08-26-2011, 10:20 PM
(08-26-2011, 09:51 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I'm of the same mindset. I can see it being smart if you're only concerned about personal gain and okay with defaulting on personal responsibility. It wouldn't be worth it to me to make that trade-off. But, I completely understand someone not wanting to pay what they consider full price for a house that has declined in its worth, if that means new people will be bringing a less safe environment to the neighborhood. That too is shitty.
After reading everyone's input, I guess I'm still in the same place. It's shitty and it can be smart, depending on your value system. I am shitty at times, but usually due to ignorance rather than choice. JMO...
I'm not sure it is completely defaulting because the bank DOES get the house back. If the banks overvalued the homes with their own appraisers, tough shit, they can take the hit. They shouldn't have lent money to people who couldn't afford it, shouldn't have financed builders to build a ton of new homes, and shouldn't have set the values as high as possible to get more money. I don't feel sorry for the banks. Dishonesty and shoddy practice leads to bad results. If you keep your house in decent shape, I can't see where making the bank take it back, along with keeping all the money you did pay on it, is such a bad deal. It is only bad for them if they overvalued the property. Why should an honest family eat that loss? That is fucked up thinking. The banks aren't people, they are financial institutions that manufacture fake money.
Do you see how sold on the idea you are that the banks are the victims and that it is wrong to expect an honest, fair deal? Don't be sheepies.
If you let your house go into foreclosure and move in to government housing and file bankruptcy, that is totally different.
If you screw back the institution that screwed you, good for you.
You think the banks give a shit whether you have a house or not? They don't.