Read the full article he

http://www.desicrazy.com/2008/01/24/...g-and-cheaper/

Don't get your hopes up. According to the two quasi governmental agencies that
insure these loans, it will take at least six months foir them to get the
procedures in place to handle jumbo loans.

Furthermore, they are constrained by the amount of capital they have available
to make loans - they won't be issuing anywhere near enough to bring rates down
significantly.

Funny - this. You'd think the political party that is always railing on about
the "rich" getting all the breaks would be fighting this tooth & nail, but they
are the ones who've been pushing for it.

In article , Rick Blaine says...

Don't get your hopes up. According to the two quasi governmental agencies that
insure these loans, it will take at least six months foir them to get the
procedures in place to handle jumbo loans.

Furthermore, they are constrained by the amount of capital they have available
to make loans - they won't be issuing anywhere near enough to bring rates down
significantly.

Funny - this. You'd think the political party that is always railing on about
the "rich" getting all the breaks would be fighting this tooth & nail, but they
are the ones who've been pushing for it.


Maybe because they live in places like many parts of California where a jumbo
loan is needed for a 3 bedroom rancher?

Banty

Banty wrote:

Funny - this. You'd think the political party that is always railing on about
the "rich" getting all the breaks would be fighting this tooth & nail, but they
are the ones who've been pushing for it.


Maybe because they live in places like many parts of California where a jumbo
loan is needed for a 3 bedroom rancher?

Yep. Same motivation as getting rid of that "evil" AMT soak the rich tax.

In article , Rick Blaine says...

Banty wrote:

Funny - this. You'd think the political party that is always railing on about
the "rich" getting all the breaks would be fighting this tooth & nail, but they
are the ones who've been pushing for it.


Maybe because they live in places like many parts of California where a jumbo
loan is needed for a 3 bedroom rancher?

Yep. Same motivation as getting rid of that "evil" AMT soak the rich tax.

Then I wonder where you're coming from. The non-indexing of the AMT has lead to
it impacing middle class dual-income families, instead of working to keep those
with enough income and assets to use tax shelters to a great extent still paying
taxes. As originally designed.

Do you think a husband and wife, an engineer and a store manager, are "rich"?

Banty

Banty wrote:

Then I wonder where you're coming from. The non-indexing of the AMT has lead to
it impacing middle class dual-income families, instead of working to keep those
with enough income and assets to use tax shelters to a great extent still paying
taxes. As originally designed.

Right. AMT was one of those "soak the rich" taxes that one political party loves
to implement. It's poetic justice that it mostly affects people who live in
states that generally vote that party, and who don't consider themselves rich.

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:57:03 -0700 from Rick Blaine :
AMT was one of those "soak the rich" taxes that one political party loves
to implement.

No, AMT was a response to the problem of people who made millions
(literally) in income but through creative tax shelters paid no
taxes.

And that was back when a million was a lot of money.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"If there's one thing I know, it's men. I ought to: it's
been my life work." -- Marie Dressler, in /Dinner at Eight/

In article , Stan Brown says...

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:57:03 -0700 from Rick Blaine :
AMT was one of those "soak the rich" taxes that one political party loves
to implement.

No, AMT was a response to the problem of people who made millions
(literally) in income but through creative tax shelters paid no
taxes.

And that was back when a million was a lot of money.


Exactly. It was to get away from "soak the middle class", not "soak the rich".
It just wasn't properly tied to income/inflation changes.

Banty (independant voter, registered Republican in New York state)

In article , Rick Blaine says...

Banty wrote:

Then I wonder where you're coming from. The non-indexing of the AMT has lead to
it impacing middle class dual-income families, instead of working to keep those
with enough income and assets to use tax shelters to a great extent still paying
taxes. As originally designed.

Right. AMT was one of those "soak the rich" taxes that one political party loves
to implement. It's poetic justice that it mostly affects people who live in
states that generally vote that party, and who don't consider themselves rich.

This is an admission you live where housing is relatively cheap, so you don't
know what you're talking about w.r.t. jumbo loans?

Banty

Banty wrote:

This is an admission you live where housing is relatively cheap, so you don't
know what you're talking about w.r.t. jumbo loans?

AMT has nothing to do with jumbo loans as mortgage interest is not an AMT
preference item. AMT generally comes into play when you have a state that has
very high income taxes and real estate taxes. Get your state to stop dipping
into your pocket so deep for those and you get the double benefit of not paying
AMT.

In article , Rick Blaine says...

Banty wrote:

This is an admission you live where housing is relatively cheap, so you don't
know what you're talking about w.r.t. jumbo loans?

AMT has nothing to do with jumbo loans as mortgage interest is not an AMT
preference item. AMT generally comes into play when you have a state that has
very high income taxes and real estate taxes. Get your state to stop dipping
into your pocket so deep for those and you get the double benefit of not paying
AMT.

This is barely coherent. It wasn't me who brought up some perceived ideological
connection between jumbo mortgages and the AMT.

Are you saying, income is higher where housing prices are higher? Are you
assuming some connection with state income tax rates? Or what?

Rick - where do you live?

Banty

Banty wrote:

This is barely coherent. It wasn't me who brought up some perceived ideological
connection between jumbo mortgages and the AMT.


Nor was it me... My point is that it's interesting that the people who are
screaming about AMT taxes are the ones who tend to associate with the political
party that promotes those taxes by claiming that it's fair to tax the "rich".
The irony is that the AMT does not affect the rich - it most affects those who
live in states that impose high state taxes (income & property) to fund social
programs.

Are you saying, income is higher where housing prices are higher? Are you
assuming some connection with state income tax rates? Or what?

My response to the person who was claiming that AMT hurts those who have high
cost housing. That may be, but it's an effect, not a cause.

AMT is not triggered by double income working couples, jumbo mortgages or high
mortgage payments. It's triggered by high state taxes and other preference items
that used to allow high tax states to shift some of their tax collections to low
cost states through the federal tax system.