Not sure I posted this in correct category. Any thoughts?
> Not sure I posted this in correct category. Any thoughts?
Looks good to me. I have never seen those private transfer fees around here.
It sounds good to me too. Around here many banks had a custom of informing, at signing, they were charging what they called a closing cost. A 2% fee that they claimed was necessary, but could not say that it was paying for anything but the cost of doing business with them. I turned down buying two houses before because of it. Then I found banks from outside the community that did not charge the fee and finally moved into my first house.
Just wait until some jerk in some agency thinks that survey fees are too much!
Keith
Keith,
They did that already, years ago. Hence the rise of the dreaded "mortgage inspection" service. Which of course was still too expensive, hence the rise of the even more dreaded "owners affidavit". All of which of course did lower closing costs and the money people might have to provide out of their own resources. Which helps put people under debts that they can't afford. Haven't you heard how well it's all been working out?
Now that all the necessary stuff is out of the costs, they are finally getting to the real problem maybe.
and we can depend on these Socialists to make it right and get rid of all those pesky fees and high paid salaries!
> and we can depend on these Socialists to make it right and get rid of all those pesky fees and high paid salaries!
What exactly are you saying here?
A.) There are no "socialists" running the show. Just as there aren't any Kenyan Muslims. Get over it already.
B.) Pesky fees? Are you against "pesky fees"? Well, then you should notify your Republican congressmen and senators immediately, because they plan to introduce all kinds of "pesky fees" including even such things as charging admission for the Smithsonian museums (which have been free since the 1800s.)
C.) High paid salaries? You guys are all in favor of high paid salaries in the corporate world - all at the shareholders' and consumers' expense. We can't exactly "vote with our dollars" when you guys also defend monopolies. Anyone care to justify exactly how some CEO of a Big Blue insurance company is worth being paid 100x more than the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the head of the CIA? Gonna sit there with a straight face and tell me some nonsense about how much responsibility he has, or how much skill he has to have to oversee the budget and operations? LOL! Meanwhile, you guys are all in favor of CONTROLLING salaries in the federal sector and knocking them down even lower than they are. Guess what's good for the goose ain't good for the gander. Yet more right wing hypocrisy.
Well I don't know if it's socialists, fascists, or what. But the fact is that in order to lower closing costs to make homes more affordable for low income people the federal government initiated the same kind of thing as mentioned in the article. The result was merely that useful services disappeared from the equation. The larger economic players such as the banks did not see any drop in profits from the transaction. But this type of transaction is still a target for fees because of the large amount of money that the purchasor is using but really doesn't have. So it's not surprising that private developers have made this end run around lower closing costs rules. They can siphon more value away from the homeowner under a private taxation scheme, backed by government (public taxation) garauntees. Of course the realtors and lenders realize this might cut into their own slice of the pie (similar to a real survey) so they are against it.
The whole thing is ridiculous and more of the same old shell game. But yes, I believe reasonable government regulations, like those that used to exist at one time, would be good for consumers and not so good for huge international corporations. If that makes me a socialist, so be it.
