- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:10 pm to AngryBeavers
Comparing the wife>trained>Dwarf Asians analogy to walking away from a mortgage you have exhibited no inability to repay is a non-starter.
In the former example, the relationship between the two parties has been premanently altered via adultery.
In the latter, someone just "feels" like they don't want to pay anymore. Or "feels" unsafe.
I think many project moral or ethical obligations onto the idea of home ownership because maintaining said obligation is the key to being able to provide the shelter aspect of the food, clothing & shelter triumverate.
Also, the resultant negative effect of a foreclosure is such that it would very well inhibit the ability to potentially provide all three things at the same rate they were previously.
Now, just like the discussion of abortion with exceptions for rape, incest & the health of the mother, there are exceptions in this subject as well.
If someone lost their job or a bread-winning spouse, or became disabled? Of course their lives have been impacted and as such, "walking away" is an understandable response that can be easily justified.
But a house is not a bad haircut. If you decide you "don't like it" and just want to walk away, there are serious consequences. Rightfully so.
But ethics and morals play a part in almost any transaction or choice with human beings. To say that they aren't involved is sort've idiocy on SFP's part.
In the former example, the relationship between the two parties has been premanently altered via adultery.
In the latter, someone just "feels" like they don't want to pay anymore. Or "feels" unsafe.
I think many project moral or ethical obligations onto the idea of home ownership because maintaining said obligation is the key to being able to provide the shelter aspect of the food, clothing & shelter triumverate.
Also, the resultant negative effect of a foreclosure is such that it would very well inhibit the ability to potentially provide all three things at the same rate they were previously.
Now, just like the discussion of abortion with exceptions for rape, incest & the health of the mother, there are exceptions in this subject as well.
If someone lost their job or a bread-winning spouse, or became disabled? Of course their lives have been impacted and as such, "walking away" is an understandable response that can be easily justified.
But a house is not a bad haircut. If you decide you "don't like it" and just want to walk away, there are serious consequences. Rightfully so.
But ethics and morals play a part in almost any transaction or choice with human beings. To say that they aren't involved is sort've idiocy on SFP's part.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:13 pm to AngryBeavers
Obviously I was making a joke, but I've switched cell phone carriers, cable and Internet providers, etc... under contract because the money to break made sense. Are there penalties? Of course. But I guarantee almost everyone in this thread has broken some sort of contract. On ethics and moral, there is no difference between .50 and 500k, it's about principal.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:17 pm to GFunk
Not sure if I missed it and this was already covered, but it would appear to me that it is a more moral decision in the event that there is not consideration/remedy on both sides.
A mortgage to me is pretty much a "I'll pay or I'll surrender the property" deal rather than an "i'll do my best to pay you because you are hooking me up with a place to live" decision. It is a decision for the borrower to make the payment or get hit with late fees, penalties, botched credit scores, and eventually the possibility of homelessness. Both parties are assumed competent enough to understand the contract. The moral aspect is the borrower considering the effect on themselves/their family, not on the basis of whether or not they pay the mortgage, IMHO.
A mortgage to me is pretty much a "I'll pay or I'll surrender the property" deal rather than an "i'll do my best to pay you because you are hooking me up with a place to live" decision. It is a decision for the borrower to make the payment or get hit with late fees, penalties, botched credit scores, and eventually the possibility of homelessness. Both parties are assumed competent enough to understand the contract. The moral aspect is the borrower considering the effect on themselves/their family, not on the basis of whether or not they pay the mortgage, IMHO.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:27 pm to Crbello4Hiceman
I think this is actually a really good discussion to have. Everyone is going to have different opinions and while I do not like the idea of people walking away from a financial obligation I think it is important for people to only do it as a last resort and not because it is convienent. This mentality of not paying because my house lost value does not bode well for this country's future.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:37 pm to AngryBeavers
quote:
AngryBeavers
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:37 pm to AngryBeavers
Right on.
I think it is more of an ethics issue if there is no recourse. In other words, I let you stay at my place and you agree to pay me rent. If you don't and you leave, that is a moral/character issue. If we agree that if you don't pay rent that I get to keep your stereo and then it unfolds that way, I don't think it is quite as moral.
In regards to troubling lack of accountability- I agree with you! But in theory, the banks that are stuck holding the bag will start cracking down on who they lend to going forward, which should correct the issue (if you lend to people that can afford the property or are too worried about their credit to default, it reduces the likelihood of default).
I think it is more of an ethics issue if there is no recourse. In other words, I let you stay at my place and you agree to pay me rent. If you don't and you leave, that is a moral/character issue. If we agree that if you don't pay rent that I get to keep your stereo and then it unfolds that way, I don't think it is quite as moral.
In regards to troubling lack of accountability- I agree with you! But in theory, the banks that are stuck holding the bag will start cracking down on who they lend to going forward, which should correct the issue (if you lend to people that can afford the property or are too worried about their credit to default, it reduces the likelihood of default).
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:40 pm to WikiTiger
It is absolutely not wrong to default, in my opinion.
Businesses break contracts and leases frequently. To avoid anarchy, there are penalties that result from breaking contract which are usually spelled out in the contracts. The penalties are one of the many negotiating points in a contract and balanced by costs elsewhere if they are not strict.
