Individual Responsibility vs Obligations of Society

Users who are viewing this thread

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Allan...I go along with what you are saying...but banks using it over the top.Its now 20 % down.Also credit rating is not even taken into account so they rate you twice and than have you pay for there risk.If I have a credit score of excellent than I expect to be treated accordinghly like that if not what is the point of having a stupid credit score?

PMI has been around since at least the mid 1970's

It probably got raised because house values increased so much since then

My first house I paid $32,500 for

I sold it 4 years later for $62,000

At the boom in the market 4 years ago it was valued at about $160,000
 
  • 30
    Replies
  • 409
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

banned

Member
Messages
263
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I bought my first house 5 years ago with almost nothing down by using Bank of America.
I did not even know what mortgage insurance was and had a nice mortgage without it from them.
A year ago I bought a second home and there it was and I have been told that it was invented after the house bubble bursted.
You sure a 5 year compulsary extra insurance payment monthly is required since 1970 ?
 

banned

Member
Messages
263
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Allan ...I have been reading about and you are right it is arround for a long time ...with the difference now that it is used a lot more due to the f..up from the banks.I still think it is more fair that if I want a PMI I expect something for it and choose one for myself.It should not be a forced and compulsary in a one way direction to the banks as a extra protection and turnover.
 

banned

Member
Messages
263
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I am not that long in your country and still try to get some grips to that upside down system.
The more debt you have the more credit worthy you become.
What I see is people compulsory paying for a insurance were you get yourself absolute nothing for in return.
This looks almost un American to me, especially after we all scream not to be forced to pay for Romney Care most don’t want.At least you get something for that.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
I think that when personal responsibilities have a potential impact on society, society as a whole has a right to regulate such things.

Lets use seat belt laws for an example.

Montana was debating whether to make seat belt laws a primary offense or not in 2011.

According to their studies, "
Caring for the un-belted costs Montana $36.7 million dollars and over the past five years almost 700 deaths have been attributed to not being properly restrained."
And the residents weighed in on the topic, "
Montana Highway Patrol Chief, Colonel Mike Tooley says, "most people want this law according to a 2010 survey, 63% of Montanans surveyed want this law."
So not having a seat belt law (which would restrict individual liberty) it would cost others (average cost of $51/year) to pay for this liberty. So the majority of residents of Montana support the law.

So do we preserve the individual liberty of not wearing a seat belt at the expense of what the majority wants to regulate?
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
I hated the seat belt law when first enacted years ago. As much as on principle as it was a secondary offense and anybody with common sense knew eventually it would be made a primary offense. I can not stand it when they pass laws like that knowing what the real intent is.

But I am not sure if seat belts is a good example. Because driving is a privilege and not a right.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I bought my first house 5 years ago with almost nothing down by using Bank of America.
I did not even know what mortgage insurance was and had a nice mortgage without it from them.
A year ago I bought a second home and there it was and I have been told that it was invented after the house bubble bursted.
You sure a 5 year compulsary extra insurance payment monthly is required since 1970 ?
I'll bet that if you still have your old contract, you'll find your PMI was rolled into your mortgage payment.

Allan ...I have been reading about and you are right it is arround for a long time ...with the difference now that it is used a lot more due to the f..up from the banks.I still think it is more fair that if I want a PMI I expect something for it and choose one for myself.It should not be a forced and compulsary in a one way direction to the banks as a extra protection and turnover.
I'm sure that if you can find another company to give you PMI insurance, the mortgage company will accept it. I'd rather see PMI go away. If a person can't save up enough for a good down payment then it's not wise to make such a major purchase.

I am not that long in your country and still try to get some grips to that upside down system.
The more debt you have the more credit worthy you become.
What I see is people compulsory paying for a insurance were you get yourself absolute nothing for in return.
This looks almost un American to me, especially after we all scream not to be forced to pay for Romney Care most don’t want.At least you get something for that.
When a lender mandates that you purchase PMI or home owner's insurance it is on the condition that you borrow money. You have the option to refuse the deal and walk away free. if you sign the contract and fail to buy the insurance, you face consequences you agreed to ahead of time - consequences of your own decisions. You have 100% control.

When the gov't mandates that you purchase health insurance, there are no conditions, no deals, and no option to refuse. If you fail to buy the insurance, you face arbitrary consequences created by others. You have 0% control.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I hated the seat belt law when first enacted years ago. As much as on principle as it was a secondary offense and anybody with common sense knew eventually it would be made a primary offense. I can not stand it when they pass laws like that knowing what the real intent is.

But I am not sure if seat belts is a good example. Because driving is a privilege and not a right.
If driving (and being a passenger, when it comes down to it) on public roads is a privilege, then paying for their upkeep should be optional.
 

banned

Member
Messages
263
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
@ accountable.....(I'll bet that if you still have your old contract, you'll find your PMI was rolled into your mortgage payment. )
I still have the house so its a current contract.....nothing in there of any PMI unless I am to stupid to find it.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I think that when personal responsibilities have a potential impact on society, society as a whole has a right to regulate such things.

Lets use seat belt laws for an example.

Montana was debating whether to make seat belt laws a primary offense or not in 2011.

According to their studies, "
Caring for the un-belted costs Montana $36.7 million dollars and over the past five years almost 700 deaths have been attributed to not being properly restrained."
And the residents weighed in on the topic, "
Montana Highway Patrol Chief, Colonel Mike Tooley says, "most people want this law according to a 2010 survey, 63% of Montanans surveyed want this law."
So not having a seat belt law (which would restrict individual liberty) it would cost others (average cost of $51/year) to pay for this liberty. So the majority of residents of Montana support the law.

So do we preserve the individual liberty of not wearing a seat belt at the expense of what the majority wants to regulate?
I don't follow. How does not having a seat belt law restrict individual liberty?
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top