As a professional in financial services - no, it is not.
Aeryn Send a noteboard - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM
The mortgages that banks make have risks associated with them. That's why they charge an interest rate, that they themselves set. No one forces them to give out loans. Now, if the government mandated an artificially low interest rate in return for homeowners promising not to walk away from mortgages, that's be a whole other matter. The banks aren't innocent victims. When they write the mortage, they assess the risk, and choose to accept it, along with the reward.
Also, businesses do this all the time.
Also, businesses do this all the time.
This message last edited by Aeryn on 13/10/2010 at 01:46:16 AM
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral?
- 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM
1368 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street -
- 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM
868 Views
Of course it's immoral.
- 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM
840 Views
But does one sided morality work?
- 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM
958 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
760 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM
384 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM
327 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
832 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others.
- 12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM
735 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
923 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you?
- 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM
785 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
- 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM
777 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
- 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM
1276 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system
- 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM
978 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM
405 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
817 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them.
- 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM
672 Views
Hrm.
- 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM
881 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
394 Views
Let's assume we're talking about a marriage where no such oath was taken... *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:10:54 PM
407 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM
381 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract.
- 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM
940 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note 
*NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
404 Views
*NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
404 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach.
- 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM
910 Views
You didn't mention the third party
- 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM
700 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society
- 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM
844 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective?
- 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM
848 Views
Sure, you could do that.
- 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM
851 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
735 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not.
- 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM
800 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way
- 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM
801 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though?
- 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM
794 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM*
- 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM
379 Views
I agree, what do you think is different?
- 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM
822 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
362 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations.
- 13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM
757 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway.
- 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM
884 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay.
- 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM
775 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank?
- 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM
826 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do.
- 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM
786 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage.
- 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM
806 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here.
- 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM
822 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM*
- 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM
438 Views
You can garnish their wages.
- 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM
781 Views
With parsley?
- 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM
869 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM*
- 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM
429 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM
504 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM
353 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM
373 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies.
- 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM
768 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money?
- 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM
817 Views
I am currently in that situation...
- 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM
899 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes.
- 14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM
849 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
377 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
826 Views