Category: Commentary

Posted on

The Ohio Salvage Title Process

What a pain.

In June we purchased a nice/reasonable teenager car (1998 Escort ZX2).  Fairly low miles, good tires, with heat and AC for $1500.

Last week it was wrecked, or rather run into in a parking lot incident.   The damage wasn’t all that bad, but the suspension was broken.

IMG_3156 IMG_3163

The person was covered by Progressive.  All in all the claim service has been decent.  The problem is they won’t use any used/remanufactured/aftermarket suspension parts.  So the cost of fixing the suspension pushed passed the value of the vehicle.

Hence, it’s "Totaled".

It’s still a decent car given it’s purpose.  Good gas mileage, working AC, etc.

So we’re taking the settlement, minus the buy back ($250) and we’re going to fix it.   Cost to fix: ~$1200-ish.  that does not include a new bumper, but does include beating out the dent in the fender so it’s not so bad.  Remember, teenage driver, to/from school and work is it’s primary purpose.

So, the Salvage process goes like this.

To get the settlement from Progressive I have to convert the Title to salvage.  Cost: $5.00.

I then have to bounce next door and buy a Salvage Inspection Certificate.  Cost: $53.00.

The car is now Salvage and as such is not licensed to be on the road.  (We can’t drive it).  It will be fixed tomorrow or Saturday, but we’re stuck.  We can’t drive it until our inspection date which generally runs 30 days out.   The body shop had an inspection certificate which they claim is transferable so they made the inspection appointment for us for Dec 22nd.  So we’re without wheels until then.

We now wait for the car to be repaired, and for Dec 22nd to roll around.   We are permitted to drive it to the inspection location (on the certificate).

Once it passes, we then have to go back to the Title agency and convert the title to rebuilt salvage.  (Another $6.00).   Then again bounce next door to the registrar and pay to have the plate put back on it (Another $4.50).

The little costs add up, but it’s more the time and running around that’s a big pain in the butt.

It seems to me that this whole process could be streamlined for instant rebuilds like ours.   I recognize that most of them don’t go this way, but the typical 30 day lag for the inspection for instant rebuilds is a big inconvenience. 

Another fine example of how efficient our governments are.

Posted on

More Foreclosure Shenanigans

I really, really need someone to explain this whole foreclosure bailout thing to me.  I really do. 

I don’t have an MBA, but there are certainly a lot of guys working for these banks with MBA’s that now find themselves in a mess. 

Somewhere along your lifetime, growing up you should have learned this very basic rule:

Don’t borrow money you can’t pay back. 

Ideally, don’t borrow money at all, save for things and pay cash.   While paying cash is hard, and not always ideal or realistic.  Still, you don’t borrow what you can’t pay back. 

If you don’t pay back money you borrow there are consequences.

The people you borrowed from tend not to trust you, so they are likely to not loan it to you again.  Or if they do you’ll have to pay more (a premium) for defaulting on previously borrowed money.   That’s how the credit system works.

Don’t pay your rent, and you will have a harder time renting in the future, that is if you’re honest with your references or if the new landlord figures out that you didn’t pay previously (can also be on your credit record).

It’s sort of an extension of do unto others.

So now we find ourselves in this whole foreclosure mess.

People are crying they can’t pay their mortgages. (see rule above). 

If you made a bad loan, shame on you.  Do your best to work your way out, renegotiate, refinance, or maybe get an extra job.  Nobody should bail you out.

Banks are whining that they have too many people who (a) can’t pay and are being pushed into foreclosure.

So what?  You Mr. Banker made a bad loan.  That’s on you.  Renegotiate, or do what you gotta do, which may be foreclosure.  That’s the deal you signed, the bed you made.

But the banks are also whining: The loans are on properties who are now worth 1/3rd what we have loaned on them.   Example: Joe Consumer owes us $300,000 on a house that’s only worth $120,000 now.

Again, shame on your Mr. Banker you wrote bad business.  You’re a public, for-profit company.  You screwed up. 

Nobody, not the Government, (which is you and I as taxpayers) should be bailing out either of these parties.   The banks can renegotiate their deals if they wish.   Maybe cut some of their losses.  If it costs us a little more for checking, and maybe loans are harder to get and cost a bit more, well that’s the free market system.

The economy is tough, I get that.  

I’m not opposed to an unemployment extension that helps those who really need it. Maybe, a get out of your Mortgage payment for the term of your unemployment benefits

(the Government through unemployment benefits, could pay the bank some discounted percentage of your mortgage to keep you whole and current)

But nothing more.

If you’re a worker in Wilmington. Yes it’s sad, but that’s all it is.  It’s not the end of the world.

You knew going in there that DHL/Airborne was the only game in town.

With that comes risk.  If you put yourself in a house you can’t afford, and drive a car you can’t afford.  Shame on you.  That’s not my problem as a taxpayer.

I really need to understand how the Government spending money it doesn’t have to bail out companies that got into messes on their own, through their own greed helps anyone.

They are doomed to repeat this mess if they don’t learn from their mistakes.  You tend to learn from your mistakes when there are consequences for them.  Not when someone bails you out.

Posted on

Bank Bailout Boycott

In case you weren’t aware.  This document shows how the 170 billion dollars will be spent bailing out banks.

BankScoreCard

[You can download it here]

I am so against the Government bailing out public, or profit companies that have mis-managed themselves into this situation.

Just say no.

I encourage you not to do business with these companies.

Posted on

Taxation and Bar stool economics

(Sent to me via a co-worker and worthy of posting)

Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
  • The fifth would pay $1.
  • The sixth would pay $3.
  • The seventh would pay $7.
  • The eighth would pay $12.
  • The ninth would pay $18.
  • The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The 10 men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men – the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same proportion, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

  • The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
  • The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
  • The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
  • The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
  • The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
  • The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"’Yeah, that’s right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got 10 times more than I!"

"That’s true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night, the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.

When it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Posted on

Forrest Gump Explains Mortgage Backed Securities

(Passed to me via email, but worth posting)

Mortgage Backed Securities are like boxes of chocolates. Criminals on Wall Street stole a few chocolates from the boxes and replaced them with turds. Their criminal buddies at Standard & Poor rated these boxes AAA Investment Grade chocolates. These boxes were then sold all over the world to investors. Eventually somebody bites into a turd and discovers the crime. Suddenly nobody trusts American chocolates anymore worldwide.

Hank Paulson now wants the American taxpayers to buy up and hold all these boxes of turd-infested chocolates for $700 billion dollars until the market for turds returns to normal. Meanwhile, Hank’s buddies, the Wall Street criminals who stole all the good chocolates are not being investigated, arrested, or indicted.

Mama always said: “Sniff the chocolates first Forrest”.

—

Which just goes to show you this whole thing stinks 🙂