ManO'War wrote: I am still waiting for PMs from the doubters, but as usual, when it is put up or shut up, the crickets come out.

BCSbunk wrote:

ManO'War wrote: I am still waiting for PMs from the doubters, but as usual, when it is put up or shut up, the crickets come out.

Just because you have a copy of the check does not mean anything at all. So she got a 10 grand check but did is she a first time homebuyer? That would explain it right there.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "What is there to gain by lying on an anonymous blog site?"

Well not to impress you, I think you are nuts.

HitsRus wrote: Oh let's see...she works at Mickie D's making minimum wage but she can buy a home big enough to get a $ 10 G tax credit.......hmmmm....

HitsRus wrote: Oh let's see...she works at Mickie D's making minimum wage but she can buy a home big enough to get a $ 10 G tax credit.......hmmmm....

general94 wrote: What ever happened to the good old 10% or 20% down for a mortgage.

general94 wrote: What ever happened to the good old 10% or 20% down for a mortgage. That is how I bought my home. If you can't do this, then you have no business owning a home. The 'first time home buyers credit' will only dig the hole deeper that we are in now, as MORE people that have no business owning a home will be tempted to jump in. Result, more foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc.

ManO'War wrote: Still didn't get any PM's...hmmmm, wonder why?

And I have copies of dozens and dozens of checks that are 7 grand plus...that's an awful lot of people that are buying homes, lol.

I love it when people on the internet argue with you, when they are just going by google searches and talking to "friends", while you are going by real life experience and reality.

general94 wrote: What ever happened to the good old 10% or 20% down for a mortgage. That is how I bought my home. If you can't do this, then you have no business owning a home. The 'first time home buyers credit' will only dig the hole deeper that we are in now, as MORE people that have no business owning a home will be tempted to jump in. Result, more foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc.

pinstriper wrote: How about instead of a first time home buyer crecit of $8000 they let you write off the 20% you put down on your house? It would actually reward those who save and do the right thing in order to get into a house. It seems as though the system is always set-up to help those "in need", instead of helping those who do the right things.

BCSbunk wrote:

ManO'War wrote: Still didn't get any PM's...hmmmm, wonder why?

And I have copies of dozens and dozens of checks that are 7 grand plus...that's an awful lot of people that are buying homes, lol.

I love it when people on the internet argue with you, when they are just going by google searches and talking to "friends", while you are going by real life experience and reality.

Do you have their w-2 forms too? Having checks is totally meaningless.

Unless you can verify their w-2 with the check your claim is unfounded.

If fact we really need to entire tax form for real evidence of this claim. Not sure how you cannot see that.

Con_Alma wrote:

pinstriper wrote: How about instead of a first time home buyer crecit of $8000 they let you write off the 20% you put down on your house? It would actually reward those who save and do the right thing in order to get into a house. It seems as though the system is always set-up to help those "in need", instead of helping those who do the right things.

Credits are better than deductions. Depending on your tax return a smaller credit could be a greater benefit than a larger deduction.

pinstriper wrote:

Con_Alma wrote:

pinstriper wrote: How about instead of a first time home buyer crecit of $8000 they let you write off the 20% you put down on your house? It would actually reward those who save and do the right thing in order to get into a house. It seems as though the system is always set-up to help those "in need", instead of helping those who do the right things.

Credits are better than deductions. Depending on your tax return a smaller credit could be a greater benefit than a larger deduction.

I understand that, but if you're moving up in house (so it's not your first) - you're shit out of luck. I'd rather be able to write off $55,000 I just poured into my custom build (and get back 13,000 or so) than get a credit of 6,500 or whatever it is. I just kept a contractor/subs/and everyone who worked on my house over the 4 months in work. I just don't think it's the government's place to give out free money in order to get into a house. If you save up, qualify for the loan, then why not be able to write-off that 20% you just forked over? What I see around here, or saw, is people getting 100% financing, closing costs rolled into the loan, and then thier 8000 back come tax time. Of course, these are on smaller homes, but there should be incentive I believe for those who are responsible and do the right thing. Just an idea.

Look up Community Reinvestment Act and all the sordid history it brings.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "Do you have their w-2 forms too? Having checks is totally meaningless. "

Even if they claim zero on their W-4, there are only so much taxes that are taken out of a low income paycheck. Even if the W-2 shows some withholding it isn't going to be alot.

Once again, the issue is some people not only not pay taxes, they get payable credits upon filing, i.e. a negative tax burden. It has never been a secret.

How many times does this have to be repeated?

IggyPride00 wrote:

Look up Community Reinvestment Act and all the sordid history it brings.

The real race to the bottom came when the investment banks got into the subprime game around the turn of the century. I am sure you know this already, but Fannie and Freddy were actually losing market share to them at the start of last decade, and it was the shareholders (not the government) of those 2 companies that pushed Fannie and Freddy to lower lending standards in order to compete as sub-prime is where the real money was being made.

The whole concept of a GSE with private ownership was absurd because it the 2 parties (shareholders and government) had competing interests in how Fannie and Freddy should be run. In this case it proved to be a toxic mess because you had private shareholders who (naturally) are most concerned with maximizing shareholder wealth, while Fannie and Freddy were never designed for that so much as they were to be a public utility of sorts to keep the mortgage market functioning.

What you ultimately had was an abuse of the government guarantee provided to both companies to write mortgages to anyone and everyone in the quest to increase profits.