[Vishon]

It is difficult to swim against the current.

There is a giant racket working to hustle money out of real estate. Driven by greed, the financial institutions created CDOs, investors poured money to buy them. The government enjoyed additional revenue stream, and the home buyers got to own homes.

Now that the racket is busted, the government is doing it its best to repair the racket, pumping money into the banks, providing low % mortgages, offering loan modifications, giving tax incentives and etc… The banks are doing their best, holding off the inventories by delaying the default process.

It might seems like an absurd conspiracy theory, but it is happening right in front of us. The government wants to keep the racket up. It will keep the constituents happy, keep the revenue stream high. Why would the government let the market run its course. The situation seems to make a lot more sense in this model, at least for me.

From this perspective, it really might be morally acceptable to strategically default. It is part of the game.

One might even want to expand on this concept. Suddenly the hidden cast in the society might just reveal itself. The have will have more because the power of the government backs them up. Just look at the banks (GS especially), after losing all the money, and with all the toxic assets still on their balance sheet, they were able to report record profit, which isn’t hard to do when the government is giving them free money.

Compare to all that, should we even focus on a single person choose to walk away for his financial interest?

Let’s finish this up with a quote from a gangster himself:

“Its a racket. Those stock market guys are crooked.” – Al Capone

Can the same be said today?

[Vishon]

It is difficult to swim against the current.

There is a giant racket working to hustle money out of real estate. Driven by greed, the financial institutions created CDOs, investors poured money to buy them. The government enjoyed additional revenue stream, and the home buyers got to own homes.

Now that the racket is busted, the government is doing it its best to repair the racket, pumping money into the banks, providing low % mortgages, offering loan modifications, giving tax incentives and etc… The banks are doing their best, holding off the inventories by delaying the default process.

It might seems like an absurd conspiracy theory, but it is happening right in front of us. The government wants to keep the racket up. It will keep the constituents happy, keep the revenue stream high. Why would the government let the market run its course. The situation seems to make a lot more sense in this model, at least for me.

From this perspective, it really might be morally acceptable to strategically default. It is part of the game.

One might even want to expand on this concept. Suddenly the hidden cast in the society might just reveal itself. The have will have more because the power of the government backs them up. Just look at the banks (GS especially), after losing all the money, and with all the toxic assets still on their balance sheet, they were able to report record profit, which isn’t hard to do when the government is giving them free money.

Compare to all that, should we even focus on a single person choose to walk away for his financial interest?

Let’s finish this up with a quote from a gangster himself:

“Its a racket. Those stock market guys are crooked.” – Al Capone

Can the same be said today?

[Vishon]

It is difficult to swim against the current.

There is a giant racket working to hustle money out of real estate. Driven by greed, the financial institutions created CDOs, investors poured money to buy them. The government enjoyed additional revenue stream, and the home buyers got to own homes.

Now that the racket is busted, the government is doing it its best to repair the racket, pumping money into the banks, providing low % mortgages, offering loan modifications, giving tax incentives and etc… The banks are doing their best, holding off the inventories by delaying the default process.

It might seems like an absurd conspiracy theory, but it is happening right in front of us. The government wants to keep the racket up. It will keep the constituents happy, keep the revenue stream high. Why would the government let the market run its course. The situation seems to make a lot more sense in this model, at least for me.

From this perspective, it really might be morally acceptable to strategically default. It is part of the game.

One might even want to expand on this concept. Suddenly the hidden cast in the society might just reveal itself. The have will have more because the power of the government backs them up. Just look at the banks (GS especially), after losing all the money, and with all the toxic assets still on their balance sheet, they were able to report record profit, which isn’t hard to do when the government is giving them free money.

Compare to all that, should we even focus on a single person choose to walk away for his financial interest?

Let’s finish this up with a quote from a gangster himself:

“Its a racket. Those stock market guys are crooked.” – Al Capone

Can the same be said today?

[Vishon]

It is difficult to swim against the current.

