Fannie Mae Supersizes You

I don't understand why this isn't a permanent change

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 10:41 AM

I've been waiting for this for awhile. Can’t wait to refi BUT there are a few BIG catches:

1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will likely create a "jumbo-conforming" product that will have a higher interest rate than a "normal conforming" (albeit at a rate lower than a regular jumbo).

2) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don’t have much capital to lend right now so that needs to be fixed before they can start buying these loans from originating banks.

3) The "market" for the "agency jumbos" is brand new and nobody really knows how it will work yet.

My opinion: 50/50 odds that this results in a meaningful decrease in jumbo rates (yes, Fed rates are lower but the risk premium is up way more).

Also, 90% chance that this is extended beyond 12/31/08 … it won't even be off the ground for another 2 months at least.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 10:42 AM

Yes, it should be a permanent change. NY and California should lobby for it to be permanent.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 10:43 AM

Party on.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 10:44 AM

I am confused about this. I looked on a couple of websites including fannie mae. It said that the new limits only apply to 1 family properties. It also said that you cannot get the new conforming rate if you are taking cash out to pay a helc. You cannot only refinance what is on your existing primary mortgage. If I read it correctly, the 1 unit exception will be trouble for us brownstoners.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 10:44 AM

Surprised this -by far the biggest real estate story of the yr to impact NYC prices- hasn't been discussed here yet since the news is about a week old. The rates on the loans which fall below $730k but above 417k (previous jumbo limit) won't be as low as previous conformnig loans, but they should still average from 3/8th to 1/2 point lower than jumbos. That means on a $730k loan carrying costs go down frm approx $4200 to 3900. Good timing.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 10:44 AM

10:44 -- we KNOW this part.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 10:51 AM

I also wondered why this isn't a permanent change. . .
obviously the limits should be dramatically higher in areas with higher property values. even 729 is very low for NYC
the limit should also float with some kind of index of values, so the same problem doesn't arise down the road.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 10:52 AM

10:42 is right. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are publicly traded companies that are being pummelled in the market right now. They are not cash rich and looking to lend even more. The fact that they are allowed to take bigger loans doesn't mean that they are going to jump at the chance. I think the decrease in rates will not be huge.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:05 AM

YIPPY!!! I'm going house hunting this weekend. Any leads on a 4-story brownstone in Park Slope for under $729K in move in condition?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:08 AM

I don't get what 11:05 and 10:42 mean (although I am sure they could be right).
Do banks have the option to offer higher rates on bigger loans, even if they are now treated the same as smaller loans?
If so, why wouldn't they do that now with loans at the upper end of the conforming range or charge "super jumbo" rates for extra big loans?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:11 AM

The cover story of the latest Barron's issue exposes the shaky finance of Fannie Mae. In the worst scenario it may need government bailout. Lifting of the jumbo loan limit? Fat chance.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/67748-fannie-may-fail-barron-s

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:14 AM

Anyone got any free info links about this subject?

The WSJ article ask you to subscribe and I'm trying to save up for that $1,000,000 condo!

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:15 AM

Why is this good news? Not the role of government to subsidize housing for the rich. Provide some Section 8 vouchers, but if you can afford a 700K mortgage, then welfare is not necessary.

Government and Fannie Mae are broke and throwing good money after bad. Lower prices will mean affordability and in the long run a healthier New York economy.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:15 AM

A 700K mortgage hardly qualifies you as "rich" in NYC.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:25 AM

Good one 11:15

Interesting on how those who complain about government money for affordable housing and stabalized apartments would be crying foul if thier mortgage interest write off was taken away.
Large loans should not get special consideration for interest rates - let free market set the rates. If they can't afford the higher interest rate they should move to Canarsie or Staten Island or where ever they tell us poor folks to move.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:28 AM

"It also said that you cannot get the new conforming rate if you are taking cash out to pay a helc."

10:44 - i didn't see this on the fannie mae website anywhere. where did you see this?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:36 AM

11:25 According to 2000 census only 3.4% of households in New York City earn $200,000 or more. I know it's hard to believe for the masters of the universe on Brownstoner who can talk about what a bargain a $1.2 million dollar house is, but if you can qualify for a $700K mortgage--you're rich. Even in NYC.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:37 AM

Interest rates are not the problem. High prices are. This only makes things worse.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:40 AM

10:44 here. I got most of the info in an article on bankrate.com entitled, "Jumbo-conforming rules could trip up some."

