Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Bank of America and CNN combine forces to say to our generation: Let Them Eat RENT!

Posted 8 years ago on March 24, 2012, 9:43 a.m. EST by elf3 (4149)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

Looking at Zombie Foreclosures article about when the bank doesn't take possession of the house ... they put all the fees, taxes, Liens, and probably damage back on the Person that abandoned the Mortgage.

The bank Holds Title to the House. The person that wants the house signs a contract to be a Tenant to the house or of the Bank...

Used to be that Government's main function was to Regulate Commerce not People... But now the contract Law is so Strong that people really get indentured servitude.

Zombie Banks can Pay the Taxes & Fees on Zombie Foreclosures.

They just prefer not to. They like to play hard ball, since they get Bonus Money for Playing Hard, and Making Money for the System.

Sure, each state has different Laws... But there was something on the Internet going around.... How we don't have any right of ownship on a Mortgage... since we are Tenants. The Bank actually Owns the House and Deed.

One could argue that when the Tenant leaves the house ... the Owner is Responsible for paying the Taxes, Fees, & Liens on the Property. **But since the Corporation, the bank, is not a "Real Person" they don't get Credit Hurt by not paying Taxes & Liens.

Citizens united Ruling of the Supreme Court says Corporations are People:

  • So Let Banks Suffer Credit Ratings for failure to pay on Taxes, Fees, and Liens on Foreclosures.
  • Force Banks to get served for not Paying bills on Mortgages since they are the Real Titled, Deeded Owner.
  • Set Aside Contract Law, to Recognize the Bank, Mortgage Company, Mortgage Servicer ... as the True Owner of the House, Property, or Real Estate.
[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (66) 8 years ago

Wow that's really dumb. The problem is not in renting or in owning.

The real problem is in speculation. It can affect both renting and owning. You will have to switch from renting to owning (or the other way) whenever some "smart guys" decide to inflate prices.

Fight against speculation, not against renting or owning! Real capitalism means control of speculation. Our politicians try to brainwash us, trying to convince us that we live in capitalism. But they encourage speculation, so we live in a slavery-system. People can't buy (or rent) the things they need for having a life.

The government can simply prevent speculation by implementing a good public housing sector, and by imposing decent taxes (if you have an extra 100 apartments, you should pay an increased tax on them, in order to be encouraged to rent them).


[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

It's not the end or ownership. Those empty homes can be put to use by renting them, but eventually a better profit will be turned by selling them off. People are unlikely to change their attitudes toward ownership in this country in spite of all the advantages to renting. When you look at it from the perspective of personal finance the suckers are those of us that buy homes instead of renting. Just google ownership vs renting.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4149) 8 years ago

That is a statement fraught with lies and propaganda!!

My mortgage is $500 per month for a $120,000 home (taxes are 300) so I pay $800 total - it was going to cost me $1200 - $1500 a month in rent which is why I wanted to own instead. I had to outbid investors every single time because in my price range they come in and drop a full cash payment on these price ranged homes (THEN THEY RENT THEM TO US) - the only reason I was able to buy, is that is was a huge vacation week right before a holiday and presumably the investors weren't around - I had to bid on the house WITHOUT SEEING THE INSIDE so I could get the bid in early enough - I got outbid on 4 houses. - In fact even if they bid less overall the bank will still take the cash payment over the higher offer. They aren't buying these houses to live in them - they are buying them to rent to people. Typically they will rent them out to low-income renters who are backed by the government with vouchers - and they are allowed to charge the set market rate of around $1500 a month and the government sends the payment on behalf of the voucher (it's guaranteed to the landlord) So there is a double incentive for them to buy the homes. It's a guaranteed investment.) The funny part is if they didn't have to bid against investors - they could own their own homes and wouldn't need vouchers or government help - prices would come down on everything rent and homes.) In fact there is such a clamoring for these homes by people like myself they are often getting sold the first day they're on the market (because investors have created such a deficit in affordable home ownership by buying them all up) - the people want and need affordable housing - but the corporations are preventing it. The homes that aren't selling are the ones that are out of line with salaries and too high for investors - the housing need is for homes in the $120,000 range but unfortunately that's what the investors want - so you're out - RENT FOREVER at a rate you can't afford (and probably need government help to afford) from the very corporations outbidding you on something you could afford.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

Whatever your personal situation is, it may be due to the local market. There are markets where homes in your price range have been sitting for months. For the individual, renting is always the more sound way to go as far as personal finance is concerned (but like most other Americans I followed emotion and bought).