There is a giant racket working to hustle money out of real estate. Driven by greed, the financial institutions created CDOs, investors poured money to buy them. The government enjoyed additional revenue stream, and the home buyers got to own homes.

Now that the racket is busted, the government is doing it its best to repair the racket, pumping money into the banks, providing low % mortgages, offering loan modifications, giving tax incentives and etc… The banks are doing their best, holding off the inventories by delaying the default process.

It might seems like an absurd conspiracy theory, but it is happening right in front of us. The government wants to keep the racket up. It will keep the constituents happy, keep the revenue stream high. Why would the government let the market run its course. The situation seems to make a lot more sense in this model, at least for me.

From this perspective, it really might be morally acceptable to strategically default. It is part of the game.

One might even want to expand on this concept. Suddenly the hidden cast in the society might just reveal itself. The have will have more because the power of the government backs them up. Just look at the banks (GS especially), after losing all the money, and with all the toxic assets still on their balance sheet, they were able to report record profit, which isn’t hard to do when the government is giving them free money.

Compare to all that, should we even focus on a single person choose to walk away for his financial interest?

Let’s finish this up with a quote from a gangster himself:

“Its a racket. Those stock market guys are crooked.” – Al Capone

Can the same be said today?

[Vishon]

It is difficult to swim against the current.

There is a giant racket working to hustle money out of real estate. Driven by greed, the financial institutions created CDOs, investors poured money to buy them. The government enjoyed additional revenue stream, and the home buyers got to own homes.

Now that the racket is busted, the government is doing it its best to repair the racket, pumping money into the banks, providing low % mortgages, offering loan modifications, giving tax incentives and etc… The banks are doing their best, holding off the inventories by delaying the default process.

It might seems like an absurd conspiracy theory, but it is happening right in front of us. The government wants to keep the racket up. It will keep the constituents happy, keep the revenue stream high. Why would the government let the market run its course. The situation seems to make a lot more sense in this model, at least for me.

From this perspective, it really might be morally acceptable to strategically default. It is part of the game.

One might even want to expand on this concept. Suddenly the hidden cast in the society might just reveal itself. The have will have more because the power of the government backs them up. Just look at the banks (GS especially), after losing all the money, and with all the toxic assets still on their balance sheet, they were able to report record profit, which isn’t hard to do when the government is giving them free money.

Compare to all that, should we even focus on a single person choose to walk away for his financial interest?

Let’s finish this up with a quote from a gangster himself:

“Its a racket. Those stock market guys are crooked.” – Al Capone

Can the same be said today?

[Vishon]

[quote]
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m saying that I think I’m getting about $900 in reduced taxes that I won’t get if I don’t own anymore (by interest and property tax deductions).

I saw another post that said add up your interest and property tax payment, multiply by 34%, and divide by 12 to estimate the tax savings. I think the 34% was a tax bracket guess for the poster’s income, which seems close to mine.[/quote]

Income deduction is not the same as tax credit. If I understood it correctly, and it may very well be that I’m mistaken, property tax is a deduction to income but is paid whole. So a fraction of property tax is written off. The net result is negative.

Basically the property tax paid is greater than the reduction.

The way to really check is to take the taxable income, go to the IRS website, look at the tax bracket and % tax, compute the amount of tax balance. Then take all the house deductions, i.e. the property tax and interests, subtract them from the taxable income, then recompute the tax balance. The difference is the tax savings.

[Vishon]

[quote]
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m saying that I think I’m getting about $900 in reduced taxes that I won’t get if I don’t own anymore (by interest and property tax deductions).

I saw another post that said add up your interest and property tax payment, multiply by 34%, and divide by 12 to estimate the tax savings. I think the 34% was a tax bracket guess for the poster’s income, which seems close to mine.[/quote]

Income deduction is not the same as tax credit. If I understood it correctly, and it may very well be that I’m mistaken, property tax is a deduction to income but is paid whole. So a fraction of property tax is written off. The net result is negative.

Basically the property tax paid is greater than the reduction.

