No Right Turn on tax deductible donations
February 27th, 2007 at 7:14 pm by David FarrarNo Right Turn labels National’s announcement of removing limits on tax deductible charitable donation as “a policy aimed more at the rich than the poor, the primary impact of which will be to help them dodge on their taxes”.
I think NRT’s attitude is probably reflective of much of the left on this issue. They don’t like private charity much, or “Tory charity” as Steve Maharey labels it.
But let’s look at who wins and loses from increasing the limits on tax deductibility. Let’s use an example of Rich Bastard A, Charity B and Government C.
Rich Bastard A decides to give $10,000 to Charity B. For this his tax bill is reduced by $3,333. This means he is left $6,667 out of pocket.
Charity B has $10,000 more money which it can now spend on charitable purposes, which in the case of the Wellington City Mission where the policy was announced, is helping the poor and homeless.
Government C has $3,333 less tax revenue.
So Rich Bastard A loses the most money and Charity B gains the most.
And this is what No Right Turn calls aimed at the rich, not the poor.
As someone who spent four years working for a charity, let me tell you that they will be delighted with this policy. Removing the cap on corporate donations especially will help as this often proved a barrier to corporate fund-raising.
Also worth remembering that to gain tax deductability as a charity, you need to both be registered with the new Charities Commission and approved by the IRD.
No tag for this post.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:05 am
The Labour Party will despise this policy because they think they can direct charitable purposes money far far better than the individual who is giving. I can imagine a rich person donating the whole of their income and living on the 1/3 rebate with this policy. But Labour will hate this too. The Labour Party will come up with a wholly bureaucratic scheme that tries to direct where the money should go rather than allowing the individual to chose. There will be special breaks for charities run by Labour Party activists that suit the Labour Party politically and of course tax breaks for the Unions and maori and gay causes and the “environment”.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Here are empirical observation into the mind of a socialist.
It comes, not from our useless resident lab rats (sonic, phil & co), but from human children.
1) When my boy was 2 yrs old, his two older cousins were playing outside with a bucket of water each. The two older children were pulling leaves from the garden, mixing it about and declaring ‘We are making honey!’ (Fortunately the garden needed weeding) In their delight at being ‘productive’, they decided to up the ante. They seized the youngest boys bucket and started mixing leaves into it. Howls from the wee one of course. ‘But we are making honey!’ they protest.
2) Just before Xmas, my boy who is now 4, had his tricycle stolen from near the trolleys in Woolworths. The store camera had a few good snaps of the offenders. The story appeared in the local paper last Friday. We have been informed today by the police that the offenders (two Pakeha girls 17 years old) when confronted by Mr Plod said ‘We took it to give to a child who doesn’t have a tricycle’. This may be partially true, as they may well have mistaken my family’s tricycle, for a store-owned one. Thieving bitches!
Time to replace our rats. Where’s the sodium pentothal?
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 7:29 am
yeah..removing those strictures on giving makes perfect sense..
tho’ cullen did say he was doing something similar in the may budget..
so tims’ (standard) over-reaction would appear to be just that..
and is that it..?
is that keys’ impasse-breaking solution to the woes of the underclass..eh..?
they should go and beg directly from the rich…?
all the while reminding them of the attendant tax-breaks…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 7:37 am
swiftman..w.t.f. are you smoking..?
whoar..!!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Why should the middle class be over taxed to support the poor so that their living standard is similar – no choice in health, no choice in education, no savings. Just pay your taxes and hope the Government will provide. The rich however do have choice. The great con of the Labour Party is to over tax middle income earners to support the poor. If the middle class were not supporting the damn poor they too would have choice and savings and financial security.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 8:15 am
I saw Cullen’s reaction to the “news” that John Key gives to charities and he assumed that Key claimed the deduction. To which he replied that he doesn’t bother.
Perhaps this again is an insight into the socialist mind – Cullen could claim the deduction and give more to charities, but instead chooses to let the government keep it because they will use it better???
Silly old duffer!
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Look at it from the other angle. At the moment Rich Bastard A decides to give $10,000 so he gives the charity $$6,667 and Cullen grabs $3,333.
