Because the bank isn't buying your house. You are buying the house. The house is YOUR investment.
The topic of this thread is this:
Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take
You don't understand the difference between a loan and a service contract?
Two very unrelated questions. If the bank wrote you the check and lived up to the terms of your agreement, the bank didn't swindle you. If the bank swindled you, then you might have an argument that you don't have a moral obligation to do what you agreed to do, but you can't prove that the bank swindled you just because you say that "banks swindle people". You actually have to prove they did something dirty, dishonest and designed to cheat you out of your money.
would you please share the difference between the two from a morality standpoint
Because the bank isn't buying your house. You are buying the house. The house is YOUR investment.
They are both legal contracts....which was the point......which apparently is beyond your ability to comprehend.I'll repeat what I keep saying.
There is no morality in borrowing and lending.
So I can't "share the difference" from a morality standpoint.
I will, however, share the difference from a grown up person standpoint. A cell phone agreement isn't a loan. It's a service agreement. Nobody borrowed money from the service provider.
You're wasting your time here. But you are 100% correct. The bank did not buy the house. You bought the house. You own the house. The bank has a lien on your house until you have satisfied your obligation to the bank. A lien is not ownership. The deed is in your name and not the bank's name.
I'm shaking my head at all the posts in this thread from people who apparently never took and loan nor bought a house, but pretend they know about them.
Beneficial State Bank in Oakland.
https://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/StruReportNew.asp?inCert1=58490
Metropolitan Bank in Oakland.
https://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/StruReportNew.asp?inCert1=25869
Here are 2 to get you started.
as have i, excepting circumstances such as fraudI'll repeat what I keep saying.
There is no morality in borrowing and lending.
because there are noneSo I can't "share the difference" from a morality standpoint.
and that semantic difference has no bearing in this discussion about the morality of paying one's financial obligationsI will, however, share the difference from a grown up person standpoint. A cell phone agreement isn't a loan. It's a service agreement. Nobody borrowed money from the service provider.
as have i, excepting circumstances such as fraud
because there are none
thank you for making my point
and that semantic difference has no bearing in this discussion about the morality of paying one's financial obligations
I stand corrected: thanks for linking to a site with working searches. (I was using the FFIEC database, whose search feature seems to be totally dysfunctional.)
More to the point of this thread, though: is it a requirement for deposits to exceed total loans and leases? And was it a requirement before Dodd-Frank?
The subject of this thread is paying a loan. A service agreement isn't a loan. Nobody has borrowed any money. If you don't understand that, I can't help you. It's simple plain English and something that smart adults understand.
No, I didn't "make your point" if you don't understand the difference between a service agreement and a loan. You're in the wrong thread. The thread isn't about service agreements.
ok, i'll wait for you to share with us how one's morality towards paying a mortgage is unique and different from that of paying one's contracted services agreement
If it's unrealistic (the Greek debt) then it shouldnt have been loaned. I think that was more a political move personally.
However regarding grace or forgiveness, those are personal virtues and not to be expected from business or corporate entities. I have never heard of any contract that says, "and if the contractee cannot fulfill the terms of this contract in full faith because of hardship, then the contract is null and void."**
Yes, a business *can forgive a debt* they may have a policy for that, but that debt will be passed on to others who do business/have loans with that company.
**There is bankruptcy but that is thru the legal system, not the business. The business may still get some or all that's owed it after that process.
Yep.This is semantic nonsense, you do not hold title until you pay off the mortgage and any other encumbrances. "Ownership" is incomplete until you hold the title in real property.
Yep.
I don't own my car, currently.
Bank does, until I pay the loan off.
Is why they require full coverage insurance.
Actually I've noticed that myself.Incorrect. The title to the car is in your name, not the bank's name. The title is what signifies ownership. The bank doesn't own it, which is why you don't have to ask their permission to paint it or put a new stereo in it or drive it to New Jersey. They hold a lien on your car. The only thing they do require is that you pay off the balance you owe them when you transfer ownership to someone else. They require you to maintain sufficient insurance on it to protect their interest in it. You agreed to do that when you signed a note asking to borrow their money to purchase your car. Your car is security on a financial obligation to them. It is not their possession.
After reading this thread I'm no longer surprised at how many stupid people in this country got themselves in trouble with taking mortgage loans they shouldn't have taken. People don't even know what they own.
Actually I've noticed that myself.
It won't help me, but I strongly feel that some kind of basic economics/personal finances class should be REQUIRED for a person to graduate HS. And probably preparatory classes in prior grades.
I have to learn stuff by making mistakes like this or researching it myself.
However I will say that the bank CAN repossess my car if I stop paying - but I suppose they must get a court ruling for that.
Incorrect. The title to the car is in your name, not the bank's name. The title is what signifies ownership. The bank doesn't own it, which is why you don't have to ask their permission to paint it or put a new stereo in it or drive it to New Jersey. They hold a lien on your car. The only thing they do require is that you pay off the balance you owe them when you transfer ownership to someone else. They require you to maintain sufficient insurance on it to protect their interest in it. You agreed to do that when you signed a note asking to borrow their money to purchase your car. Your car is security on a financial obligation to them. It is not their possession.
After reading this thread I'm no longer surprised at how many stupid people in this country got themselves in trouble with taking mortgage loans they shouldn't have taken. People don't even know what they own.
Me be learnin' **** here.Read what you just wrote. The bank can repossess your car if you stop paying. Repossession means they take ownership of your vehicle. They don't have it now. They only take ownership because you defaulted on your obligation to them.
No, they don't need a court order to repossess a car. You signed an agreement that easily allows them to do it if you default. Not that they want to. Lenders do not want their collateral. It's a losing proposition for them. They would rather you pay as agreed.
Just like foreclosure. The bank doesn't own your home until they foreclose on it, and in fact, when your home in foreclosure goes to auction, the bank actually has to buy it back if it doesn't sell at auction. Until that day, just like with a car, they do NOT own it. Each state has its own foreclosure rules and processes and that is far more complicated than seizing an auto.
But people need to stop foolishly thinking that a lien on something that is titled or deeded in your name means that the lienholder is the owner. They are not. The only thing the bank "owns" is the debt on your collateral. You own it.
You have never heard of a grace period? And bankruptcy is debt forgiveness.
.
There has to be a reason for this insane post. I can't explain morality in paying a mortgage when I said that morality had nothing to do with borrowing or lending. Are you intentionally posting trolling posts?
The "us"...is that you & Jasper who both don't understand the difference between a loan and a service agreement? Sorry, not bothering with you any more than I did with him. Once you two learn the difference, you'll understand why service contracts have nothing to do with this thread even if morality does have a place in borrowing or lending.
So then according to me, IMO...as per the OP's question...that is not moral behavior.
People can have bad credit scores for alot of reasons, including medical debt.
So. Another rationalization.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?