you also use reason and logic to decide where your loyalty rest
random thoughts Send a noteboard - 12/10/2010 09:16:51 PM
I am not trying to argue with just examining the issue. Like I said I don't know the answers the question and I think it is a very complicated issue.
That's a lie people tell themselves and repeat to others to justify wrongdoing. I could be argued that the people paying loans on home that is worth less than the value of the loan are being harmed.
Then why did they take that loan? There are a very limited number of explanations:1. They paid more than they should have (not the bank's fault - they are not your parents to say what you should or should not spend your money on) for the house.
well in a vary large way it is the banks fault. They were making tons of money loaning to people who could not afford loans and running up housing cost. The banks hold the lion's share of the blame for the market collapsing.
2. The house has become devalued since their purchase. Again, not the fault of the lender, unless their actions deliberately devalued the house.
3. The buyer deliberately chose to pay above the value of the house for some other reason that would not be assessed in the value (i.e. convenience to his job or some other locale important to him, particular aspects of interest to him on the property, etc)
No they paid market value and the market crashed.
In none of these cases can the lender be faulted for unwise decisions made by the buyer/borrower. Their business is to lend money and prudence dictates they determine whether or not their customer is likely to repay, but beyond that it is not their fault. Arguably, they should not be loaning money to criminals who cannot or will not pay them back, but that does not excuse such behavior on the part of the debtors.
A person who defaults on a loan and claims the bank should have known better to lend them the money (which is what you are suggesting with your insinuation about people with too-expensive loans) is no different than Bernie Madoff excusing his actions by claiming that people should not have invested money with him that they can't afford to lose.
See that is where I think the logic breaks down. They do not have to state that the bank should have known better they simply have to state that they are excrising their legal right to walk away from the home. The bank has no qualms about excrising their legal rights why should people fell constrained to not excercisize theirs?
Not only that, if the borrower defaults because he claims that his house is not worth the value of the loan, he is defrauding the bank by sticking THEM with a house that does not compensate for their lost money! If he borrows $400,000 and puts up a $250,000 house as collateral, and defaults on the loan after paying back only $100,000 of the principal, the bank is getting gypped by HIS poor choices.
It could also be argued that the banks are fault for the current housing crisis so they were in effect harmed by the unethical behavior of the same organizations they are now being told they must behave in moral manner towards.
What is this gibberish? This is not even a coherent sentence and does not make your point at all. I THINK you are claiming the position I refuted above - that the banks are responsible for all the loss if their clients fail to pay it back, so they should not make the loans in the first place, which is pure crap. You forget that there is constant political pressure to force banks to loan money more easily and to lower income people. Such people are the exact kind who are least able to pay back loans, but when the banks refuse, the media, politicians and community activists scream and shriek about discrimination against poor people or minorities (and never mind that orientals have far more success obtaining loans and credit than occidentals do, even from white lenders! ).
<qutoe>Or to be less wordy, the banks screwed things up now want everyone else to place nice and keep paying.
Prove that it was the banks who screwed things up. On what do you base that statement?
You made an argument but you really refuted nothing. Look I can see this is some deep personal issue for you but take a breath and calm down. I see you skipped over the part where I said I was simply making the argument. But no you did not refute the argument that banks were in a large part responsible for the crash. You instead made the unsupported argument that political pressure was the reason. Yes there was political pressure to expand loans but that was over shadowed by the economic pressure to make shit loads of money.
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral?
- 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM
1535 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street -
- 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM
1021 Views
Of course it's immoral.
- 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM
985 Views
But does one sided morality work?
- 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM
1102 Views
You asked about the morality of walking away when the borrower still has the ability to pay.
- 12/10/2010 07:31:10 PM
903 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM
444 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM
388 Views
If banks can not behave in moral manner why should people be expected to behave in moral manner?
- 12/10/2010 08:07:56 PM
967 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others.
- 12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM
880 Views
Because it's their moral obligation. Morality is not a trade, you act morally because it is right
- 12/10/2010 08:47:41 PM
1081 Views
you also use reason and logic to decide where your loyalty rest
- 12/10/2010 09:16:51 PM
988 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you?
- 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM
933 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
- 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM
923 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
- 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM
1429 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system
- 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM
1120 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM
461 Views
Which is why contracts have to be pages and pages long and combed over by bloodsucking lawyers.
- 12/10/2010 06:39:18 PM
965 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them.
- 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM
813 Views
Hrm.
- 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM
1036 Views
did you take a personal oath in front of god and your loved ones to pay the loan back? *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:09:07 PM
459 Views
Let's assume we're talking about a marriage where no such oath was taken... *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:10:54 PM
469 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM
438 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract.
- 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM
1078 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note 
*NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
481 Views
*NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
481 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach.
- 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM
1066 Views
You didn't mention the third party
- 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM
842 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society
- 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM
992 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective?
- 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM
1012 Views
Sure, you could do that.
- 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM
1005 Views
The problem is that you're buying something today and paying for it for the next 15/30/50 years.
- 13/10/2010 03:04:26 PM
903 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not.
- 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM
947 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way
- 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM
952 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though?
- 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM
935 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM*
- 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM
434 Views
I agree, what do you think is different?
- 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM
961 Views
The difference is that the bank owns the house. Whereas when I buy stuff, it's mine. *NM*
- 19/10/2010 07:05:34 PM
433 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations.
- 13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM
899 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway.
- 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM
1045 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay.
- 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM
937 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank?
- 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM
990 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do.
- 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM
933 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage.
- 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM
944 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here.
- 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM
963 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM*
- 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM
495 Views
You can garnish their wages.
- 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM
944 Views
With parsley?
- 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM
1020 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM*
- 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM
481 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM
559 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM
429 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM
450 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies.
- 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM
915 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money?
- 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM
967 Views
I am currently in that situation...
- 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM
1070 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes.
- 14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM
987 Views
it is easy for me and others to be glib when it is just a theory *NM*
- 14/10/2010 08:19:16 PM
435 Views
If you have the ability to pay, I would consider it yet another immoral act in an immoral industry.
- 14/10/2010 07:49:38 AM
980 Views