If it is tax deductable, the charity will get $10,000 and the Government will get zip. That is an immediate boost of 50% to the charity.
What amazes me is the small mindedness of those who can’t get their heads around the idea that donations should be taken from pre-tax income instead of post-tax. No doubt when Cullen grabs this idea it will be lauded as the sympathetic Labour response to the needy while it is currently being decried as miserable and “meaningless fiddling”
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Tim Barclay. Once again you state that there is
” no choice in health”
“no choice in education”
Why don’t you explain why not. Explain to me what law is stopping any organization, person, teacher, tinker, taylor of:
1. starting a full service private hospital.
You now the one, one that when the operation goes wrong does not send the patient to a public hospital for them to sort out.
there is nothing stopping the likes of any private hospital offering the “full service” after all the same specialists are working in both systems.
2. And what’s stopping more private educational institutions being started to offer the quality education that you thingk the state doesn’t supply. i would suggest nothing.
People on this blogg bang on and on about what private enterprise can do, but what do they do. They pick the eyes out of healths profitable business and then do not provide the unprofitable services that the public health system does.
I’m all for private health and private health insurance and my family has used it for several operations over the years, but don’t give me the crap that PH will ever provide a “full service” because thats just rot.
And a for tax deductions on giving chartable donations, give it for the right reasons.
Vote:Too help not to expect a “tax deduction”
Your a greedy little prick who if they thought they are being overtaxed now should have been around to be overtaxed by Mulldoon at something like 60C in the $.
And for John Key to claim his max allowance of $630.00 back from the govt, great job.
Give for the right reasons,not to avoide tax.
Give the registered charity the right to claim extra subsidies from the government instead of giving it back to the doner as a tax deduction.
An extra $630.00 from John Key would go down a treat at the City Mission.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:34 am
There is no practical choice in education or lealth in this country. The rich can get on a plane and go to Switzerland or the US for health or even send their kids away to school. The middle class are paying a significant amount of their income in tax to a state provided monopoly supplier. They cannot go to a different school unless they shift, as for health, the private sector only does routine matters in this country. So we are struck with the monopoly system. Minor attempts to change this by the National Party have got squashed by the Labour Party. The middle classes are rail-roaded into the same state system as the poor. The rich however can get on a plane and get out of this god awful place for essential services.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 8:42 am
JohnDalley – “Give for the right reasons,not to avoide tax.”
You may not have even done a tax return but a good tax dodge would involve something like having a boat and taking a client out once a year and claiming the boat as a work vehicle. You get the benefit of the boat for the rest of the year and try to get the govt. to pay for it.
I doubt too many people give to charity for the rebate but even if they did then wtf do you care – can you see the Fred Hollows Foundation demanding you give for pure reasons or they will not take your “blood money”.
What a twat of a thing to think.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am
The simplistic version:
BEFORE: Rich Bastard A decides to give $10,000 (over the limit) to Charity B. He pays tax on it. This means he is left $10,000 out of pocket… Government C has $3,333 tax revenue.
AFTER: Rich Bastard A decides to give $10,000 to Charity B. For this his tax bill is reduced by $3,333. This means he is left $6,667 out of pocket… Government C has $3,333 less tax revenue.
Who benefits from the change?
I release we have proof that people do avoid over-threshold donations because, loosely, they begrudge the Government the tax. This would increase donations. Good.
Now. I assume there was some kind of reasoning behind the threshold in the first place. Leaving aside the way it would leave some people paying no tax, I assume it would encourage charities (or ‘charities’) to be used for tax avoidance and money laundering. At the least requiring even more compliance checking work for the actual charitable people.
Discuss.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 9:35 am
But don’t you see, it’s all so wonderful.
The righteous heroes of the working people (Labour) take the money off the wicked wicked wicked rich people (anyone not on the dole) and gives to the (selected) charities. Therefore Labour is the source of all good and the wicked wicked rich people give nothing and deserve nothing but more tax.
More Chardonnay anyone?
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 9:51 am
lyndon – get a grip mate the froth is causing some slippage
1. Under the new charities regime, all charities must be registered, approved, audited etc. laundering will no doubt be attempted but will be very difficult.
