- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/12/25 at 7:56 pm to Powerman
Two different issues obviously.
Trump is addressing the replacement of federal income taxes with tariffs and the new external revenue service along with massive cutting the size and scope of the federal government and eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse from what’s left of it.
The states (TX and FL already have no state income taxes) are eliminating property taxes but will need replacement revenue.
But then you knew that already and were just being obtuse.
There’s a supreme court case decision coming soon on the tariffs brought by libtatrds that want to see this country fail and let the elite puppet masters regain control because OMB.
Trump is addressing the replacement of federal income taxes with tariffs and the new external revenue service along with massive cutting the size and scope of the federal government and eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse from what’s left of it.
The states (TX and FL already have no state income taxes) are eliminating property taxes but will need replacement revenue.
But then you knew that already and were just being obtuse.
There’s a supreme court case decision coming soon on the tariffs brought by libtatrds that want to see this country fail and let the elite puppet masters regain control because OMB.
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 7:59 pm
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:11 pm to Kjnstkmn
They need to Abolish the Fed & tell the Rothschilds to kick rocks on the debt.
Tell them we will let them live, confiscate their wealth and redistribute within the USA.
We’ve been subsidizing every craphole in the world. And the money being send (example today with the $100Million stolen by Zillensky and his cronies.
Then he comes and buys one of the largest ranches in the entire country. That MF’er needs elimination!
Tell them we will let them live, confiscate their wealth and redistribute within the USA.
We’ve been subsidizing every craphole in the world. And the money being send (example today with the $100Million stolen by Zillensky and his cronies.
Then he comes and buys one of the largest ranches in the entire country. That MF’er needs elimination!
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:12 pm to Kjnstkmn
quote:
Trump is addressing the replacement of federal income taxes with tariffs
They are not. Scott Bessent came out a few days ago and shot this down directly.
quote:
along with massive cutting the size and scope of the federal government
Also has not happened.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:25 pm to Kjnstkmn
quote:
The banks will be new state credit unions. They will do it because it will be a new source of income to replace property and income taxes. Private banks may balk, but they will soon find these themselves without customers as everyone flocks to the new state credit unions with lower rates.
I would not trust any government to be in control of my housing. Man there’s a lot of conservatives in here today asking to be governed harder.
The reason private banks won’t touch this idea is because they know it won’t make money. That’s why they’re not doing it already.
But you are right, one of two things is gonna happen. You’re gonna have state run housing programs in lieu of private sector lending… or rates are gonna go up substantially to mitigate risk.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:27 pm to Kjnstkmn
Yep, we definitely need more gov involvement in personal,property matters.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:28 pm to beaux duke
quote:
frick that
This is just a fancy way of saying some people get subsidized and other people get to hold the bag. People who bought at lower rates are not any more special than people who have bought at higher rates
exactly
they sure do believe they're more special though
This is why we can't have nice things. No policy will ever benefit everyone 100% equally. But if someone gets a tiny little advantage someone else doesn't, even if that else doesn't even need it, then we must discard the solution and continue with the failed status quo, even if it would benefit the majority of the country.
Even many conservatives on this board are against tax cuts unless they personally benefit. And they'll tell you how unconservative you are for not being angry we got anything less than an equal cut across the board for everyone in every scenario.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:31 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
no way. The difference would be financed at prevailing rates and you'd essentially be paying a multi-rate mortgage.
I bought a house for 180k and financed for 2.25.
The house is now worth 400k. That means I can sell the house for 400k and buy a NEW house for 400k and keep my 2.25 rate. If I choose a more expensive home, I may have to finance that small amount at a greater rate.
Overall, this is a great idea!
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:48 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
This is why we can't have nice things. No policy will ever benefit everyone 100% equally
The 2 issues are
1. This doesn't address the actual problem (RE values being inflated)
2. This only helps a population who is already at an advantage. How does this help a person who is buying (without a current mortgage) today?