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:45 AM

2000 census? Thats not pertinent is it. Try 2005.

http://www.newsday.com/business/realestate/ny-census-nycincome,0,7242836.htmlstory

There are plenty of households with income in excess of 150,000

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 11:52 AM

11:35 - For the same reasons always spouted by people on this blog of why people shouldn't cry when they get priced out of their neighborhoods - This is NYC and there is a premium to live here. If you can't afford the premium go back to Cleveland.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 12:00 PM

We shouldn't be subsidizing homebuyers at all -- the mortgage tax break is bad public policy to begin with. Expanding guaranteed insurance on mortgages just compounds the problem. The government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging one economic decision over another -- if homeowning is really so much better than renting, and as everyone on this site seems to believe, so much more sensible economically, then I shouldn't have my tax dollars going to prop homeowners up.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 12:06 PM

From Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO):

The temp new loan limit applies to loans originated from 7/1/2007 to 12/31/2008. If you got one before 7/1/07, you are NOT eligible to refinance.

http://www.ofheo.gov/media/hpi/AREA_LIST.pdf

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 12:11 PM

11:52 OK, I stand corrected. Based on the 2005 figures, the percentage of NYC households that earn $200K or more is...3.4%

Let's say it's up to a whopping 4% today. That still makes those people rich. Oh, I know, not hedge fund geniuses rich, but rich nevertheless.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 12:11 PM

This is 10:42 again.

Let's call this what it is … a transfer payment from all taxpayers to semi-wealthy real estate owners on the coasts (in the form of lower interest rates).

Is the government steeping into "free markets" to artificially lower interest rates on jumbos on a temporary basis? Yes, they are.

Who's paying for it? All taxpayers if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need additional government-subsidized capital or a full bail-out.

BUT … I earn too much to get any cash from Bush's rebate check stimulus plan SO you better believe I'm going to go after a free handout from Uncle Sam if he's offering it.

Do I NEED the capital at a cheaper cost to stop a foreclosure … of course not … but I’d be foolish to not take advantage of it, refi and save $10k a year!

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 12:13 PM

I'm about to close and my mortgage broker said none of the banks are offering this new ceiling. Nobody knows anything, everyone's confused. He thinks it might take weeks for this to become reality. Meanwhile the interest rates fluctuate like crazy by the week because the banks are panicking instead thinking straight.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 12:17 PM

The government already stepped all over the free market with the mortgage deduction and by buying mortgages in the first place.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 12:28 PM

This will not make a difference. You are in the end-game stage of this Mutant Real Estate Bubble.

The parallels to today and the Great Depression are the same.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end....

BTW The tin-foil hat guys are looking right.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 12:30 PM

11:15 says "Not the role of government to subsidize housing for the rich. "

Where do you live? The US Govt is solely in place to subsidize the rich.

Whose house got rebuilt in New Orleans? The rich guys beach front mult million $$ pad or the low income guys dilapidated house?

The US Govt only cares about the wealthy and is in place to shift funds from the poor to the wealthy. Wake up.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 12:56 PM

the top 10% of earners play the huge bulk of the income tax. Its their money.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 1:00 PM

"The US Govt only cares about the wealthy and is in place to shift funds from the poor to the wealthy. Wake up"

Thats funny, becuase the poor pay virtually nothing in Federal income taxes, how exactly is Government shifting their money away to the rich?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 1:05 PM

"the banks are panicking instead thinking straight"

Fear is the consequence of greed. There's no free lunch for excess. Were they thinking sraight from 2001 to 2007?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 1:11 PM

2005 cenusu - about 10% of households in the NYC area have a houslehold income of 150K or greater. 1 in 10. Thats plenty.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S2503&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-CONTEXT=st&-tree_id=306&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=31200US356203651000&-format=&-_lang=en

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 1:13 PM

"this should do more to prop up the economy"

Sorry. Can't prop up a price appreciation pyramid scheme. It's mathematically destined to collapse.

"A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered. It has been known to come under many guises."

MANY GUISES, one of which is Brookyn real estate.