In fact there were more options for the adventurous lateral thinkers under the old regime
2. Anyone who donates enough to zero out their income has just that – zero income. No tax rebates to live on, no cash in fact so unless they are going to live off their capital it is an extreme and meaningless example.
3.Your “simplistic version” is a crock. Someone who allocates $10,000 before and after the change still allocates $10,000. What has changed is that the tax has been redirected to the charity.
I susect your glass is always half empty and you spend your time looking for the bastard with a long straw who pinched the other half when you weren’t looking.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Have any of the dummies here any idea of the economic value of the work that charities do? Thought not.Estimates are around two billion dollars a year. There is also discussion around allowing people who give their time to charities to be able to deduct a nominal amount say $10 an hour from their taxable income. No doubt the same dummies will accuse them of ripping off the system if this worthy policy is adopted.
The frothers from the Left need to consider that if those who give stopped then either the charitiable works would not get undertaken or their taxes would increase considerably to pay for the work.
One last point At least the donors to charity are doing so with their money Not some other bastards like governments do.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 9:55 am
I think NRT’s attitude is probably reflective of much of the left on this issue.
I wonder. I am completely in favour of the idea. Maybe I’m not lefty enough. Phil u also appears to support the idea. Maybe he’s not lefty enough either.
I have a personal policy donating 5% of my net income to a single charity a year. With this in place I will change that to 5% of my gross income.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 10:01 am
The major improvement in the policy is allowing “closely held” smaller companies the same tax deduction as large corporates.
As a part owner of a small company it always seems unfair that when we gave to charity we got no tax deduction but the big boys got a deduction for donations of up to 5% of their turnover.
Given that the vast majority of businesses in NZ are small in size this is particularly unfair under the current law.
Of course “sponsorship” has no such limits.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 10:15 am
DavidW – Thanks for your comments, and also the gratuitous abuse. If you hadn’t included the latter I might have had to reassess my impressions of this forum.
You’re particularly right on (2). (3), if the arrangement is as described by DPF, not so much.
Now, does anyone actually know the official reasoning behind the threshold in the first place?
And no, ‘in order to take more tax’ probably doesn’t count as official.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Lyndon, don’t be so sensitive. I was alluding the tone of your post and your apparent abiliity to see this only in a negative light. It certainly gave an impression of your general attitude as it came across from reading your input.
If robust argument is offensive, I will endeavour to tone it down for you in the furture.
Further to the matter at hand though, a further thought.
Even if a donor had decided to gift $10,000 to a particular charity and does so, under the Key plan he will find that he can increase that to $13,333 which is a 33% increase for no additional outlay. I agree also that some restrain their giving because they conside it abhorrent that the Govrnment insists that donations get made from after-tax income and that a general lift in generosity could be expected under a more liberal regime
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I wish I had a dollar for every time you mention tax. I’d probably be able to retire.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 10:56 am
The socialists love to tell all that will listen that they are “caring and sharing”, what total and utter bullshit.
The only thing they really care about is their totally failing ideology. As for sharing, well I must give them top marks for this, the only trouble is they have a great ability to share what others have produced. Their distain for this policy shows them in their ture light, full of shit!!.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 10:58 am
DavidW – Thanks for being so accomodating.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Nice try time but you still gave no reason why private health providers can not supply the “Full Monty” of service. To say the rich can just hope on a plane and escape overseas for their operation is not the point, they can do that any old time they want.
Vote:The vast majority are the middle cllass with families so explain to me why the Private Hospitals do not provide more of the acute service.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:08 am
What else can you expect from people who envy and despise those with more money than them?
Most of these “compassionate and caring” lefties hate success and wealth. They would love to equalise us in mediocrity.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Lyndon
Can’t give you a reason for the limit. Recent history (2001 ~ current at the link below) IRD website doesn’t go back any further that I can find.
