[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I understand that these banks knew borrowers couldn’t pay when they loaned them the money. But I am failing to understand, in the absence of PMI, how they thought they could fare better by foreclosing, so made these marginal loans. In hindsight, the banks had no way of knowing back in 2003 (when rampant “loose lending” began) that they would be “bailed out” by the Feds.

[/quote]

Good comment. I agree with you on MERS not going away, at least in CA. Other states could be very problematic. I’m not sure if the standing issue could be a problem in CA. (More on MERS later)

As far as the banks (or more precisely, the lenders, because most were NOT banks) faring better with foreclosure, I think he’s just wrong on that. Many lenders had little risk (as compared to the volume of loans they were originating) because they unloaded the loans almost as fast as they could fund them. For their held inventory, some purchased CDS’s to cover the risk. It’s the loan servicers that fare better with foreclosure. He is correct to the extent they were the same party (Countrywide, now BofA comes to mind.).

Nationwide, MERS is still a potentially huge problem on probably 1/2 a dozen different fronts. The standing issue. The failure to record in jurisdictions which require it. The possible inability to actually locate original documents in jurisdictions which require it. The potential loss of security interests are a possibility is some jurisdictions, possibly resulting in gagillions of dollars of put-backs, and/or civil fraud claims. Investor claims for those who bought interests in REITs, where ultimately the loans end up not being secured, voiding their REIT status. The list goes on and on and on. All different possible problems, all possible nightmares. Though not specifically related to MERS, the due process issues and possible fraud related to the robo-signing, which I suspect hasn’t really stopped. (I think it was at Naked Capitalism i saw a bit about how Countrywide, as a company policy, never even attempted to forward original documents on sold loans.) All seemed like a good idea at the time. But i’s weren’t dotted, t’s not crossed.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I understand that these banks knew borrowers couldn’t pay when they loaned them the money. But I am failing to understand, in the absence of PMI, how they thought they could fare better by foreclosing, so made these marginal loans. In hindsight, the banks had no way of knowing back in 2003 (when rampant “loose lending” began) that they would be “bailed out” by the Feds.

[/quote]

Good comment. I agree with you on MERS not going away, at least in CA. Other states could be very problematic. I’m not sure if the standing issue could be a problem in CA. (More on MERS later)

As far as the banks (or more precisely, the lenders, because most were NOT banks) faring better with foreclosure, I think he’s just wrong on that. Many lenders had little risk (as compared to the volume of loans they were originating) because they unloaded the loans almost as fast as they could fund them. For their held inventory, some purchased CDS’s to cover the risk. It’s the loan servicers that fare better with foreclosure. He is correct to the extent they were the same party (Countrywide, now BofA comes to mind.).

Nationwide, MERS is still a potentially huge problem on probably 1/2 a dozen different fronts. The standing issue. The failure to record in jurisdictions which require it. The possible inability to actually locate original documents in jurisdictions which require it. The potential loss of security interests are a possibility is some jurisdictions, possibly resulting in gagillions of dollars of put-backs, and/or civil fraud claims. Investor claims for those who bought interests in REITs, where ultimately the loans end up not being secured, voiding their REIT status. The list goes on and on and on. All different possible problems, all possible nightmares. Though not specifically related to MERS, the due process issues and possible fraud related to the robo-signing, which I suspect hasn’t really stopped. (I think it was at Naked Capitalism i saw a bit about how Countrywide, as a company policy, never even attempted to forward original documents on sold loans.) All seemed like a good idea at the time. But i’s weren’t dotted, t’s not crossed.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I understand that these banks knew borrowers couldn’t pay when they loaned them the money. But I am failing to understand, in the absence of PMI, how they thought they could fare better by foreclosing, so made these marginal loans. In hindsight, the banks had no way of knowing back in 2003 (when rampant “loose lending” began) that they would be “bailed out” by the Feds.

[/quote]

Good comment. I agree with you on MERS not going away, at least in CA. Other states could be very problematic. I’m not sure if the standing issue could be a problem in CA. (More on MERS later)

As far as the banks (or more precisely, the lenders, because most were NOT banks) faring better with foreclosure, I think he’s just wrong on that. Many lenders had little risk (as compared to the volume of loans they were originating) because they unloaded the loans almost as fast as they could fund them. For their held inventory, some purchased CDS’s to cover the risk. It’s the loan servicers that fare better with foreclosure. He is correct to the extent they were the same party (Countrywide, now BofA comes to mind.).