Read more - http://tinyurl.com/y3gfgl

Don't get me wrong. Brownstones are worth something, but much less than what's being asked today. The world class status of NYC, the antique effect, the median income level, the inventory, etc., were already built into the intrinsic values (maybe 2003) of these properties before their excess values blew up. Prices are now on the Jenny Craig (maybe even liposuction) plan.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 1:28 PM

"about 10% of households in the NYC area have a houslehold income of 150K or greater"

Funny how you NYC housing bulls use Metro-wide data for income but balk at such data that shows home prices down -5% and dropping because it doesn't focus on NYC proper. I smell desperation.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 1:31 PM

The census doesn't break it down further, thats why. Go ahead and post 2005 houslehold income census data for NYC if you can find it.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 1:34 PM

There was also a lot of happy talk and futile "prop-ups" before the Crash of 1929 and resulting Great Depression. Deja Vu.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 1:35 PM

"how exactly is Government shifting their money away to the rich?"

Its funny all these wantabe rich republican lemmings always state that the rich pay more taxes than the poor.

I have been firtunate to make a bit if money over the last 10 years and am now a multi millionaire. The more I become worth, the more tax write offs I have and the less tax as a percentage of my incoome I pay.

When I wasnt rich, I paid about 30-40% of my income in taxes. Now that I am rich, I pay less than 20% of my income in taxes.

The shift from the poor to the wealthy is that the US Govt makes the poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes than the rich. Also the predominance of services that our tax dollars pay for are for the rich.

how often do the poor require FICA to insure the hundred of thousands of $$$ in their bank account? How often do the poor need the SEC to look into their execercizing of stock option grants?

How often dot he poor need the govt to make sure that the extension of their beachhouses do not violate wetlands acts, or are in uninsurable flood zones?

The amount of govt services available to the poor are a minuet fraction of the govt services area available to the rich.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:13 PM

"the top 10% of earners play the huge bulk of the income tax."

No, actually they don't.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:13 PM

Yes they do - show us an unbiased source telling us otherwise. The top 1% pay about a third of all income tax, the top 10% pay about 65%.

The top 50% basically pay all of it. That means 50% of all income earners pay basically nothing towards the amount collected in income taxes.

And as for the poor paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich - that only applies where the rich aren't wage earners and are getting their income from dividends and the like. Someone earning 250,000k as a salary or with bonus pays a much higher perentage of his income than those earning 25k.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:19 PM

sorry about the spelling on my previous post.

This will give fodder to the spelling nazi. I was multi tasking and not paying attention.

I hate the spelling nazi as it is so high schoolish and doesnt add any value to the conversation.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:20 PM

2.13 - did you just pull all that garbage out of your trash can?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:23 PM

"Someone earning 250,000k as a salary or with bonus pays a much higher perentage of his income than those earning 25k."

This is an abosolute lie. the $250K wage earner if he is not a dumbass has real estate and other investments that reduce his taxable income. He also has the cash to hire a proper accountant to make sure he avoids as much tax as possible.

The 250K earner probably pays about 16-20% of his income in taxes. The 25K earner ends up paying over 30% - not including a greater percentage of sales tax to income ratio.

I hate these whiney rich guy wantabe's who cry the rich pay more taxes.

If the govt billed taxes based upon usage of government services the rich should pay significant multiple more than the poor.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:24 PM

2:23 wah wah wah stop your whiney crying. You are a moron if you argue that the poor get more out of our government than the rich.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:26 PM

2.24 - you are funny. Annoying how the facts disrupt your "rich is bad poor is good" black and white worldview isn't it. You pulled 16-20% out of your a%^.

2.26 - 2.23 is saying "the rich" pay more. Apparently you need to brush up on your comprehension skills.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:34 PM

2:34 - you are a brainwashed republican who isnt rich but think that you will be rich some day.

Guess what - you will never be rich enough for Republican policies to help you.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:37 PM

2.26 - your the one whining about the jumbo loans are you not?

The working middle class supports this country, not the poor, who, like in any country that provides welfare, section 8, 10% income taxes for low earners, medicare EIC etc, take more from the government than they give. Thats ok, but just don't be down on those who actually pay for it.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:37 PM

I'm rich by the laughable comments on this board!