I can only speculate that gov’ts of both/all persuasions attempted to limit leakage from the tax take, possibly starting back when every cent counted and the State was haemorrhaging (spp?). The miserable rebate for childcare was also attacked recently by the Nats with the intent that as childcare/housekeeper is a cost associated with allowing a spouse to earn assessible income it should be fully deductable.
http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/file/eb316c0f26c7c0f/ir525-2006.pdf
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I would like to think that tax relief for giving to charities will help front line volunteers battling the massive social problems created by a deluded utopian government, who deny the existence of the underclass. The government have failed kiwi kids (Shameful – record child abuse!!!!) , so it is up to many charities to try and improve the quality of many children’s lives.
In the land of milk and honey I am shattered that we rate amongst the lowest in the OECD countries for our treatment of children.
Hopefully the Children Need Parents Trust will make the smarmy Maharey eat his “Tory Charity” words and make a difference, in what has become a cess –pit country for children.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
David, your null hypothesis is wrong, as is your finaical outcomes for the actors. You assume that Rich Bastard is currently giving nothng but will give $10,000 if the dedcuations cap is removed. That’s a weird assumption, we know that many people do not bother with the deduction at all (especially as most people do not fill in income returns anymore), and you’ve not shown that the deductions cap discourages giving.
Vote:So RB1 currently gives $10,000 – now the charity gets that $10,000 ( a point som seem to have missed) and the govt gives RB1 33.3% of $1890 ($630) by way of tax write-off to reward his genorsity.
Now, if we remove the deductions cap, RB1 gives $10,000, charitiy gets that $10,000, and the govt gives RB1 $3,330 by way of tax write-off.
So, you see the change is that the government has $2,700 less to spend on roads and doctors and schools and stuff, Rich Bastard1 has another $2,700 in pocket, which he may well give to charity, repeating the cycle. The charity is no better or worse off.
Unless the higher deducitons encourage more giving – as the charity tax discussion document points out – moving or removing the deduction cap is unlikely to signifincantly affect the size and number of donations, most are either well below the existing cap or far in excess of it (becuase most Rich Bastards don’t care about the cap, many don’t even claim the deduction). Remember also, that ‘charitable purpose’ is such a wide defination that there’s no guarantee the needy get helped – hell, the Marton Everglade Leisure Marchers is one of the 24 charities registered so far. Moving the decuation cap to net income is just an invitation for tax avoidance.
However, moving the cap a bit higher, is the government proposed last year can’t hurt, it might increase donations from those sad people who currently avoid going over the deducations limit and wouldn’t mean sacrificing to much revenue.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Ah, here we go…
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/charities/background.asp
“Taxpayers’ ability to claim tax rebates, albeit limited, on donations made to charities is another significant form of assistance. The Government had indicated it is unwilling to provide further movement on tax rebates until there is a registration, reporting and monitoring regime. This support carries with it responsibilities for accountability to the government and the public.
“Successive Governments have expressed an interest in reform but have also expressed concern about the degree to which tax exemption for charities can be used for tax avoidance. These same concerns have at times been expressed from within the charitable sector itself.”
Perhaps the new regime helps with this? I’m not clear on all the details – I had the impression some of it was more shuffling the bureaucracy.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
The frothers from the Left
The only frothing on this issues appears to be coming from the right. Where is all the evidence that “much of the left” are opposed to this idea?
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Sam – you misunderstand the point I was making, and then go on to make the exact error you accuse me of.
The example I give above was to show that Cullen was wrong to suggest this policy leaves rich people better off. It’s silly to suggest getting 33c back on your donation is better than not donating at all. Dr Cullen and others should praise those who make donations, not attack them as tax dodgers.
Then turning to your example – it is fatally flawed because it assumes (as others have done) that rich bastards are so stupid that they can’t work out their net contribution. This is not the case. You also ignore the lifting of the company limit which is very significant as almost no company ever goes beyond the 5% cap presently.
If I want to donate $10,000 currently, I have to earn $15,000 to cover it. I am aware of this, and so are 95% of people who make significant donations like this. The new policy will allow me to (for example) donate $15,000 for the same net cost.
This policy will I am sure lead to a massive increase in donations, because charities willl promote the deductability.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Suck up to the filthy rich so that they can get richer. Way to go National. Sounds like Brash’s tax cuts for the rich all over again.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I dont understand how Rich Bastard lost anything ?
It was his choice, no-one forced him to do it.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
So why do the rich donate? Is it to help out a good cause or do they only do it for their own self-interest?
