Is the Democrats’ law that responsible people must pay more for mortgages the first step in social credit scores?

[B. Kidd]

The Democrats have decided that paying bills late, or otherwise do things that have caused a low social credit score, is a behavior that is worthy of a less expensive mortgage. When you engage in financially rewarding (or punishing) people based on behavior, rather than on risk/benefit analysis, isn’t this the first step in paying people to engage in behavior you want (in this case, being financially irresponsible)?

So what is next? Will people who participate in Democrat-supported causes get extra points that will help them with loans? Will people who sign petitions trying to get a specific Democrat kicked out of Congress be punished at the loan office?

Where will the Democrats’ drive to control people end up?

Coming soon: America’s own social credit system

The same issue with government censorship exists with corporate censorship: If there is a line, who draws it?

thehill.com

In our emerging Neo-Marxist utopia, no good deed (in this case a + credit rating) goes unpunished!!

 

[citygator]

I swear you ignoramuses will believe anything. Here are the rates. They are not lower for high risk borrowers. You are being lied to.

 

[Ralph Norton]

I swear you ignoramuses will believe anything. Here are the rates. They are not lower for high risk borrowers. You are being lied to.

View attachment 782140View attachment 782141

No one is saying anything about rates - this is about fees.
But you knew that.

 

[OldFlame]

Last week, PayPal announced a partnership with the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to “investigate” the role of “white supremacists” and propagators of “anti-government” rhetoric, subjective labels that potentially could impact a large number of groups or people using their service. PayPal says the collected information will be shared with other financial firms and politicians. Facebook is taking similar measures, recently introducing messages that ask users to snitch on their potentially “extremist” friends, which considering the platform’s bias seems mainly to target the political right. At the same time, Facebook and Microsoft are working with several other web giants and the United Nations on a database to block potential extremist content.

The actions of these major companies may seem logical in an internet riddled with scams and crime. After all, nobody will defend far-right militias or white supremacist groups using these platforms for their odious goals.

---

I guess the author has never met you Lisa.

So these companies would have investigated the founding fathers and shut them down so there could be no uprising against the crown, and you support that notion? Color me shocked.

 

[OldFlame]

A person taking out a $500,000 mortgage will pay an extra $625 in fees under the new policy.

One time.

That's. It.

Your propagandists are spinning out of control.

If they're paying higher fees, it's not propaganda, there is zero reason for them to be penalized to pay $1 damn dollar more.

 

[Lisa558]

I swear you ignoramuses will believe anything. Here are the rates. They are not lower for high risk borrowers. You are being lied to.

View attachment 782140View attachment 782141

We are talking about the FEE. Good, responsible people are being punished with a higher fee, and irresponsible people who don’t manage their money well are being rewarded with a discount (subsidized by the better people).

 

[citygator]

No one is saying anything about rates - this is about fees.
But you knew that.

Those. Are. Your. Fees.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I swear you ignoramuses will believe anything.

Says he who does not understand the issue is fees, not rates.

 

[citygator]

If they're paying higher fees, it's not propaganda, there is zero reason for them to be penalized to pay $1 damn dollar more.

They are not paying more than high risk borrowers. Why don’t you get that?

 

[Anathema]

Yes. The fee is higher if your credit score is strong, and lower if you haven’t been responsible with money. Now….does that make sense?

That’s the exact sort of thing that got us into the last housing debacle. My in-laws had two homes foreclosed on between 2014 & 2016 because they were given loans they never should have been given. That’s why they live with me now.

Is this only for FHA/HUD loans, or are all financial institutions going to be forced to do it on their notes as well?

 

[citygator]

Says he who does not understand the issue is fees, not rates.

The rates determine your fees genius. They are fed rates. PMI and loan fees.

 

[OldFlame]

They are not paying more than high risk borrowers. Why don’t you get that?

You're wrong.

 

[Curried Goats]

So these companies would have investigated the founding fathers and shut them down so there could be no uprising against the crown, and you support that notion? Color me shocked.

The Founders were slavers. I don't take sides in tyrant vs tyrant conflict. Moron.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are not paying more than high risk borrowers. Why don’t you get that?

For example, beginning May 1, a buyer with a good credit score of 750 who puts down 25% on a $400,000 home would now pay 0.375% in fees on a 30-year loan, or $1,125, compared to 0.250%, or $750, under the previous fee rules.

Meanwhile, a buyer with a credit score of 650 putting a 25% down payment on a $400,000 home would now pay 1.5% in fees on a 30-year loan, or $4,500. That compares with 2.75%, or $8,250, under the previous rules.

Why having good credit could cost you more on a home mortgage

In some cases, people with better credit scores may pay more in fees, while those with lower credit scores will pay less.

abc7ny.com

 

[citygator]

You're wrong.

I just posted the fee rates. Show me where they are paying more.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Those. Are. Your. Fees.

So the new fees haven't been adjusted in your tables- what is your point?
Are you denying the Biden plan raises fees on borrowers with good credit and lowers them for people with bad credit?
Per the NY Post:
"Starting May 1, a Biden administration decree will require adjusting mortgage calculations to penalize homebuyers with a FICO credit score of 680 and above — almost two-thirds of the population.
This levy will be used to reduce costs for people with low credit scores — i.e., risky borrowers more likely to default on mortgages."

Those. Are. The. Facts.

 

[citygator]

For example, beginning May 1, a buyer with a good credit score of 750 who puts down 25% on a $400,000 home would now pay 0.375% in fees on a 30-year loan, or $1,125, compared to 0.250%, or $750, under the previous fee rules.

Meanwhile, a buyer with a credit score of 650 putting a 25% down payment on a $400,000 home would now pay 1.5% in fees on a 30-year loan, or $4,500. That compares with 2.75%, or $8,250, under the previous rules.

Why having good credit could cost you more on a home mortgage

In some cases, people with better credit scores may pay more in fees, while those with lower credit scores will pay less.

abc7ny.com

The high risk borrower is paying 250 basis points HIGHER rates. What part are you missing?

 

[Lisa558]

They are not paying more than high risk borrowers. Why don’t you get that?

Yes they are. They’re paying higher fees than the high risk borrowers, which means they’re paying more for their mortgage. Fees and interest are the two different ways a lender makes money, and both are part of the cost.

 

[OldFlame]

The Founders were slavers. I don't take sides in tyrant vs tyrant conflict. Moron.

Good to know, that makes you an anti-American nut job.

 

[Lisa558]

That’s the exact sort of thing that got us into the last housing debacle. My in-laws had two homes foreclosed on between 2014 & 2016 because they were given loans they never should have been given. That’s why they live with me now.

Is this only for FHA/HUD loans, or are all financial institutions going to be forced to do it on their notes as well?

Right now FHA/HUD only. But who knows where Biden will take this, given the control of private industry the socialists are pushing for?