Nationwide, MERS is still a potentially huge problem on probably 1/2 a dozen different fronts. The standing issue. The failure to record in jurisdictions which require it. The possible inability to actually locate original documents in jurisdictions which require it. The potential loss of security interests are a possibility is some jurisdictions, possibly resulting in gagillions of dollars of put-backs, and/or civil fraud claims. Investor claims for those who bought interests in REITs, where ultimately the loans end up not being secured, voiding their REIT status. The list goes on and on and on. All different possible problems, all possible nightmares. Though not specifically related to MERS, the due process issues and possible fraud related to the robo-signing, which I suspect hasn’t really stopped. (I think it was at Naked Capitalism i saw a bit about how Countrywide, as a company policy, never even attempted to forward original documents on sold loans.) All seemed like a good idea at the time. But i’s weren’t dotted, t’s not crossed.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I understand that these banks knew borrowers couldn’t pay when they loaned them the money. But I am failing to understand, in the absence of PMI, how they thought they could fare better by foreclosing, so made these marginal loans. In hindsight, the banks had no way of knowing back in 2003 (when rampant “loose lending” began) that they would be “bailed out” by the Feds.

[/quote]

Good comment. I agree with you on MERS not going away, at least in CA. Other states could be very problematic. I’m not sure if the standing issue could be a problem in CA. (More on MERS later)

As far as the banks (or more precisely, the lenders, because most were NOT banks) faring better with foreclosure, I think he’s just wrong on that. Many lenders had little risk (as compared to the volume of loans they were originating) because they unloaded the loans almost as fast as they could fund them. For their held inventory, some purchased CDS’s to cover the risk. It’s the loan servicers that fare better with foreclosure. He is correct to the extent they were the same party (Countrywide, now BofA comes to mind.).

Nationwide, MERS is still a potentially huge problem on probably 1/2 a dozen different fronts. The standing issue. The failure to record in jurisdictions which require it. The possible inability to actually locate original documents in jurisdictions which require it. The potential loss of security interests are a possibility is some jurisdictions, possibly resulting in gagillions of dollars of put-backs, and/or civil fraud claims. Investor claims for those who bought interests in REITs, where ultimately the loans end up not being secured, voiding their REIT status. The list goes on and on and on. All different possible problems, all possible nightmares. Though not specifically related to MERS, the due process issues and possible fraud related to the robo-signing, which I suspect hasn’t really stopped. (I think it was at Naked Capitalism i saw a bit about how Countrywide, as a company policy, never even attempted to forward original documents on sold loans.) All seemed like a good idea at the time. But i’s weren’t dotted, t’s not crossed.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
The only way I know of to fix a cracked slab is to jack up the building. Your link shows an obvious two-story bldg but is this condo a two story? It appears to be just a one-story unit with a unit above. How many units are in this building??

Not familiar with this complex.

It costs $35K to $50K to *properly* fix a crack all the way thru (front to back or side to side) in a 2000 – 2400 sf SFR. You would have to hire an engineer to do it and sign off on it.

If the crack is not offset (one side higher than the other) and it is not too wide (more than 1/4″), you could just buy it and live in it if the price is low enough but you will have to disclose the crack, by law, when you list the property for sale, as well as remove the floor-covering, like the REO seller did in the photos, to allow potential buyers (and their inspectors) to inspect the crack.

If you choose to live in it unfixed, I don’t see you gaining any equity from this property in the foreseeable future so I would not buy it.

If you choose to have it fixed, I would get estimates of how much it would cost to do so in escrow first before I committed to the sale.

I have NO IDEA how a crack in a condo slab could be fixed without affecting adjacent and nearby condo owners.

In any case, if you bought the property and fixed the crack, you will have to disclose to future potential buyers in your Transfer Disclosure Statement that your condo has a “fixed crack slab” and make your engineer’s certificate available for viewing by potential buyers.

I think I’d pass on this one.[/quote]

There are other ways. Epoxy injection (with or without steel reinforecment) is not near as expensive as saw-cutting and replacing the affected section, and neither are near as expensive as slab replacement (lift, remove, replace). Though I think the cost for the slab replacement is significantly higher than the numbers you quoted there, when the interior and exterior prep and restoration is added in.