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
The Labour Party have never understood the philathropic rich. They think everyone else is as mean as them. I will lay a sizable bet that no one in the Labour Party caucus makes any donations to charity apart from the Labour Party. No one.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“Suck up to the filthy rich so that they can get richer.”
Shh… Max! How many times do we have to tell you, that response is for the tax cut proposals! Not the proposals that make it easier for the rich to give away their money.
“So why do the rich donate? Is it to help out a good cause or do they only do it for their own self-interest?”
Work it out, simpleton.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Tim you can guarantee that mate , what did the gibberish Hellgrad say about the underclass?? oh yeah, it is all ” extrapolated from an anecdote” !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Snap election please??
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I cannot guarantee it but I know how these middle class chardy types think. I know it in my bones. They grab all they can for themsleves, give to no-body and think people are dumb and need their guidance.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
So why do the rich donate? Is it to help out a good cause or do they only do it for their own self-interest?”
There is no contradiction…helping the poor via charity IS in their self interest.People don’e help their fellow man out of altruistic guilt….they do so because it benefits themselves.
Helping others is “selfish”….and why not?
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
James stop spewing your idiotic phlegm you phoney selfish freak.
I meet with Sir Roy McKenzie last week, while I was in Wellington and I am blessed to have meet such a genuine compassionate philanthropist.
Get a life you twisted gripper !!!
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
D4J, do you think you post without actually abusing someone.
I rarely agree with James (I am assuming this is the same James) but I think he is right. Someone can be a “genuine compassionate philanthropist” but still have broadly defined ‘selfish’ reasons. Selfish isn’t necessarily negative. It may make them feel good, or make their town a better place to live. These are selfish reasons, but not ultimately bad reasons. I think James was saying that it doesn’t matter and I completely agree with him. I think (as I think James does) that all acts are at least partially selfish and there is no such thing as altruism.
Mmmmmm shelfish , aaaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“I think (as I think James does) that all acts are at least partially selfish and there is no such thing as altruism.”
The great altruism debate… I don’t know how many times I’ve been around the bush with that one! I finally came down to the position that that you can be consciously altruistic but subconsciously selfish. I.E. in your conscious mind you believe you are being you are acting altruistically but subconsciously you are being selfish because you are getting some sort of payoff even if you don’t recognize it.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
DavidW
You could actually give $14,925 for the same net effect as giving $10,000 currently (ignoring the current rebate) as the tax rebate would amount to $4,925 or 33% of the $14,925.
$14,925 – $4,925 = $10,000 – ie: divide by 0.67 to gross it up.
This is almost a 50% increase in the donation and would be a fantastic boast for our charities. Many of which are much better at addressing specific needs than government agencies.
Vote:March 1st, 2007 at 8:12 am
PaulP,
There are many ways of looking at this and the percentages change with the assumptions.
I would still maintain that for someone who is already at the max rebate the amount available from $10K of pre-tax income from an income of less than $60K is $6,667 to the charity now and $10,000 to the charity with full rebateability.
Vote:March 1st, 2007 at 9:55 am
James and Andrew
“There is no contradiction…helping the poor via charity IS in their self interest”
Wow, how sick and twisted can you get?
You seem to have the opinion ‘Not poor = evil’.
O.K.
Let’s do the maths……. If someone donates $X then there is no way of getting more back than they give in dollar terms.
If there is some clever little scheme where this is possible I await to be illuminated.
I understand this issue is about giving less tax from that money to the thieving bastards in government for there latest pet project.
Vote:March 1st, 2007 at 10:17 am
Ummm, put my socialist thinking cap on….
Private charity… There must be no need for it since we socialists have solved all the worlds problems and have no poor people. The taking of lots of money to pay for pledge cards, billboards and court cases pretending that hurry hurry or I’ll miss the rigby was never said, are valid things to spend tax payers money on.
Allowing normal tax breaks for money given to charity reduces Govt tax take. Reduce tax take BAD – Increase tax take GOOD.
Vote:March 1st, 2007 at 10:19 am
You seem to have the opinion ‘Not poor = evil’.
Lance, show me where I ever said that.