I'm no republican, but I'm not a democrat either. I already stated that.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:38 PM

*****Breaking***********Breaking***********Breaking***********Breaking***********Breaking***********Breaking***********Breaking***********Breaking***********Breaking***********Breaking***********Breaking******

The Gov is a PIMPI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://nytimes.com/

Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring

OH Shit!!!!! LMMFAO

The What

Someday this war is gonna end..........

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:42 PM

There must be a million homes in NYC over 750K.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:42 PM

2:37 you say "The working middle class supports this country, not the poor"

There is no difference betweenthe working middle class and the poor any more. They are the smae thing in the eyes of the uber wealthy who control and run our govt.

Do you think that the guys who are sifoning off billions thru oil companies and defense contractors can notice a difference between the working middle class and the poor?

The only group who sees a difference between the working middle class and the poor are the working middle class.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:46 PM

Oh yes 2.24, the secret and cunning methods of the evil faceless rich. Guess what, theres an infomerical on the tube right now telling you how to become a millionaire without working for it!

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:46 PM

I'm lucky enough to earn a good income and would love to know how some of the posters hear think you can get your taxes down to 16-20%. My effective income tax rate is always 35%-40%. That excludes social security taxes and medicate taxes which the government says aren't really taxes. Also excludes sales taxes and real estate taxes (which you lose deductions for as income increases) and the hidden tax in all the purchases we make caused by corporate income taxes. The year I bought my house I think my effective tax rate was over 50% given the mortgage recording tax and the "mansion" tax.

Speaking of which, if Chuck Schumer and Charles Rangel etc. want to help troubled Borrowers in New York, they might think about getting rid of the mortgage recording tax, which also often applies to refinancings.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:47 PM

its pretty clear if you look at the data, rather than looking in your favorite-bias drawer, that people in the 150-275K income range pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than any other group. Less of the richer "earn" their income so they pay a lower percentage tax, and the poorer have progressivley lower income tax rates.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:50 PM

Peolpe having SALARIES over 150K in NY have the highest tax burden in the country when you factor in NYC and NY taxes.

The 16-20% guy is talking nonsense. He must be thinking of people getting dvidend income and the like.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:53 PM

Why is everyone on here jabbering about tax breaks for the rich or not? The point is that this is a further extension of tax breaks and subsidies for homeowners, and regardless of whether you're rich or not, you're paying for it if you're a taxpayer. Homeowners get enough subsidies -- they don't need any more help.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:55 PM

2.46 - conspiracy theorist.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 2:55 PM

2:53 - a guy making $25K a year can put how much money into a 401K that reduces his tax burden? NONE

A guy making $250K can put in $15.5K into a 401K, $10K more into a 529 (if he is married), write off $40-50K in mortgage interest, take charitable donations - a couple thousand, etc etc etc.

A guy making $250K can reduce his tax burden by more than the entire salary of the guy making $25K by just opening up a 401K, and a 529. Not to mention employer match funds, cap gains reduced taxes, mortgage deductions, etc etc.

It is one thing to deny that the rich get taxed less but look at the numbers, and the wealthy's basic deductions and you can help but see the truth.

The rich dont consider income that goes directly into shelters or created inside of shelters as income. That is how they justify complaining about tax rates on the rich.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:01 PM

2:46 is actually a self made multi-millionaire who knows what he is talking about.

He can afford accountants, lawyers, etc etc to help him reduce his tax burden to ridiculously low levels.

He actually has the wealth that you wantabe Republican Lemmings think you will have some day.

Oh yeah and he is in his 30's.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:05 PM

So he's not earning a salary. Which is the point that people have been trying to get across - different tax burden.

