Tomorrow our living hell ends: the sale of our house in California closes. I've scheduled the gas & electric turn off, final water meter reading, and termination of our homeowner's insurance policy. It's going to take another couple weeks to finish up the HAP side of things, but dude: can I tell you? I am SOoooooo thankful the house itself is off our backs. The rest is just paperwork. I am not exaggerating when I say now that I NEVER, EVER want to own another house.
And when you think about the way mortgages work, when you really read all the papers you sign at closing when you're the buyer, and they factor out your eventual total cash outlay for the house including the interest, you're paying nearly double the price you agreed to. After 30 years of mortgage payments, not only has the bank received its full repayment of your loan, its also received an almost equal amount of interest. I swear if I'm ever delusional enough to desire home ownership again I'm saving up and paying in cash so the banks that made billions while destroying the world economy don't get another penny of my money.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Listen carefully
The short sale of our godforsaken house in California is supposed to close in two days, and we're still not quite sure how HAP is going to work. Whomever is entitled to HAP benefits and is already working with a counselor, make sure you understand EXACTLY what your options are and what the potential benefit limitations may be. In our case, which is almost a done deal, we ended up entirely changing direction on HAP Monday, based on new information from our counselor. The implementation guidelines are still what I'll call "fluid."
For example, the initial rule on PCS move beneficiaries was their mortgage payments had to be current as of the date they departed from their prior duty station. Monday it was hinted to me that the payments have to be current-current, not just current up to when you left. If that's the case now, a lot of people will be scrambling for money to catch up payments in order to qualify for assistance, although the whole friggin point of assistance is that you're in a new place, collecting BAH for this location or living on post, and have no money to pay a mortgage on a house you no longer live in near a duty station to which you are no longer assigned. So the whole "current-current" rule on the mortgage at the prior duty station puts an insane, virtually impossible criteria for the service members to meet, and is utterly retarded.
Plus, like I mentioned in my last post, the benefit calculation is NOT what I'm pretty sure we all thought it was. The difference is staggering. Really, like a kick in the gut. Finding out we're still on the hook for money we don't have in order to close the sale... sickening.
If you read the interim final rule on the HAP program, PCS members have the 90 percent maximum benefit threshold. BUT... read down a little farther and you see that if the house goes through a short sale and you're still liable for the remaining balance, THEN the benefit threshold becomes 95 percent. I also heard if you go through a short sale, HAP will pay off the ENTIRE remaining shortage. Which is it? And how does one find out for sure which offer is going to be best for their given situation?
Seriously: I'm a Certified Defense Financial Manager, a Certified Internal Auditor, and an accountant. If I can't figure it out, and I've been specifically educated and certified to understand and audit government financial transactions for compliance with federal rules and statutes, what chance does anyone else have?
For example, the initial rule on PCS move beneficiaries was their mortgage payments had to be current as of the date they departed from their prior duty station. Monday it was hinted to me that the payments have to be current-current, not just current up to when you left. If that's the case now, a lot of people will be scrambling for money to catch up payments in order to qualify for assistance, although the whole friggin point of assistance is that you're in a new place, collecting BAH for this location or living on post, and have no money to pay a mortgage on a house you no longer live in near a duty station to which you are no longer assigned. So the whole "current-current" rule on the mortgage at the prior duty station puts an insane, virtually impossible criteria for the service members to meet, and is utterly retarded.
Plus, like I mentioned in my last post, the benefit calculation is NOT what I'm pretty sure we all thought it was. The difference is staggering. Really, like a kick in the gut. Finding out we're still on the hook for money we don't have in order to close the sale... sickening.
If you read the interim final rule on the HAP program, PCS members have the 90 percent maximum benefit threshold. BUT... read down a little farther and you see that if the house goes through a short sale and you're still liable for the remaining balance, THEN the benefit threshold becomes 95 percent. I also heard if you go through a short sale, HAP will pay off the ENTIRE remaining shortage. Which is it? And how does one find out for sure which offer is going to be best for their given situation?
Seriously: I'm a Certified Defense Financial Manager, a Certified Internal Auditor, and an accountant. If I can't figure it out, and I've been specifically educated and certified to understand and audit government financial transactions for compliance with federal rules and statutes, what chance does anyone else have?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Punching a gift horse in the mouth
I have a lot of nerve to bitch about this, but when there's a $45,591.50 semantic difference in our HAP benefit I need to tell you about it. I hope no one else had the same mistaken impression that I did.
My understanding of the HAP benefit was we are eligible to receive 90 percent of the difference between our purchase price and the amount we get from the new buyer. In our case, that would be $615,000 we paid, minus $500,000 it sold for, for 90 percent of our $115,000 loss = $103,500.
Yeah; no, that's not how it works. It's 90 percent of the $615,000 we paid, so $553,500, minus the $500,000 it sold for, for a final benefit amount = $53,500. That's a $50,000 difference. So instead of losing $11,500 due to our military service, we're out $61,500. That was about my annual salary in California, which means the military effective cost us a year of my life.
