Perchoutofwater Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Short of using this as another excuse to recite your battle cry once again, can you explain how this applies to the story above? From the story above. He says the IRS placed liens on his carpet store Taxes are about to go up, people are going to do more to try to skirt the code to keep what they view as "theirs". More people are going to get into trouble......It is going to cause a lot of frustration as we see our taxes rise to pay for increased government spending that most business owners don't agree with. As people start getting frustrated and in trouble, I can see more and more of this type of thing happening. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can certainly see it as a reaction to what is going on, a stupid knee jerk reaction, but a reaction all the same. I also think you would see a lot of this regardless of who was in power unless there were significant spending cuts in Washington that neither major party has the balls to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 From the story above. Taxes are about to go up, people are going to do more to try to skirt the code to keep what they view as "theirs". More people are going to get into trouble......It is going to cause a lot of frustration as we see our taxes rise to pay for increased government spending that most business owners don't agree with. As people start getting frustrated and in trouble, I can see more and more of this type of thing happening. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can certainly see it as a reaction to what is going on, a stupid knee jerk reaction, but a reaction all the same. I also think you would see a lot of this regardless of who was in power unless there were significant spending cuts in Washington that neither major party has the balls to do. So, this guy bulldozed his home because he was in trouble with the IRS due to tax increases that haven't been put into effect yet? Perch, trust me, I understand your argument. I've heard your argument. Mind you, I have a hard time believing that the guy who can't make his mortgage payments on a $350K house fits into the 250K+ club that you're complaining is gonna get hit. Even if he was, was he just getting ready for it? You've got to think he'd been skimming for some time to be in this much trouble. Thank you, by the way, for making my point. That point being, somebody is bound to come along and explain why some idiot bulldozing his house because he's pissed that someone dared to take it after he skipped on his taxes is the fault of the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Great, another hijacked thread, awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 So, this guy bulldozed his home because he was in trouble with the IRS due to tax increases that haven't been put into effect yet? Perch, trust me, I understand your argument. I've heard your argument. Mind you, I have a hard time believing that the guy who can't make his mortgage payments on a $350K house fits into the 250K+ club that you're complaining is gonna get hit. Even if he was, was he just getting ready for it? You've got to think he'd been skimming for some time to be in this much trouble. Thank you, by the way, for making my point. That point being, somebody is bound to come along and explain why some idiot bulldozing his house because he's pissed that someone dared to take it after he skipped on his taxes is the fault of the government. It was tongue in cheek thus the In the original post. Then I just felt like going into my recite my battle cry just out of spite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 It was tongue in cheek thus the In the original post. Then I just felt like going into my recite my battle cry just out of spite Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 So, dude had a ton of equity in his house if it's worth 350K and he owed 160 on it. One has to imagine that his IRS issues were not new if he owed them enough to have his house seized to cover them. First off, who's fault is it that he owed that much money to the IRS? Secondly, why didn't he downsize into a cheaper house or refi some time ago and take care of this? Needless to say, there's plenty unknown here but, given what the story provided, this looks like someone who got himself into trouble and then got pissed at those who were in charge of levying the consequences when the poopy hit the fan. he may have, so that could be one of the unknowns you referred to later in your post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 he may have, so that could be one of the unknowns you referred to later in your post Then none of the numbers they gave would have been accurate. If he did a re-fi, he'd owe a bunch more than 160K. If he bought a cheaper house, well, then it would have been a cheaper house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelBunz Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 (edited) Guys.....he couldn't do a refi....or sell and downsize...etc. Since he had equity in the house, the bank wanted it declared collateral for his business loan. A carpeting business....that has gone bankrupt now. (I think good percentage of his business was contracts to carpet new homes.) They were going to just take the house.....period. He built that house and wasn't about to see the bank just take it, sell it to someone else and make money on it. Which is why you should NEVER agree to use personal assets as collateral for business purposes or loans. Either the bank thinks your business model is good enough for a loan.....or they don't. So go find another bank. Or....find some investors. Set up an S corp. Whatever. I don't know if he had any advisors...tax accountants, tax attorneys. But he should have. After it was all said and done.....the bank would have come out ahead by confiscating his home and property, even with the headache of having to sell it, etc. Do you think they would have given him the profit from the sale after his loans were satisfied? Hell no.......lol. So.....he bulldozed it. I'm not saying he isn't in a world of trouble for it. But I can understand the feeling of getting screwed because the bank stood to profit (not just get their money back) while you are bankrupt and on your way to living in a box on the street. With the climate in this country the last few years...this doesn't surprise me. I don't think any of us begrudge the banks from getting a little relief from the rising loan defaults....but that isn't the end of the story. They are profiting.....bigtime. And I hope everyone is fed up with it. Edited February 23, 2010 by SteelBunz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 24, 2010 Author Share Posted February 24, 2010 After it was all said and done.....the bank would have come out ahead by confiscating his home and property, even with the headache of having to sell it, etc. the bank stood to profit (not just get their money back) while you are bankrupt and on your way to living in a box on the street. With the climate in this country the last few years...this doesn't surprise me. I don't think any of us begrudge the banks from getting a little relief from the rising loan defaults....but that isn't the end of the story. They are profiting.....bigtime. Truth here. All the pious claptrap from the banks about how they want to keep people in their homes blah blah is BS - the reason they don't try harder is they don't want to. They will make more by taking the house, especially one where the equity is high and half the mortgage has already been paid. The closer you get to the end of your mortgage, the juicier a target you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Truth here. All the pious claptrap from the banks about how they want to keep people in their homes blah blah is BS - the reason they don't try harder is they don't want to. They will make more by taking the house, especially one where the equity is high and half the mortgage has already been paid. The closer you get to the end of your mortgage, the juicier a target you are. There's truth here and in what czar said, and I'd have probably done the same thing that guy did. The fact of the matter is foreclosures aren't all evil banks - and most of the foreclosures right now are not folks in their homes like this guy was, they are people without a dime of equity, so the banks don't want those assets back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 24, 2010 Author Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) There's truth here and in what czar said, and I'd have probably done the same thing that guy did. The fact of the matter is foreclosures aren't all evil banks - and most of the foreclosures right now are not folks in their homes like this guy was, they are people without a dime of equity, so the banks don't want those assets back. Right but if you've paid, say, half your principal then the bank already has that money plus the raft of interest you've already forked over. They then foreclose and get full current value of the house too. In most cases, that's not a losing proposition for them once you factor in the money they've already been paid. Edited February 24, 2010 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Right but if you've paid, say, half your principal then the bank already has that money plus the raft of interest you've already forked over. They then foreclose and get full current value of the house too. In most cases, that's not a losing proposition for them once you factor in the money they've already been paid. Oh absolutely, and that's the rub. Most of my experience with financing is cars. If one is repo'ed, the customer always gets or owes the difference. Is it not the same with houses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.