This morning I participated in an Active Rain dialog regarding the "unfairness" of the IRS imposing a tax on the forgiven portion of a loan secured by real estate. I'm also reading a lot about how we need to step in and help those who have lost their homes to foreclosure and relax the credit implications.
While I like to limit my blogs to informative pieces, tips and market updates, I do feel strongly about this issue and find it worthy of a blog to end the dialog and set forth my opinion on the matter.
Of course, the requisite disclaimer ... this is not tax or legal advice, so please consult with your tax advisor and/or attorney for a complete discussion on these matters. (Why we have to overdisclaim is also a pet-peeve of mine, but who wants to be sued by the guy who makes a decision based soley on information in a blog!)
Anyway, back on point. When it comes to foreclosure and bankruptcy, many people in and outside the cyber world of Active Rain whine about the gross injustice of destroying someone's credit for nearly a decade, and the possibility of paying tax on the forgiven debt.
My questions: Shouldn't there be serious consequences for our financial decisions? Doesn't it make sense to have this system in place to protect future creditors from taking unnecessary risks? After all, there is no magical fairyland that absorbs these loses. It's not a "phantom loss" like I read in one blog. A lender loans $500,000 and forecloses on the house now worth $400,000. That is a very real $100,000 loss. The fact the homeowner does not have to pay the difference, is a very real gain.
Like most people, I've made bad business decisions and lost money. Had those loses been "forgiven", I would have realized a gain and happily paid tax on the gain! But instead, I had to work hard to build back my lost wealth. Frankly, I believe it should we the same with Real Estate.
I'm tired of our clients, especially the most admirable ones who are struggling from behind, refusing to walk away from their debt, paying for the mistakes of uneducated buyers who bought $500,000 condos with no money down and $75,000 in "stated income". When did we start thinking it would be okay to have $4,000 in housing expenses with a gross monthly income of $6,250 and no savings in case of a temporary employment lapse.
The reality is that businesses go under, people lose jobs and solvent taxpayers eventually pay the price in higher interest rates, tougher qualifying requirements and more fees. I'm glad it's tougher to buy a house right now. I believe bankruptcy laws should be tougher. I believe it's too easy to walk away from financial commitments.
I'm also glad overinflated housing prices, brought forth by easy lending and pure momentum is correcting itself. As a Realtor, is it costing me money? Most definitely, but it's also making me stronger in my profession. Bottom line, regional housing prices must keep pace with affordability. The net impact is a reduction in the number of foreclosures and the favorable financial ripple that comes along with it for our overall economy.
That's it. Tomorow's blog will be on a lighter topic. I promise.
Have a great day,
Nancy


