Windfall profit tax on home speculators?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by canadyjd, Feb 28, 2009.

  1. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hear the Obama adminstration wants to force banks to forgive principle on existing loans so as to make payments less. Taxpayers would have to foot the bill.

    The people who were buying and selling homes (jacking up the price as they went) made plenty of profit. They should be the ones to foot the bill, via a windfall profit tax.

    Everyone who sold a home that is now decreased in value should pay a "windfall profit tax" that is equal to the difference of the value of the home in today's market.

    IOW's, if they sold a home at the inflated price of 250,000, and the home today is only worth 200,000, then the person who sold the home should be forced to pay a windfall profit tax of 50,000.

    Or, better yet, that person should be forced to give the bank 50,000 directly so they can pay down the principle on the home.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  2. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    That will never come close to passing.
     
  3. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you have a link for this?

    Is this part of the plan that was passed or is this something new?

    I heard people make statements like this regarding the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan but it simply isn't true. It only adjust the interest and primary residents are the only ones who can apply.
     
  4. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's make that retroactive to say 1980.
     
  5. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm speaking of the current crises that arose over the past few years. That's where the money went.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  6. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, all the builders would go bankrupt, and all the people who sold homes and reinvested any profit (after taxes, closing costs, realtor fees, etc.) into their present home would end up going bankrupt, too, if they had to pay a windfall profit tax. And who is going to be in charge of all millions of real estate transactions and transfers that took place in the last however many years? An Obama real estate czar?

    No thanks, that idea isn't a very feasible one once you get past the theory stage and lay out all the issues involved. Sorry, nice try though. :tonofbricks:
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    Ridiculous is the kindest word I can come up with.

    Other choices were insanity or idiocy.
     
  8. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    But this is all "what you heard". There has been no proof any of it's true.
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    Use of taxpayer dollars to bail out deadbeat mortgage holders:

    Legalized theft from mortgage lenders to help deadbeats mortgage holders:


    [/quote]
    The "cram down" part refers to cramming a loss down the lenders throat while keeping the deadbeat in the house.

    Government sponsored theft, pure and simple.
     
  10. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's now what the OP posted.

    Your articles confirm what I understood, they are just restructuring the loans which generally gives the buyer a better interest rates which makes the payment affordable. That is better than the tons of foreclosures that will take place without this step. Adjusting the interest rates in no way gives the buyer a free home and as far as cramming it down bankers throats, they are incented $2500 per loan plus the ability to get these bad loans off their books.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    Concentrate real hard and read it all again.

    Maybe you'll catch on , but your "purposeful ignorance" probably won't let you.
     
  12. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Several things wrong with this: Chief of which was the price right in the economy that existed at the time of its sale? Then it's not the speculators fault......... unless the speculator was the bank which should have known better.

    What about the person who sold a home he lived in, at a profit, to move into another home?

    No........ the banks that we bailed out are the very banks that caused this mess to begin with. They did so to make money and lots of it! They promoted loans and supported the prices by offering the adjustable rate mortgages and balloon mortgages. They are responsible for not sensibly requiring job stability, proof of income, credit reports, and appropriately vetting the loan applications before approval. They in turn played the market, knowing that with a little expense on their part, drawn from some of the fees they collect with closing cost, they could purchase a low cost insurance to cover their losses: They, in turn, bundled their bad paper, knowing that it either was or would soon be 'bad paper' and presented it to standards without disclosing all the particulars and encouraged it to be rated better than it should have been, to sell it to the inferior investors.... who are not the elite and whom they dispise for daring to compete....people with whom you and I could have a chance of investing with, who were hoping to see our portfolio grow for retirement. Then they get caught...... because those that they had already scammed, started getting caught. Then they take their cry baby song to Washington and asked for a bailout.... because they've no more cash to lend: It neither coming in (the cash) from depositors, or payments on loans, or defunct or soon to be defunct investment houses which took gambles and leverage (borrowed) from the banks..... to service their own investments. So we believe their promises: We bail them out and promise the American people their jobs are saved and so are their businesses because loans will be made available...... but the same bailouts contains some strings which our administrations are telling us hold their feet to the fire to repay.... and we're supposed to believe this (but if this is so..... this very act is enough to cause withholding of even available credit to the worthy)...... the very same people who promised us there would be accountability for the monies used in the bailout..... but now can not even tell the Congress where the money went! It is the bankers fault!