I'm not sure this is better than a sharp stick in the eye. At least a sharp stick in the eye is free.
My understanding of the HAP benefit was we are eligible to receive 90 percent of the difference between our purchase price and the amount we get from the new buyer. In our case, that would be $615,000 we paid, minus $500,000 it sold for, for 90 percent of our $115,000 loss = $103,500.
Yeah; no, that's not how it works. It's 90 percent of the $615,000 we paid, so $553,500, minus the $500,000 it sold for, for a final benefit amount = $53,500. That's a $50,000 difference. So instead of losing $11,500 due to our military service, we're out $61,500. That was about my annual salary in California, which means the military effective cost us a year of my life.
I'm not sure this is better than a sharp stick in the eye. At least a sharp stick in the eye is free.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Hmm... interesting.
This story from Newsweek fascinated me since I currently live in Germany. It may give Americans something to think about.
Military Family Month -- more empty words
A cliché throughout the military is if they wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one in boot camp. It is widely understood that if their child is sick, or has an orthodontist appointment, or there’s a school function during the day, the service member is not the one dealing with it. The service member will never be the one to call the office and say, “Sorry; my kid has a fever. I can’t come in today.” Career service members did not advance through the ranks by living a balanced life. They advanced by putting the military’s demands first, every time, all the time.
The disjointed efforts of the Department of Defense to promote spousal employment are not likely to accomplish anything until they address that imbalance in family responsibilities inherent to military life. Military members’ long duty hours, deployments, TADs, and PCSs are too disruptive for a spouse to sustain or grow a civilian career, or manage a full-time student course load.
Unless the military starts functioning predictably, no scholarships or spousal hiring preferences are going to change the military family dynamic. Since that’s never going to happen, all these spousal education and employment initiatives are just more “benefits” that sound good but benefit very few people.
The disjointed efforts of the Department of Defense to promote spousal employment are not likely to accomplish anything until they address that imbalance in family responsibilities inherent to military life. Military members’ long duty hours, deployments, TADs, and PCSs are too disruptive for a spouse to sustain or grow a civilian career, or manage a full-time student course load.
Unless the military starts functioning predictably, no scholarships or spousal hiring preferences are going to change the military family dynamic. Since that’s never going to happen, all these spousal education and employment initiatives are just more “benefits” that sound good but benefit very few people.
Monday, November 9, 2009
November is Military Family Month. So?
November is “Military Family Month,” and the Department of Defense put out yet another self-congratulatory press release about all the wonderful initiatives they’ve developed for us. It also included several sentences of pandering praise for our strength, and thanks for the sacrifices military families make every day.
Elsewhere on the web site for Tommy T. Thomas, deputy undersecretary of defense for military community and family policy, one can find a 2007 demographic study of the military, and the results of a comprehensive family survey conducted in 2008. The problem is, they don’t publish their interpretation of either of these resources. Rather than the tabulation of raw data, I’d prefer to see the inferences gleaned from it and the go-forward plan to address the findings.
For example, the demographic research shows the military is committing billions of dollars in resources for military family members, who far outnumber active-duty personnel. Housing, medical care, dental care, schools, and relocation costs are some of the obvious big-ticket items coming out of the Department of Defense’s personnel budget for military family members; then there’s the self-funded initiatives like morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR), and the commissaries and retail exchanges. (An aside about the exchanges: who are the buyers? And what planet are they from, with some of their clothing inventory choices? Truly, the exchanges should not count as a benefit, because two-thirds of what they sell is total crap.)
More to come on this subject.
Elsewhere on the web site for Tommy T. Thomas, deputy undersecretary of defense for military community and family policy, one can find a 2007 demographic study of the military, and the results of a comprehensive family survey conducted in 2008. The problem is, they don’t publish their interpretation of either of these resources. Rather than the tabulation of raw data, I’d prefer to see the inferences gleaned from it and the go-forward plan to address the findings.
For example, the demographic research shows the military is committing billions of dollars in resources for military family members, who far outnumber active-duty personnel. Housing, medical care, dental care, schools, and relocation costs are some of the obvious big-ticket items coming out of the Department of Defense’s personnel budget for military family members; then there’s the self-funded initiatives like morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR), and the commissaries and retail exchanges. (An aside about the exchanges: who are the buyers? And what planet are they from, with some of their clothing inventory choices? Truly, the exchanges should not count as a benefit, because two-thirds of what they sell is total crap.)
More to come on this subject.
Friday, November 6, 2009
HAP update - benefits are tax-free!
President Obama is scheduled to sign the bill extending unemployment benefits and continuing the first-time home buyer tax credit today, according to NBC news Thursday evening.
There are few reports of the other issues attached to this legislation, so it took a lot of digging to learn that the provision to make HAP benefits non-taxable as income is included.
God bless America, finally doing something that provides meaningful help to military families.
There are few reports of the other issues attached to this legislation, so it took a lot of digging to learn that the provision to make HAP benefits non-taxable as income is included.
God bless America, finally doing something that provides meaningful help to military families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