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:49 pm to 10thyrsr
quote:
The house is now worth 400k. That means I can sell the house for 400k and buy a NEW house for 400k and keep my 2.25 rate.
This makes no sense.
The remainder of your old mortgage? That makes sense.
The scenario you posted would just force banks to raise rates incredibly higher for everyone who didn't buy at times of insanely low rates.
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 8:50 pm
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:50 pm to CDawson
I have concerns with more government as well but as I mentioned eliminating nearly all taxation seems like a decent trade off for paying interest to govt instead of private banks.
It’s not as big of a change as it seems b/c per Grok:
So the federal government holds most mortgages currently. Having a state credit union hold it instead of a federal mortgage company is actually an improvement- when it comes to government local > federal. The closer your are to your reps the better.
It’s not as big of a change as it seems b/c per Grok:
quote:
60-70% of conventional (private, non-government-insured) mortgages in the U.S. are sold to or backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
So the federal government holds most mortgages currently. Having a state credit union hold it instead of a federal mortgage company is actually an improvement- when it comes to government local > federal. The closer your are to your reps the better.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
It makes sense because I am paying cash from the sale of my home (400k-remaining debt) to pay for the new home and the remaining debt is not paid off, but rolled into my new home at the original rate of 2.25.
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 8:57 pm
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:58 pm to 10thyrsr
quote:
It makes sense because I am paying cash from the sale of my home
But your original loan was only $180k, right?
And you've paid that down some, right?
Why would you ever get to exceed the delta on the new loan at the low rate?
So let's say you borrowed 180k and owed 160k. You sell for 400k and can only bring over that $160k of "old rate" in the new mortgage , right?
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
Correct, but that means I have 240k of equity to roll into the new home
So, as long as I buy a home that is the same or less than I sold my home for, I am good!
I buy a new home at 400k, pay the 240k in cash I get from the sale from my home and the outstanding debt is kept the same with my same lender. They don't even blink because the terms are the same
So, as long as I buy a home that is the same or less than I sold my home for, I am good!
I buy a new home at 400k, pay the 240k in cash I get from the sale from my home and the outstanding debt is kept the same with my same lender. They don't even blink because the terms are the same
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 9:06 pm
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:10 pm to Kjnstkmn
I feel like the banks would totally drop out of the mortgage industry if this happens. Many of them are already underwater due to the loans they made when interest rates were basically at zero that they want to get out of as soon as possible
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This only helps a population who is already at an advantage. How does this help a person who is buying (without a current mortgage) today?
It increases inventory, which MAY drive down prices if coupled with banning investment groups from buying homes.
I have a big family. I live in a huge house with 5 bedrooms. As my kids grow older and leave home I don't need such a big house, but high interest rates mean my 1,300 a month mortgage is going to go UP if I decide to downsize at current interest rates. I bought for 180k, but even smaller homes are selling for 275k. This keeps me in my home I can't use.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:13 pm to 10thyrsr
quote:
It increases inventory
a. You need buyers. They're still buying severely inflated assets at high rates. How does this plan help them be able to afford the homes?
b. Is the person selling an owner of multiple properties? Seems like the inventory ends up a net 0 if not
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:14 pm to IMSA_Fan
If banks drop out of the mortgage industry, what the hell are they going to make money doing? Financing cars?
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:14 pm to 10thyrsr
Yeah there is no way it is going to drive down prices. Did interest rates falling significantly during Covid drive down rates?
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They're still buying severely inflated assets at high rates
This is because of my previous point. Blackstone and other investors are buying up homes quickly because they know people need a place to live. The investors know they can buy a home with cash, bypassing banks. Buy a home at 250k, charge 2k rent a month. They know they can recover the cost of the home in 10 years or less by renting. Then, they STILL have the asset after they have recovered their investment. Not only that, but your original asset you purchased 10 years ago is now worth 600k.
How many people would give 250k to get their original investment back after 10 years and get 600k on top of that?
We need to deal with this somehow.
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 9:30 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News