There was even a mortgage company or large bank recently that broke a lease contract on one of their large office buildings. It's just not a big deal. Parties that enter into contracts understand they can come to end in a variety of ways and make sure they are okay with associated penalties before signing.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for a bank when somebody hands an underwater property back to them? The bank needs to ensure a reasonable valuation, enough money down, and a high enough interest rate to compensate them for these risks.
Now, when the government bears the risk of default, things get out of control. But to me that should not weigh on the mind of the homeowner considering default. The homeowner must weigh the downside but has a greater responsibility to provide for their family than they do to the bank.
Businesses break contracts and leases frequently. To avoid anarchy, there are penalties that result from breaking contract which are usually spelled out in the contracts. The penalties are one of the many negotiating points in a contract and balanced by costs elsewhere if they are not strict.
There was even a mortgage company or large bank recently that broke a lease contract on one of their large office buildings. It's just not a big deal. Parties that enter into contracts understand they can come to end in a variety of ways and make sure they are okay with associated penalties before signing.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for a bank when somebody hands an underwater property back to them? The bank needs to ensure a reasonable valuation, enough money down, and a high enough interest rate to compensate them for these risks.
Now, when the government bears the risk of default, things get out of control. But to me that should not weigh on the mind of the homeowner considering default. The homeowner must weigh the downside but has a greater responsibility to provide for their family than they do to the bank.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:44 pm to WikiTiger
When a company walks away from a bad debt, "it's just business." When an individual does the same, it's supposed to be immoral? Not in my book.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 6:07 pm to WikiTiger
Only as wrong as theft.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 6:26 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
Only as wrong as theft.
Not even close to the same thing.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 10:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
There is no moral component to a mortgage default as far as I can tell. A negative psychological component for the homeowner, sure, but the bank isn't lending that money in pure good faith.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 10:22 pm to AngryBeavers
quote:
I think this is actually a really good discussion to have. Everyone is going to have different opinions and while I do not like the idea of people walking away from a financial obligation I think it is important for people to only do it as a last resort and not because it is convienent. This mentality of not paying because my house lost value does not bode well for this country's future.
Since when do logically sound personal finance decisions bode poorly for the future of our country? Your use of "convenience" suggests that to strategically default is generally lazy, instead of rational and unsentimental.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 10:29 pm to Dead Mike
Just because you can legally do something, doesn't mean you should. Especially with the way we as tax payers have asked our future generations to pay off the debt by having the govt partially insure our personal debt. And if you have the ability to pay and walk away, you really are just fricking yourself as not all states are nonrecourse states and your credit will be shite. People who default just because they can are like people at the airport who need a wheelchair to board the planes but are miracally cured by the time they land. Congrats on fricking your neighbor and the airlines.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 10:43 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
Only as wrong as theft.
how many thefts are contracted?
Posted on 10/11/12 at 10:48 pm to C
quote:
Just because you can legally do something, doesn't mean you should. Especially with the way we as tax payers have asked our future generations to pay off the debt by having the govt partially insure our personal debt. And if you have the ability to pay and walk away, you really are just fricking yourself as not all states are nonrecourse states and your credit will be shite. People who default just because they can are like people at the airport who need a wheelchair to board the planes but are miracally cured by the time they land. Congrats on fricking your neighbor and the airlines.
Default because they can, or because it is the smart financial decision (that still abides by the terms of the contract)?
Posted on 10/12/12 at 7:42 am to Dead Mike
yeah this thread is strange to me
a contract is a set of obligations for a group of people that should have clear instructions for what happens if one of the parties wants to end those obligations. typically this involves a bargained-for amount for breach
a contract isn't a morality agreement. you don't say "cross my heart hope to die stick a needle in my eye" when agreeing to the contract. smart parties (which are those in the OPs instance) plan out "escape" plans valued on perceived risk, and they include those in the deal
a contract is a set of obligations for a group of people that should have clear instructions for what happens if one of the parties wants to end those obligations. typically this involves a bargained-for amount for breach
a contract isn't a morality agreement. you don't say "cross my heart hope to die stick a needle in my eye" when agreeing to the contract. smart parties (which are those in the OPs instance) plan out "escape" plans valued on perceived risk, and they include those in the deal
Posted on 10/12/12 at 7:47 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
Only as wrong as theft.
You might wanna stay off the big boy board.
Posted on 10/12/12 at 8:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
yeah this thread is silly to me
Posted on 10/12/12 at 9:55 am to C
quote:
Especially with the way we as tax payers have asked our future generations to pay off the debt by having the govt partially insure our personal debt.
This issue is TOTALLY independent of whether anyone defaults. If the government wants to keep banks afloat that are issuing bad loans, that is their own fault and is not free-market capitalism. If those banks fail, other banks should be able to buy them out at a discount (think Whitney/Hancock merger).
quote:
And if you have the ability to pay and walk away, you really are just fricking yourself as not all states are nonrecourse states and your credit will be shite.
This is a personal decision making indicative of someone's intelligence, not morality.
quote:
People who default just because they can are like people at the airport who need a wheelchair to board the planes but are miracally cured by the time they land. Congrats on fricking your neighbor and the airlines.
Pretty much the most inaccurate analogy ever.
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News