I believe this works like The Oprah Giveaway Shows... you have to agree that you will pay all the taxes for the gifts that you are given. They go into the process knowing full-well that they are going to have to make payments.
I agree...they get a $450,000 house for free (plus taxes or whatever but they knew that going in I''m sure) PLUS another $250,000 for their kids'' education and "home maintenance" and look what they did with it. Some people are determined to keep themselves in the red. I think the show should have some kind of contract with the families that says they can''t use their homes for financial gain (i.e. sell it in x amount of years, loan collateral, etc.). Extreme Makeover would''ve been better off building a soup kitchen/homeless shelter.
Technically... right now is one of the hardest times for people to get loans, I cannot say about 15 months ago though. The Banks are losing out on serious interest payments when people cannot make their payments anymore.
I gotta say, I agree.
I think you can judge the actions of others as irresponsible without judging them as people. It's your choice not to watch the show & I don't watch it either, but the show is popular because they build the extravagant houses. Even though I support the cause, I doubt many people would watch a show about building Habitat for Humanity houses (although some of those are very nice as well). if the family didn't want a large home they easily could've declined to accept it; no one forced them onto the show. Many of the families shown on the show have overcome huge obstacles (the one show I did watch involved a police officer who was disabled so they designed a rigging system throughout her house so she could get around and care of her baby), so the big, nice house is supposed to be a sort of gift from the neighborhood/donors. The main thing that struck me about this news is the lack of personal responsibility shown by the parents. They have three children to consider when making their financial decisions, after all. $450,000 loans are not exactly handed out by the banks like free candy, so I'm sure the bank completed a thorough evaluation of the parents before they approved it. Placing the blame on banks when a person's house is foreclosed is completely ridiculous IMO. That's like blaming credit card companies for people's CC debt. I don't have a problem with them trying to make their financial decision better, but taking out a loan that might cause you to lose your entire house (that you got for free - therefore essentially making a profit from the charity of others) is irresponsible IMO. Maybe I'm just lacking compassion or grace, but I don't really feel sorry for people who are given extraordinary gifts ($700,000 altogether) and squander them. Whatever their taxes were, I'm sure it could've come out of the $250,000. I feel sorry for the kids...I assume their scholarships are long gone.
To an extent, I do agree. Sure, many lenders in the past made huge errors in judgement by allowing people to take out loans they were not likely to be able to afford. In this case, the couple did put their house up as collateral for their loan, which would square them away with the bank if they were unable to pay back the loan. Unfortunately, things did not work out for them, so the bank has the house. No one forced the couple (I hope) to take the loan out, it was their choice. I can only hope the bank really did explain the harsh reality of what would happen if they were unable to pay back their loan.
And, I don't know why you would assume the scholarships are gone. Did you read that somewhere?
The money was the bank''s money. They lent it to these homeowners. If they foreclose on the house, and the value of the house exceeds the amount of the loan, the borrowers have every right to keep the money.
300x240.png)