The way to really check is to take the taxable income, go to the IRS website, look at the tax bracket and % tax, compute the amount of tax balance. Then take all the house deductions, i.e. the property tax and interests, subtract them from the taxable income, then recompute the tax balance. The difference is the tax savings.

[Vishon]

[quote]
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m saying that I think I’m getting about $900 in reduced taxes that I won’t get if I don’t own anymore (by interest and property tax deductions).

I saw another post that said add up your interest and property tax payment, multiply by 34%, and divide by 12 to estimate the tax savings. I think the 34% was a tax bracket guess for the poster’s income, which seems close to mine.[/quote]

Income deduction is not the same as tax credit. If I understood it correctly, and it may very well be that I’m mistaken, property tax is a deduction to income but is paid whole. So a fraction of property tax is written off. The net result is negative.

Basically the property tax paid is greater than the reduction.

The way to really check is to take the taxable income, go to the IRS website, look at the tax bracket and % tax, compute the amount of tax balance. Then take all the house deductions, i.e. the property tax and interests, subtract them from the taxable income, then recompute the tax balance. The difference is the tax savings.

[Vishon]

[quote]
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m saying that I think I’m getting about $900 in reduced taxes that I won’t get if I don’t own anymore (by interest and property tax deductions).

I saw another post that said add up your interest and property tax payment, multiply by 34%, and divide by 12 to estimate the tax savings. I think the 34% was a tax bracket guess for the poster’s income, which seems close to mine.[/quote]

Income deduction is not the same as tax credit. If I understood it correctly, and it may very well be that I’m mistaken, property tax is a deduction to income but is paid whole. So a fraction of property tax is written off. The net result is negative.

Basically the property tax paid is greater than the reduction.

The way to really check is to take the taxable income, go to the IRS website, look at the tax bracket and % tax, compute the amount of tax balance. Then take all the house deductions, i.e. the property tax and interests, subtract them from the taxable income, then recompute the tax balance. The difference is the tax savings.

[Vishon]

[quote]
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m saying that I think I’m getting about $900 in reduced taxes that I won’t get if I don’t own anymore (by interest and property tax deductions).

I saw another post that said add up your interest and property tax payment, multiply by 34%, and divide by 12 to estimate the tax savings. I think the 34% was a tax bracket guess for the poster’s income, which seems close to mine.[/quote]

Income deduction is not the same as tax credit. If I understood it correctly, and it may very well be that I’m mistaken, property tax is a deduction to income but is paid whole. So a fraction of property tax is written off. The net result is negative.

Basically the property tax paid is greater than the reduction.

The way to really check is to take the taxable income, go to the IRS website, look at the tax bracket and % tax, compute the amount of tax balance. Then take all the house deductions, i.e. the property tax and interests, subtract them from the taxable income, then recompute the tax balance. The difference is the tax savings.

[Vishon]

One question about OP’s calculation. The tax saving of $900/month, is that before or after the property tax paid?

For the purchase price of $424k, at 1%, the property tax is $4240 or $353/month.

The tax saving should be corrected accordingly.

V

[Vishon]

One question about OP’s calculation. The tax saving of $900/month, is that before or after the property tax paid?

For the purchase price of $424k, at 1%, the property tax is $4240 or $353/month.

The tax saving should be corrected accordingly.

V

[Vishon]

One question about OP’s calculation. The tax saving of $900/month, is that before or after the property tax paid?

For the purchase price of $424k, at 1%, the property tax is $4240 or $353/month.

The tax saving should be corrected accordingly.

V

[Vishon]

One question about OP’s calculation. The tax saving of $900/month, is that before or after the property tax paid?

For the purchase price of $424k, at 1%, the property tax is $4240 or $353/month.

The tax saving should be corrected accordingly.

V

[Vishon]

One question about OP’s calculation. The tax saving of $900/month, is that before or after the property tax paid?

For the purchase price of $424k, at 1%, the property tax is $4240 or $353/month.

The tax saving should be corrected accordingly.

V

[Author]

Posts