Tard.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:10 PM

so how much tax do you think you are paying when earning 25k?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:11 PM

my wife and I earn 250K. We rent, in a market-rate apartment. we have 2 kids, one of whom is home with a childcarer and the other one is in a private school (special needs, before someone starts slamming me). we do not get any of those tax breaks mentioned here, other than I can contribute to a 401K and get a whopping 3% match from my employer. we pay an effective tax rate of about 38%. there is not a lot left over after that. we weren't fortunate enough to have money to buy in brooklyn when the getting was good, but we live in hope.

anyone who can tell me how to pay 16-20% tax instead, roll right on up. not in nyc.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:15 PM

No he is earning a very good salary each year that he stashes into tax shelters to reduce his effective tax rate to 16-20%.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:15 PM

Try 25k a year with a kid for EIC. The government ends up paying you.

i.e. negative tax.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:15 PM

Hmm - lets see some examples of effective tax rates:

"The Bushes paid 27.7 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal income taxes. The Cheneys, whose income was much larger, paid 19 percent of their adjusted gross income, though when their income from tax-exempt bonds is considered, the Cheneys' effective tax rate was 12.7 percent. "

Oh yeah not possible is it????

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:17 PM

3.15 - fairy tales are on the children's blogs.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:19 PM

My wife and I are brownstone owners. We are both school teachers who make about 65K/y. Our mortgage is about 620K & we are hoping that the change in jumbo rates will help, even if a little. The break is designed to help us, neither rich nor poor. Not sure it ultimately will...

Most of the above comments, all full of bile and class rage of one kind or another, sound desperate and silly.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:21 PM

3:15 says - "my wife and I earn 250K. We rent, in a market-rate apartment. we have 2 kids, one of whom is home with a childcarer and the other one is in a private school (special needs, before someone starts slamming me). we do not get any of those tax breaks mentioned here, other than I can contribute to a 401K and get a whopping 3% match from my employer. we pay an effective tax rate of about 38%....."

You are a moron who needs to see an accountant and investment advisor immediately.

Just because you have horrible money management skills doesnt mean other people also do. You are throwing tons of money away by being an uninformed moron.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:22 PM

Jeeze, the tards here. Plenty of Cheney's income was NOT SALARY - thus he's able to get a LOWER TAX RATE. I'm SHOUTING because you seem hard of hearing. We all know the actual rich pay a lower rate becuase the bulk of their income ISNT SALARY. GEDDDDIT!!!

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:23 PM

3.17 will never understand even if you draw him a picture.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:23 PM

wrong 3.22, unless you have control over the form of the income paid to you you do NOT have those options. You are being disingenuous in order to win the argument. Its quite clear which group the tax burden falls on, it ain't the rich and it aint the poor.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:26 PM

"No he is earning a very good salary each year that he stashes into tax shelters to reduce his effective tax rate to 16-20%."

You are hilarious. I suppose you normally BS ignorant people and then it works. Not here.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:33 PM

3:23 spewed " Plenty of Cheney's income was NOT SALARY"

Oh yeah the rich pay an unfair share of taxes on SALARY but don't consider other income buried in shelters as taxable income. How much of non taxable sheltered income do the poor have?

3:26 - i guess that you mean the middle class. I say that in this day and age, there is no difference between the middle class and the poor. When you are talking about people who pocket billions of dollars from the govt, is there much a difference between someone making $25K or another making $65K?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:35 PM

"3.23 spewed"

Full of hate aren't you, just trying to find a target.

Regardless, we are talking about people earning 150-250K aren't we - not people with stashes of "sheltered income". The fact that you believe these are the people with "sheltered income" betrays your own situation as one of limited or non-existent contact or actual knowledge of the people you hate so much.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:45 PM

hey 3.35 - given up on your attempt to convince us you earn a salary and then get the money directed to, let me guess, a Swiss tax shelter, before it ever gets on your W2!!

"tax shelter" - what a giveaway that you're a fraud.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:48 PM

I thought all brownstone owners had trust funds to let them buy their houses and government-supplied Audis.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:53 PM

I dont hate anyone based on the amount of money they make.

I do hate people who falsely blame the poor and middle class for their own failures.

I hate when upper middle class but wanting to be rich folk bitch about poor people in America bringing them down.

I hate that most people are ignorant and allow the govt to rape and pillage them of their money just to give to the uber rich who are buddies with Administration officials.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:54 PM

who was "blaming the poor for their own failures"? point to the post.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 3:59 PM

3.54 - you just started lashing out because the actual fact that those people earning (i.e. having salaries paid to them - normal W2 income before you go off on a tangent) pay the bulk of income taxes, and pay a higher rate on those taxes, a fact like that doesn't sit well with you.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 4:02 PM

12:17, My broker is saying the same thing to me. Hold-off if you can. Mortgage brokers want to make the deal and move on to the next. I am hearing from others in the business that it will take a few months for the new rules to trickle down. Everyone is predicting the end of the second quarter into the first of the third quarter of this year we will see most banks offering the new ceiling for mortgages.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 4:12 PM

3:48 - said "hey 3.35 - given up on your attempt to convince us you earn a salary and then get the money directed to, let me guess, a Swiss tax shelter, before it ever gets on your W2!!