    You will notice..... it is not the smaller 'mom' and 'pop' banks which went under, who exercised conservative policies....... and, for small loans..... it is still the smaller banks which have money to loan for those who are in a good position to borrow.

    But these big bully giants, these mamouth voraciously greedy big banks, got hurting by their on doing, or rather undoing, and then get bailout money to help the with the cash flow.... and then refuse to loan it out for short term notes to smaller businesses which depended on cycling small loans from time to time as they needed cycling infusions of cash to restock their warehouses, or supplies to do business. Thus you have a banker controlled and officiated market drop, increases in unemployment and layoffs, a credit flow bottleneck in which businesses nor consumers can get credit in an economy dependant on credit...... designed by bankers for bankers.

    The banks should have never been bailed out! Our government should have reduced the intraveneous infusion into the IMF and World Bank and the Federal Reserve to a keep open minimum to prevent default and started establishing how to return the control of the money to the people through a constitutionally agreed and sovereign banking system.

    As it is now....... all these little packages that are getting passed will only serve to establish more regulations and taxes upon the people and their means of producing income..... and steal our property.

    It is the bankers that did this: They lobbied for laws and policies which promoted the design by which they could carry out their plan.... to bankrupt America and move us toward their own agenda.... a world government which they can manipulate and control.

    Incidentally, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Was it really because of terrorist? Could it be that until they were destroyed, their Islamic banking system worked outside the world bank system as they do not believe in usury or interest on loans made to their people so there were few avenues by which the world bank could use them or manipulate their finances and influence their governments? What about the war? The biggest money makers during wars is not the people or the government but the banks which finance the business of war! What about the questions never answered never resolved by 9-11? Is it possible that these terrorist were in some way allowed to carry out their agenda by a few who expected to benefit? If Bldg 7 could be pulled and fall like a controled demolition, what existed in the structures of the towers 1 and 2 which allowed them to be so soft after engineering had designed them to withstand plane hits and fires? If a person bought the property within a year and finds it is a white elephant... not suitable for his purpose and a sucking hole for his investments......what is the best way to recoup insured losses?.... What could be next? Gain control of the people.... unstable economy, prey on their worse fears, jeapordize their property, destabilize their communities, create situations which could justify martial law ...... to everyone but the truely skeptical? A dirty bomb, a small nuclear attack, the release of some designer biologics for which we have no natural immunity, or the disqualification/ impeachment/ or assination of a person which would be considered by some to be racially motivated? ...Not saying its so.... as much as thinking 'out loud' so to speak.
     
    #12 windcatcher, Mar 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2009
  13. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll put you down as a "no".:smilewinkgrin:

    peace to you:praying:
     
  14. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it's a bad idea....just like any "windfall profits" tax is a bad idea!

    It punishes people for having good business practices and rewards people for bad business practices.

    That is exactly what the Obama plan does. It rewards bad business practices and punishes good business practices.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  15. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    No my brother, it is you who needs to compare your post to the OP again. I get it. You don't!

    Lets peel this onion and look at the layers, the "cramdown" clause will allow bankruptcy judges to declare the difference between the mortgage and market value as unsecured debt which means it is written off in the bankruptcy. The homeowner then gets new terms based on market value and the lender writes the $50K off as a loss. That is the clause being twisted by the right so lets look at it.

    Loan = $200K but market value is $150K so $50K is written off in bankruptcy. Now the debt free homeowner gets new terms but has one creditor to pay.

    Loan = $200K and complete loan is written off in bankruptcy so lender gets the house back. Remember, the market value is still $150K so the most they will sell it for is $150K. Either way they get a $50K loss. The difference with Obama solution is the homeowner can stay in the home.

    Couple of things to keep in mind, this option is only available to loans backed by Fannie and Freddie and can only happen via bankruptcy court so there won't be a slew of them. The person filing bankruptcy has to show where they made a good effort to work with the lender and they lender wouldn't bend.

    That's the proposal as I see it, so what's so wrong with it?
     
  16. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then they have reinvested their profits and will have no capitol gains to pay.

    Correct, so this plan isn't bank friendly, it is homeowner friendly. The bank will loose the "unsecured value" which is the difference between the mortgage and the market value. As you said, they made lots of money on the front end so now it's their turn to pony up.
     

Share This Page

Loading...