I quite clearly said that when I am talking about ‘selfishness’, I am not (N-O-T) talking about it in a negative sense, so no, I am not of that opinion.
By selfish I mean that there is some self-serving benefit. It may not necessarily be the prime motivation, but both James and I said that if you look hard enough you will always be able to find a selfish reason. But that shouldn’t detract from the philanthropy.
For example, if I were to give you money to go to a remedial reading class, I would be doing that to help you. However, I would benefit from it because you would be able to read my comments properly and not misinterpret everything I write.
Vote:March 1st, 2007 at 11:19 am
As there appears to be some confusion about what I meant by selfishness I will explain.
I meant it in the sense that Ayn Rand meant it….self interest.I oppose altruism as its the doctrine of slavery to others simply because others exist….not that they have values you may appreciate or wish to support.I favour benevolence….meaning that I belive people should help others because they WANT to and not because they are EXPECTED to…(altruism).
Both Socialism and Religion are based on altruism and therefore invertible go on to the next logical step to achieve it….force. No thanks.
Vote:May 15th, 2007 at 8:32 am
In 80 percent of most families, the financial story is a story of working hard in an effort to get ahead
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
There is a great book called Think and Grow Rich
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
There is a great book called Think and Grow Rich
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Both the title company and the mortgage lender normally provided to the borrower during the loan closing
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Both the title company and the mortgage lender normally provided to the borrower during the loan closing
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“I’m not smart
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“I’m not smart
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 11:17 am
I wanted out of the trap of being an employee so badly that I worked harder, not less
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I wanted out of the trap of being an employee so badly that I worked harder, not less
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Loans made by mortgage bankers are customarily resold to other lenders and investors capital short areas
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Any loan exceeding these amounts would FHA AND DVA LOANS FHA and DVA operate in a similar manner
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Any loan exceeding these amounts would FHA AND DVA LOANS FHA and DVA operate in a similar manner
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Any loan exceeding these amounts would FHA AND DVA LOANS FHA and DVA operate in a similar manner
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 3:16 am
If interest rates are falling, lenders don
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 3:17 am
If interest rates are falling, lenders don
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 7:13 am
What percentage of your loans don
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 7:15 am
What percentage of your loans don
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Loans come in three basic categories: conforming, nonconforming, The government does not lend money, but rather it guarantees loans
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
imoneynet
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
imoneynet
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Many consumers assume that
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
” But then reality sets in
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 12:28 am
“Analyzing Liabilities” article in the “Loan Process” section
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Construction financing (a short
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Construction financing (a short
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Construction financing (a short
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
What happens if John gives a mortgage to ABC Savings and Loan, but the mortgage is not filed for six months, and then John immediately borrows from another lender who records its mortgage first
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 2:11 am
5% for loans from 5% to less than 10% down
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 2:12 am
5% for loans from 5% to less than 10% down
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 2:13 am
5% for loans from 5% to less than 10% down
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 2:13 am
5% for loans from 5% to less than 10% down
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Kiyosaki’s message is clear
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Kiyosaki’s message is clear
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
It lies asleep because our culture has educated us into believing that the love of money is the root of all evil
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
The bridge loan customarily buy down The payment of extra money on a loan, such as the payment of additional principal when making a monthly mortgage payment, to reduce the interest rate and/or the life of the loan
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 am
Unscrupulous lenders are notorious for adding in last-minute charges and fees that you won
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 am
Unscrupulous lenders are notorious for adding in last-minute charges and fees that you won
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 am
The agreement provided that the seller give her a 25 percent ($300) credit towards the purchase price for each rent payment made
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
) qualify for a home loan, the sales comparison data approach may be considered the property
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
) qualify for a home loan, the sales comparison data approach may be considered the property
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
) qualify for a home loan, the sales comparison data approach may be considered the property
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
mlfgws tuxgvqwka vecprhs crlngy fgiszkqwe ufnbhyvdk jszn
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
mlfgws tuxgvqwka vecprhs crlngy fgiszkqwe ufnbhyvdk jszn
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
mlfgws tuxgvqwka vecprhs crlngy fgiszkqwe ufnbhyvdk jszn
Vote: