Mulcair can't pay off his mortgage

[MiddleClassCentrist]

*yawn*

Let me know if we find out he blew it on a get rich quick scheme or hookers.

Until then, arguments are just a bunch of hot air.

[Wilber]

Simply out of curiosity, I would be interested in knowing why a person would re mortgage their primary residence 11 times. It's something that never occurred to me.

[BubberMiley]

Simply out of curiosity, I would be interested in knowing why a person would re mortgage their primary residence 11 times.

Uh...to get money at a lower interest rate than a line of credit?

Edited May 29, 2012 by BubberMiley

[Fletch 27]

This Mulcair character is a greedy capitalist pig! (If that is indeed what he was doing or even possible at that time!).. Do your leftist self a favor and look at what interest rates were back in the late 80 and 90's... Not such a benefit to re-mortgage are All unless there was something really amiss in his finances and money management.

quote name='MiddleClassCentrist' date='28 May 2012 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1338246529' post='799329']

You are saying Mulcair is a poor money manager with no proof of poor money management.

Or you can educate yourself and understand something other than the corporatist party propaganda

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/05/28/maybe-mulcair-had-it-right/

[Fletch 27]

Uh.... He did virtually ALL of the recipient-mortgages I. A time with higher interest rates than what we have now or could even consider one close too. Something is very fishy with this "Mulcair" character...

Uh...to get money at a lower interest rate than a line of credit?

[Wilber]

Uh...to get money at a lower interest rate than a line of credit?

Not necessarily. The rate you can get on a line of credit depends a lot on your financial status. I'm not saying he is wrong, just that I would like to know the reasons behind it.

[cybercoma]

Mulcair's personal finances are really nobody's business, just as Vic Toews personal affairs are none of our business.

[fellowtraveller]

Simply out of curiosity, I would be interested in knowing why a person would re mortgage their primary residence 11 times. It's something that never occurred to me.

It is pretty normal to renew your mortgage several times in 30 years, though 11 seems like a lot unless you are doing continual short terms. It is defitniely odd to refinance 11 times, which is what Mulcair has done, to get cash out of the property.

The comment that 'you're taking advantage of low interest rates' is idiotic, since if you left your mortgage early to get a lower rate you'd be paying very hefty penalties. If you had an open mortgae you'd pay high interest rates continually.

It is curious that Mulcair would have a continual need for extra cash, given that he has beed steadil;y employed for a long time.

Maybe he joined St Jacques at the massage parlours.

[Wilber]

Mulcair's personal finances are really nobody's business, just as Vic Toews personal affairs are none of our business.

That's true. On the other hand, they are asking for your vote.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Wilber

[waldo]

It is curious that Mulcair would have a continual need for extra cash, given that he has been steadily employed for a long time.

Maybe he joined St Jacques at the massage parlours.

your apparent first-hand knowledge is recognized... how do you finance your visits to le salon de massage?

[CPCFTW]

Mulcair is probably just Smith Manoevring. Pretty good idea... you diversify your assets and turn your mortgage into a tax deductible loan.

But that doesn't change the fact that he still leads a party that would destroy Canada.

I agree that this is a non-story, but so is almost everything in Canadian politics these days. At least the CPC aren't calling for Mulcair's resignation... that's a step up from the dippers and grits MO.

And assuming that it is the Smith Manoevre, it is quite ironic that the wealthy leader of the party that wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, is using a tax avoidance strategy. I'm not sure what would be worse for him politically: to be viewed as an incompetent money manager, or to be viewed as a competent tax-avoiding wealthy 1%er.

Edited May 29, 2012 by CPCFTW

[bleeding heart]

Uh.... He did virtually ALL of the recipient-mortgages I. A time with higher interest rates than what we have now or could even consider one close too. Something is very fishy with this "Mulcair" character...

By Jove!

You are insightfully implying that this might not even be his real name!

Where does the "Mulcair" evil end? Who knows?

[mentalfloss]

By Jove!

You are insightfully implying that this might not even be his real name!

We've already established his real name is "Smith Maneuvering".

[BubberMiley]

The rate you can get on a line of credit depends a lot on your financial status.

That's true, but the same individual will always get a better rate with a secured loan than an unsecured one.

[Wilber]

That's true, but the same individual will always get a better rate with a secured loan than an unsecured one.

True but the only way to get the lowest rate is to have no debt. You also need equity to get a secured loan. Guess I'm just not wired to always have my most important asset constantly leaveraged.

[Evening Star]

Which ignores the lawsuit that Pat Martin (prominent NDP) is facing right now from the owner of the company he Edmonton he slandered over Robocalls. Martin may have to refinance his house 11 times too when that bunfight is over. He was even given an opportunity to apologize, but waited too long.

That was a lapse in judgment but Martin was not smearing a political opponent over personal matters that have nothing to do with politics. This is something different entirely.

[guyser]

Mulcair's personal finances are really nobody's business, just as Vic Toews personal affairs are none of our business.

Wasnt Helene Guergis required , or admonished , for hiding her mortgage? Is there a difference here?

[fellowtraveller]

That was a lapse in judgment but Martin was not smearing a political opponent over personal matters that have nothing to do with politics. This is something different entirely.