It looks as though the crack may extend into either additional rooms or even an adjacent unit. That may create a problem for repairs.

Probably a bigger problem is financing. I’d be quite suprised if any is available.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
The only way I know of to fix a cracked slab is to jack up the building. Your link shows an obvious two-story bldg but is this condo a two story? It appears to be just a one-story unit with a unit above. How many units are in this building??

Not familiar with this complex.

It costs $35K to $50K to *properly* fix a crack all the way thru (front to back or side to side) in a 2000 – 2400 sf SFR. You would have to hire an engineer to do it and sign off on it.

If the crack is not offset (one side higher than the other) and it is not too wide (more than 1/4″), you could just buy it and live in it if the price is low enough but you will have to disclose the crack, by law, when you list the property for sale, as well as remove the floor-covering, like the REO seller did in the photos, to allow potential buyers (and their inspectors) to inspect the crack.

If you choose to live in it unfixed, I don’t see you gaining any equity from this property in the foreseeable future so I would not buy it.

If you choose to have it fixed, I would get estimates of how much it would cost to do so in escrow first before I committed to the sale.

I have NO IDEA how a crack in a condo slab could be fixed without affecting adjacent and nearby condo owners.

In any case, if you bought the property and fixed the crack, you will have to disclose to future potential buyers in your Transfer Disclosure Statement that your condo has a “fixed crack slab” and make your engineer’s certificate available for viewing by potential buyers.

I think I’d pass on this one.[/quote]

There are other ways. Epoxy injection (with or without steel reinforecment) is not near as expensive as saw-cutting and replacing the affected section, and neither are near as expensive as slab replacement (lift, remove, replace). Though I think the cost for the slab replacement is significantly higher than the numbers you quoted there, when the interior and exterior prep and restoration is added in.

It looks as though the crack may extend into either additional rooms or even an adjacent unit. That may create a problem for repairs.

Probably a bigger problem is financing. I’d be quite suprised if any is available.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
The only way I know of to fix a cracked slab is to jack up the building. Your link shows an obvious two-story bldg but is this condo a two story? It appears to be just a one-story unit with a unit above. How many units are in this building??

Not familiar with this complex.

It costs $35K to $50K to *properly* fix a crack all the way thru (front to back or side to side) in a 2000 – 2400 sf SFR. You would have to hire an engineer to do it and sign off on it.

If the crack is not offset (one side higher than the other) and it is not too wide (more than 1/4″), you could just buy it and live in it if the price is low enough but you will have to disclose the crack, by law, when you list the property for sale, as well as remove the floor-covering, like the REO seller did in the photos, to allow potential buyers (and their inspectors) to inspect the crack.

If you choose to live in it unfixed, I don’t see you gaining any equity from this property in the foreseeable future so I would not buy it.

If you choose to have it fixed, I would get estimates of how much it would cost to do so in escrow first before I committed to the sale.

I have NO IDEA how a crack in a condo slab could be fixed without affecting adjacent and nearby condo owners.

In any case, if you bought the property and fixed the crack, you will have to disclose to future potential buyers in your Transfer Disclosure Statement that your condo has a “fixed crack slab” and make your engineer’s certificate available for viewing by potential buyers.

I think I’d pass on this one.[/quote]

There are other ways. Epoxy injection (with or without steel reinforecment) is not near as expensive as saw-cutting and replacing the affected section, and neither are near as expensive as slab replacement (lift, remove, replace). Though I think the cost for the slab replacement is significantly higher than the numbers you quoted there, when the interior and exterior prep and restoration is added in.

It looks as though the crack may extend into either additional rooms or even an adjacent unit. That may create a problem for repairs.

Probably a bigger problem is financing. I’d be quite suprised if any is available.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
The only way I know of to fix a cracked slab is to jack up the building. Your link shows an obvious two-story bldg but is this condo a two story? It appears to be just a one-story unit with a unit above. How many units are in this building??

Not familiar with this complex.

It costs $35K to $50K to *properly* fix a crack all the way thru (front to back or side to side) in a 2000 – 2400 sf SFR. You would have to hire an engineer to do it and sign off on it.

If the crack is not offset (one side higher than the other) and it is not too wide (more than 1/4″), you could just buy it and live in it if the price is low enough but you will have to disclose the crack, by law, when you list the property for sale, as well as remove the floor-covering, like the REO seller did in the photos, to allow potential buyers (and their inspectors) to inspect the crack.

