• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

flyforfun

Beach Fanatic
Oct 20, 2006
311
39
Birmingham, Al
...or with 100% financing through a liar's loan you don't even need a few dollars. :cool:


.

Shelly, that may have been the case a couple of years ago, but as Bobby J will tell you, now they are requiring 30% down for those liar's loans. Do you think they got smart or what?:roll:
 

Mango

SoWal Insider
Apr 7, 2006
9,699
1,368
New York/ Santa Rosa Beach
Shelly, that may have been the case a couple of years ago, but as Bobby J will tell you, now they are requiring 30% down for those liar's loans. Do you think they got smart or what?:roll:

Uhm, how did your wife let you post nekkid without an avatar? :funn:
I am not going to Amore's with you anymore. :lol:
 

SHELLY

SoWal Insider
Jun 13, 2005
5,763
803
Shelly, that may have been the case a couple of years ago, but as Bobby J will tell you, now they are requiring 30% down for those liar's loans. Do you think they got smart or what?:roll:

.....Yeah....Smarter than an empty box of rocks.

Exhibit #1:

Mighty Casey


.
 
Last edited:

ecopal

Beach Fanatic
Apr 26, 2005
261
7
Eco, the 1991 real estate problem's were directly the result of the demo's wanting to teach Bush Sr. a lesson on the "no new taxes" theme. They basically re-wrote the tax code with regards to real estate depreciation schedule... .
You are correct regarding the 1997 tax relief act, the demo's along with the repo's did reduce capital gains tax to 30%, however it was not until the repo controlled congress took over was it reduced to 15%.

...

In President Reagan?s second term he correctly realized that federal deficits were growing too large and he had to do some fine tuning to the tax code. This was a responsible action by President Reagan but it resulted in a change in real estate depreciation rates and the resultant real estate condo crash in the mid to late 1980?s. This action was not initiated by the Democrats as you suggest.

You are also incorrect that the 1997 the Capital Gains tax cut signed by President Clinton only reduced Capital gains tax to 30%. This 1997 act included a reduction in capital gains tax to 20%, not 30% as you indicate. This act also exempted profits up to $500k for the sale of your home.

The 1997 tax cut signed by President Clinton also targeted a greater cross section of Americans that the 2003 Republican tax cut.

http://www.filetax.com/97taxact.html

The 2003 Republican tax cut was crafted primarily for the most affluent.
The below article regarding the Republican 2003 tax cut accurately predicted the resultant over speculation and the negative consequences which we are experiencing today.


The great bait and switch
Commentary: GOP pulls a fast one with capital-gains tax cut
By Chris Pummer, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 11:42 AM ET May 22, 2003
excerpts
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -
?... the Republican-controlled House pulled an astounding bait-and-switch on the American public..... Average Americans may pay dearly for the party's legislative slight of hand.

Forget that there are no unbiased studies to prove capital-gains tax cuts stimulate the economy. Forget also that two of the largest such cuts in history contributed to the rampant speculation that preceded the 1929 and 2000 stock market crashes...

..said David Levine, an economics professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. "The main effect of a capital-gains tax cut is to increase federal budget deficits in the future and make those already prosperous more prosperous.".........

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Sto...DB36-79CD-4270-B0C9-4E07332796D4}&siteid=mktw
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter