Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling
"Most of the time"? The default rate and foreclosure rate across Canada would certainly disagree with that.
A hundred bucks isn't likely going to make the difference if someone gets laid off. They're either going to be screwed or they're not. If I got laid off I'd have been screwed short term but might have found work. If not I'd likely have moved out with someone and rented the place out and waited. If in the end I need to bail a 35, 30 or 25 year amortization at the time wouldn't have made a difference. If I had to amortize over 25 years I likely would have had the same amount of payment because I'd be at the lower amortization but in smaller house.
I'm not saying the change is a necessarily a bad one, I just disagree with the applauding that it needed to be done to save Canadians. If anything, it might hurt anyone that's bought since 2006 or anyone who owns a house if it moves prices down.
I just got an automatic increase on one of my smaller credit cards. As well as new cheques for a low 1.9% interest rate until January 2013. That brings my total available credit card debt up to $19,400 with $600 currently used.
If the government wants to stop Canadians from hurting themselves focus on an area that they do. Focus on limiting what the stupid people have access to quickly at outrageous interest rates.
|
It's not just about the $100/month. People should not base their lives on
monthly payments. The principal owing is what really counts.
If we didn't have changes to extend to 30-35 and 40 amortizations we wouldn't be paying 500K for 275K houses. We could then afford bigger downpayments and with people less stressed financially we would have more spending at the malls etc. The economy overall would be healthier.