If you choose to live in it unfixed, I don’t see you gaining any equity from this property in the foreseeable future so I would not buy it.

If you choose to have it fixed, I would get estimates of how much it would cost to do so in escrow first before I committed to the sale.

I have NO IDEA how a crack in a condo slab could be fixed without affecting adjacent and nearby condo owners.

In any case, if you bought the property and fixed the crack, you will have to disclose to future potential buyers in your Transfer Disclosure Statement that your condo has a “fixed crack slab” and make your engineer’s certificate available for viewing by potential buyers.

I think I’d pass on this one.[/quote]

There are other ways. Epoxy injection (with or without steel reinforecment) is not near as expensive as saw-cutting and replacing the affected section, and neither are near as expensive as slab replacement (lift, remove, replace). Though I think the cost for the slab replacement is significantly higher than the numbers you quoted there, when the interior and exterior prep and restoration is added in.

It looks as though the crack may extend into either additional rooms or even an adjacent unit. That may create a problem for repairs.

Probably a bigger problem is financing. I’d be quite suprised if any is available.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
The only way I know of to fix a cracked slab is to jack up the building. Your link shows an obvious two-story bldg but is this condo a two story? It appears to be just a one-story unit with a unit above. How many units are in this building??

Not familiar with this complex.

It costs $35K to $50K to *properly* fix a crack all the way thru (front to back or side to side) in a 2000 – 2400 sf SFR. You would have to hire an engineer to do it and sign off on it.

If the crack is not offset (one side higher than the other) and it is not too wide (more than 1/4″), you could just buy it and live in it if the price is low enough but you will have to disclose the crack, by law, when you list the property for sale, as well as remove the floor-covering, like the REO seller did in the photos, to allow potential buyers (and their inspectors) to inspect the crack.

If you choose to live in it unfixed, I don’t see you gaining any equity from this property in the foreseeable future so I would not buy it.

If you choose to have it fixed, I would get estimates of how much it would cost to do so in escrow first before I committed to the sale.

I have NO IDEA how a crack in a condo slab could be fixed without affecting adjacent and nearby condo owners.

In any case, if you bought the property and fixed the crack, you will have to disclose to future potential buyers in your Transfer Disclosure Statement that your condo has a “fixed crack slab” and make your engineer’s certificate available for viewing by potential buyers.

I think I’d pass on this one.[/quote]

There are other ways. Epoxy injection (with or without steel reinforecment) is not near as expensive as saw-cutting and replacing the affected section, and neither are near as expensive as slab replacement (lift, remove, replace). Though I think the cost for the slab replacement is significantly higher than the numbers you quoted there, when the interior and exterior prep and restoration is added in.

It looks as though the crack may extend into either additional rooms or even an adjacent unit. That may create a problem for repairs.

Probably a bigger problem is financing. I’d be quite suprised if any is available.

[SK in CV]

[quote=LuckyInOC]A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how the hell do retirement plan rules related to QDRO’s, definitively decide that a state can declare bankruptcy? I see no connection. California is not getting divorced. (The question is still up in the air whether gays can marry. I don’t think there’s any question as to whether or not states can marry.) Beyond that, California is not a participant in the plan. CalPers isn’t going bankrupt any time soon. And if it did, the state would not be a creditor, but rather a debtor to the plan.

(as an aside, i think the stronger evidence is on the side of a state not having any rights under federal bankruptcy laws, the stronger evidence is on the side of the receivership plan. Best of my knowledge, neither has ever happened, so it’s very possible neither is exactly the way it would actually play out.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=LuckyInOC]A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how the hell do retirement plan rules related to QDRO’s, definitively decide that a state can declare bankruptcy? I see no connection. California is not getting divorced. (The question is still up in the air whether gays can marry. I don’t think there’s any question as to whether or not states can marry.) Beyond that, California is not a participant in the plan. CalPers isn’t going bankrupt any time soon. And if it did, the state would not be a creditor, but rather a debtor to the plan.

(as an aside, i think the stronger evidence is on the side of a state not having any rights under federal bankruptcy laws, the stronger evidence is on the side of the receivership plan. Best of my knowledge, neither has ever happened, so it’s very possible neither is exactly the way it would actually play out.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=LuckyInOC]A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how the hell do retirement plan rules related to QDRO’s, definitively decide that a state can declare bankruptcy? I see no connection. California is not getting divorced. (The question is still up in the air whether gays can marry. I don’t think there’s any question as to whether or not states can marry.) Beyond that, California is not a participant in the plan. CalPers isn’t going bankrupt any time soon. And if it did, the state would not be a creditor, but rather a debtor to the plan.

