterday was corrected today. PMI increased by $45 a month. If you don’t want to pay that much PMI, walk and look elsewhere. I have no idea if PMI is fixed price, exactly the same % for every loan, but if so, it is what it is.
Participant[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.
If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.
I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)
-
AuthorPosts