"tax shelter" - what a giveaway that you're a fraud."

Here is a lesson for you - anyone that knows the littlest amount of personal finance knows that there are a million shelters other than swiss bank acocunts. Here are a few US Govt approved - talk to a financial advisor about them - UTMA, SEP, 529, 401K, mortgage interest, etc

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 4:36 PM

4.36 - just give up, you are making a fool of yourself with you lack of knowledge. Please look up "tax shelter" in your local library.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:13 PM

sep, 401k etc, tax deferred, not a tax shelter.

UTMA is an exlcusion from gift tax, if you've earned the money you're giving you've already paid income tax etc etc. zzzzzzzzzz

529s - universally acknowledged to be a losing proposition

What a bozo.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:27 PM

5:13 - great point - you guys are the ones complaining that you pay 40-50% tax rates. I am the one complaining that I pay 16-20%. I guess that I am the one who really needs the lessons in tax shelters.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:28 PM

Also I dont need the lessons. I can afford accountants, lawyers, financial advisors.

thanks for paying my fair share of taxes for me guys!

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:32 PM

hey go easy - he's probably talking about a tax shelter as its understood on the street (not having had any actual interaction with real finance) - not a real tax shelter.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:33 PM

5.32 - now put away your monopoly board and money and go back to the Risk game where you take over the world and kill the rich

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:40 PM

5.32 - "accountants, lawyers, financial advisors" are the people you are talking to here.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:46 PM

There is a downloadable document on the Fannie Mae site (loanlimitref.xls) that lists the new conforming loan limits by state/county for multi-family dwellings as well as single family.

For Brooklyn (which they actually list as Kings, as opposed the the NYT), the 2-family limit will be $934,200.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:48 PM

yea, thats how the rich get their taxes so low "UTMA, SEP, 529, 401K, mortgage interest"!!

LMFAO!

You must be the tWhat trying a new persona for the day.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:49 PM

oh so the rich do not take advantage of the aboce to lower their effective tax rates on their salaries?

Every high earning person I know has maxed out all the above, then you look into serious shelters.

You guys must be the suckiest lawyers, accountants, and financial advisors if you dont own any real estate, and pay 40% effective tax rates.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:57 PM

5.57 - you don't know what rich is - to you its anyone earning over $50K

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 5:59 PM

actually you missed all my posts didnt you? I was making the point that its the ones making billions who are rich. Did you learn to read where you learned how to do your taxes?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 6:02 PM

6.02 - you really need a spreadsheet to keep your fabricated world consistent - no-one missed your posts.

Finally you seem to acknowledge that the people who have the jumbo mortgages are those who pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than any other group.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 6:09 PM

yea Mr. 5.57 and 6.02 - those with billions use UTMA, SEP, 529, 401K which account for 0.01% of their income.

Are you a comedian?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 6:15 PM

arrgh - I give up. You guys are right. Everyoe who makes over $150K per year pays 40% tax rates. Dont even try to do better.

Me and Cheney must be doing something wrong paying under 20%.

All the posters on this board do is hate and attack anyone who is not doom and gloom.

Good thing there are people like you to keep paying me rent.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 6:18 PM

150K to 250k salary - highest tax burden. In excess of 250K, lower.

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 6:24 PM

5:48 thanks for providing some real info. Can you provide a link to that Fannie Mae document?

Posted by: guest at March 10, 2008 9:01 PM

So I have read almost all 102 of these comments and instead of Driving myself crazy I called a mortgage person who I read about in the NYT 2 weeks ago who also posts on here Brian Scott Cohen. Anyway, he spent the time on needed and really explained the loan limits and latest changes with the products. I suggest everyone to call him since things seem to change everyday.

Brian Scott Cohen 718 780 9132
cell 646 584 8009

Posted by: guest at April 5, 2008 4:40 PM