How so? Both forgot they were out of the House and shot off their gobs in an untruthful way.

And the result will be the same: personal liability for politically based lies.

[Rick]

By Jove!

You are insightfully implying that this might not even be his real name!

Where does the "Mulcair" evil end? Who knows?

I suspect they'll be demanding to see his birth certificate and proof of birth to confirm he is who he says he is Edited May 29, 2012 by Rick

[Canuckistani]

It's his real name. He legally changed it from Karl Marx Satan III. He felt that it was a drag on his political schemes ambitions.

[jbg]

Now I agree there can be any number of reasons why you would remortgage your house. But 11 times? This is a couple who have always had a comfortable family income, yet in thirty years he has made no progress in paying off his mortgage. In fact, his original mortgage of $58,000 is now $300,000. He has no equity in his house after thirty years of living in it? That doesn't suggest to me that this is a man who has any ability to manage his finances. It also suggest to me this guy doesn't think or care much about how much debt he's in, or worry about what happens if interest rates rise or his income falls. So why would we think he would handle Canada's finances any better than his own?

NDP leader remortgages house 11 times

I am not one to take Mulcair's side.

That being said, I have owned my home for close to 20 years and have remortgaged three (3) times, all at lower rates. I would do so now but I am relatively close to paying it off. From a tax point of view paying off a mortgage, at least in the U.S. is not particularly smart. I enjoy sleeping at night, however. In Mulcair's situation, over thirty years though there would be a sharp increase in value. With values rising and rates dropping, refinancing comes naturally.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I agree that this is a non-story, but so is almost everything in Canadian politics these days.

True on the non-story for most of Canadian politics.

I'd say that the current conservative government's policies are pretty big stories that need to be discussed and well known though.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This Mulcair character is a greedy capitalist pig! (If that is indeed what he was doing or even possible at that time!).. Do your leftist self a favor and look at what interest rates were back in the late 80 and 90's... Not such a benefit to re-mortgage are All unless there was something really amiss in his finances and money management.

You do know that when interest rates are high, investors demand higher interest rates right?

Saying that investments would stay around today's low interest rate levels when lending rates are huge is laughable.

When were you born? Do you know anything about finances? A first year finance course would teach you that, a first year accounting would likely teach you that again...

Needless to say, I'm starting to question your expertise on this subject.

Are you an economics major? Political Science?(LOLLOLOLOL)

Edited May 29, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Moonbox]

And do we know he used any of his own money for either? Nope.

What difference does it make? It's smarter to borrow on your house than just borrow from other sources. Payment terms and interest rates are better. Unless he had tens of thousands of dollars sitting around for his election campaigns, refinancing his house was probably the most financially intelligent way of getting the funds necessary.

It isn't unusual? So you're saying lots of Canadians remortgage their house ten or more times? Sorry. Having trouble buying that.

I'm wondering what you're basing your opinion on though. Clearly you're managing your finances well and not spending beyond your means, but that's less typcial of the average urban Canadian than the opposite. Look at Carney's warnings about record household debt levels. Housing prices and household debt levels have grown in tandem over the last 15-20 years. That should tell you all you need to know, without having to listen to my first hand experiences.

Because here's the thing. It often IS an indication of bad financial management when people constantly remortgage their house and take money out. It's a sign that people can't live within their means, and need to keep running up debt to buy stuff. It's also a sign of a lack of discipline in waiting until you have the money to pay for things.

You're right, but the problem isn't unique to Mulcair or a 'select few'. It's systemic in Canada. It's been this way since Trudeau and it has never stopped. Canadians, like Americans, are big spenders. The only things that saved us from a US-style housing collapse were stricter regulations. Vancouver/GTA are prime examples of the attitude of the 'average' Canadian.

[Evening Star]

How so? Both forgot they were out of the House and shot off their gobs in an untruthful way.

And the result will be the same: personal liability for politically based lies.

WTF are you even talking about? My comment was a response to TimG's comment that

Actually, this [the BS mortgage 'story'] is the kind of stuff that NDP always jumps on when it comes out. I don't happen to think that it is big deal because it is enjoyable to watch the NDP types flail around in hypocracy [sic].

He was implying, if not outright stating, that the NDP typically 'jumps on' personal stories about their political opponents in order to score political points and that it is thus hypocritical for 'NDP types' to decry this pointless invasion of privacy. I responded that I can't think of many examples of the NDP doing this (i.e. smearing political opponents over personal matters that are unrelated to politics) and that the two examples in recent memory (the leak of information about Toews's divorce and the exploitation of Bruce Carson's dating life) both came from the Liberals, which is in fact part of why I hold the LPC in such disdain. You then responded by bringing up a case where Pat Martin made unwise and hasty comments about a company's involvement in an actual political issue, which is something completely different and not apparently relevant to the topic in question. When I pointed out this difference, you're responding with what is afaict a reference to Mulcair's libel suit, again a different sort of situation from the ones I was talking about.

If Tim had said "NDP politicians tend to shoot off their mouths without always thinking first", your comments might be relevant. I would have a harder time disagreeing with that statement, by the way.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Evening Star