Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
vagabondo
ParticipantBut I really like govt bashing…
Philly is corrupt. The main line is autonomous (as are all townships in PA) in how they assess and administer prop taxes. Before the 2000 assessment, homeowners paid about 40% less. So, the building of schools and paying of teachers was all done with far less than in recent years revenues.
As far as RSF and RB, was there ever a time when RSF was ever representative of the average tax base? Even 20 years ago, was it really reasonable in price? All I know is that was where Joan Crock and Gene Klein lived. It is about as old as money gets here.
The beauty of prop 13 is new assessments occur with each transaction. While I am sure there are the examples of those homeowners who have lived in their homes for a generation, intuitively I would assume with all the building over the past 20 years and all the home sales in that same period, a wealth of tax revenue has been gained.
ParticipantBut I really like govt bashing…
Philly is corrupt. The main line is autonomous (as are all townships in PA) in how they assess and administer prop taxes. Before the 2000 assessment, homeowners paid about 40% less. So, the building of schools and paying of teachers was all done with far less than in recent years revenues.
As far as RSF and RB, was there ever a time when RSF was ever representative of the average tax base? Even 20 years ago, was it really reasonable in price? All I know is that was where Joan Crock and Gene Klein lived. It is about as old as money gets here.
The beauty of prop 13 is new assessments occur with each transaction. While I am sure there are the examples of those homeowners who have lived in their homes for a generation, intuitively I would assume with all the building over the past 20 years and all the home sales in that same period, a wealth of tax revenue has been gained.
ParticipantBut I really like govt bashing…
Philly is corrupt. The main line is autonomous (as are all townships in PA) in how they assess and administer prop taxes. Before the 2000 assessment, homeowners paid about 40% less. So, the building of schools and paying of teachers was all done with far less than in recent years revenues.
As far as RSF and RB, was there ever a time when RSF was ever representative of the average tax base? Even 20 years ago, was it really reasonable in price? All I know is that was where Joan Crock and Gene Klein lived. It is about as old as money gets here.
The beauty of prop 13 is new assessments occur with each transaction. While I am sure there are the examples of those homeowners who have lived in their homes for a generation, intuitively I would assume with all the building over the past 20 years and all the home sales in that same period, a wealth of tax revenue has been gained.
ParticipantBut I really like govt bashing…
Philly is corrupt. The main line is autonomous (as are all townships in PA) in how they assess and administer prop taxes. Before the 2000 assessment, homeowners paid about 40% less. So, the building of schools and paying of teachers was all done with far less than in recent years revenues.
As far as RSF and RB, was there ever a time when RSF was ever representative of the average tax base? Even 20 years ago, was it really reasonable in price? All I know is that was where Joan Crock and Gene Klein lived. It is about as old as money gets here.
The beauty of prop 13 is new assessments occur with each transaction. While I am sure there are the examples of those homeowners who have lived in their homes for a generation, intuitively I would assume with all the building over the past 20 years and all the home sales in that same period, a wealth of tax revenue has been gained.
Participantno, lindismith, i am with you here. the logic here is that only when the asset depreciates that you can/should give it back and let the bank deal with the mess. if the opposite occurred, (the bank took the asset after 50% appreciation) we would call that outright theft. but it seems to work the other way around with some. and spare me the bank is not your friend or the contract says this or that. please. the only time this seems to be the case is when you are subject to adverse affect of the potential risk that ALWAYS existed.
Participantno, lindismith, i am with you here. the logic here is that only when the asset depreciates that you can/should give it back and let the bank deal with the mess. if the opposite occurred, (the bank took the asset after 50% appreciation) we would call that outright theft. but it seems to work the other way around with some. and spare me the bank is not your friend or the contract says this or that. please. the only time this seems to be the case is when you are subject to adverse affect of the potential risk that ALWAYS existed.
Participantno, lindismith, i am with you here. the logic here is that only when the asset depreciates that you can/should give it back and let the bank deal with the mess. if the opposite occurred, (the bank took the asset after 50% appreciation) we would call that outright theft. but it seems to work the other way around with some. and spare me the bank is not your friend or the contract says this or that. please. the only time this seems to be the case is when you are subject to adverse affect of the potential risk that ALWAYS existed.
Participantno, lindismith, i am with you here. the logic here is that only when the asset depreciates that you can/should give it back and let the bank deal with the mess. if the opposite occurred, (the bank took the asset after 50% appreciation) we would call that outright theft. but it seems to work the other way around with some. and spare me the bank is not your friend or the contract says this or that. please. the only time this seems to be the case is when you are subject to adverse affect of the potential risk that ALWAYS existed.
Participantno, lindismith, i am with you here. the logic here is that only when the asset depreciates that you can/should give it back and let the bank deal with the mess. if the opposite occurred, (the bank took the asset after 50% appreciation) we would call that outright theft. but it seems to work the other way around with some. and spare me the bank is not your friend or the contract says this or that. please. the only time this seems to be the case is when you are subject to adverse affect of the potential risk that ALWAYS existed.
Participantgiven your payment to your gross income, you were in over your head from the beginning. for me, this is an integrity gut check. clearly you need to get out from under this burden. to walk away is a last resort imho.
i would instead try and work a short sale, if possible. but in any case, i do not think it is fair to stop making payments and continue to live in the house until you are “forced” out. however ill advised, the bank lent you the funds to purchase the home and you agreed to accept their terms. if you are able to make those payments, you should.
i am not of the opinion that lenders will give those with foreclosure hits on their credit report a pass moving forward. risk is risk.
Participantgiven your payment to your gross income, you were in over your head from the beginning. for me, this is an integrity gut check. clearly you need to get out from under this burden. to walk away is a last resort imho.
i would instead try and work a short sale, if possible. but in any case, i do not think it is fair to stop making payments and continue to live in the house until you are “forced” out. however ill advised, the bank lent you the funds to purchase the home and you agreed to accept their terms. if you are able to make those payments, you should.
i am not of the opinion that lenders will give those with foreclosure hits on their credit report a pass moving forward. risk is risk.
Participantgiven your payment to your gross income, you were in over your head from the beginning. for me, this is an integrity gut check. clearly you need to get out from under this burden. to walk away is a last resort imho.
i would instead try and work a short sale, if possible. but in any case, i do not think it is fair to stop making payments and continue to live in the house until you are “forced” out. however ill advised, the bank lent you the funds to purchase the home and you agreed to accept their terms. if you are able to make those payments, you should.
i am not of the opinion that lenders will give those with foreclosure hits on their credit report a pass moving forward. risk is risk.
Participantgiven your payment to your gross income, you were in over your head from the beginning. for me, this is an integrity gut check. clearly you need to get out from under this burden. to walk away is a last resort imho.
i would instead try and work a short sale, if possible. but in any case, i do not think it is fair to stop making payments and continue to live in the house until you are “forced” out. however ill advised, the bank lent you the funds to purchase the home and you agreed to accept their terms. if you are able to make those payments, you should.
i am not of the opinion that lenders will give those with foreclosure hits on their credit report a pass moving forward. risk is risk.
Participantgiven your payment to your gross income, you were in over your head from the beginning. for me, this is an integrity gut check. clearly you need to get out from under this burden. to walk away is a last resort imho.
i would instead try and work a short sale, if possible. but in any case, i do not think it is fair to stop making payments and continue to live in the house until you are “forced” out. however ill advised, the bank lent you the funds to purchase the home and you agreed to accept their terms. if you are able to make those payments, you should.
i am not of the opinion that lenders will give those with foreclosure hits on their credit report a pass moving forward. risk is risk.
-
AuthorPosts