(as an aside, i think the stronger evidence is on the side of a state not having any rights under federal bankruptcy laws, the stronger evidence is on the side of the receivership plan. Best of my knowledge, neither has ever happened, so it’s very possible neither is exactly the way it would actually play out.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=LuckyInOC]A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how the hell do retirement plan rules related to QDRO’s, definitively decide that a state can declare bankruptcy? I see no connection. California is not getting divorced. (The question is still up in the air whether gays can marry. I don’t think there’s any question as to whether or not states can marry.) Beyond that, California is not a participant in the plan. CalPers isn’t going bankrupt any time soon. And if it did, the state would not be a creditor, but rather a debtor to the plan.

(as an aside, i think the stronger evidence is on the side of a state not having any rights under federal bankruptcy laws, the stronger evidence is on the side of the receivership plan. Best of my knowledge, neither has ever happened, so it’s very possible neither is exactly the way it would actually play out.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=LuckyInOC]A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how the hell do retirement plan rules related to QDRO’s, definitively decide that a state can declare bankruptcy? I see no connection. California is not getting divorced. (The question is still up in the air whether gays can marry. I don’t think there’s any question as to whether or not states can marry.) Beyond that, California is not a participant in the plan. CalPers isn’t going bankrupt any time soon. And if it did, the state would not be a creditor, but rather a debtor to the plan.

(as an aside, i think the stronger evidence is on the side of a state not having any rights under federal bankruptcy laws, the stronger evidence is on the side of the receivership plan. Best of my knowledge, neither has ever happened, so it’s very possible neither is exactly the way it would actually play out.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]
What I didn’t see addressed in the article is 401k funds. I would guess that since both plans are kind of tiered flat taxes (eliminating deductions) 401k/IRA contributions would go away. (No deductions so no tax deferred contributions.) But would you still be able to have the money already invested grow tax free?

The SS changes seem reasonable – but maybe I feel that way since I’ll be in my late 80’s/early 90’s when the means testing happens… by that time my assets will be spent down.

[/quote]

Great question on the 401K’s and other retirement plan issues. I can’t find anything in the draft proposal that specifically addresses it. It does say “Reform Mortgage, Health and Retirement Benefits at 80% of current levels”. Not sure what the reform of retirement benefits is even referring to. Other sources have said stuff like “doing away with all deductions”, though I can’t find where they got that from. 401K’s (along with IRA’s and other retirement plan contributions) aren’t technically deductions, but rather adjustments to income. So I don’t know if they stay or go under these recommendations.

I like the elimination of the mortgage deduction, but I’m disappointed that they’re recommending keeping 20%. Though engrained in the current pricing paradigm, eliminating it entirely would probably go a long ways in stabalizing prices by eliminating tax rates from the “affordability calculation”. Currently there are just too many variables for stable prices. Cost, interest rate, tax rate. Eliminating it would make make us more solvent overall, encourage paying off mortgages, discourage ATM HELOC’s and refi’s for consumer spending. I’m thinking it would also serve to keep interest rates lower, by lowering demand for mortgages. People who can afford to pay off mortgages will.

Reducing the marginal tax rates accordingly will theoretically keep the average taxpayers effective tax rate the same. Though it seems the very top income levels will gain a much bigger benefit. Cutting multi-million dollar income earners, many who currently have no meaningful mortgage deduction, to 23% appears to be a humungous bonus for them. Admittedly, that’s a first glance response. I’d like to see more analysis.

I’m not real excited about the higher normal retirement age for SS. While overall life expectancy has increased significantly since SS started, most of that increase is in lower mortality rates at ages lower than 65. Life expectancy at age 65 has not increased much in the last 70 (since SS monthly benefits started). I think only about 3 years, and normal retirement age has already increased 2 to 67 (phased in). There are a lot of industries where working until 70 is just not possible.

But something does have to be done to get the budget under control and reduce the deficit. So overall, after first review, I like the plan. A few tweaks here and there and maybe it will work. At least until the lobbyists get their whack at it.

[Author]

Posts