Should tax payers bail out mortgage defaulters?

bobblepuzzle · 18-11-2010 10:29pm #1

What would be your view on this topic?

There seems to be a few diffrent trains of thought on it, a couple of which are:

a) They signed the contract (no matter what pressure was put on them by the banks) they should bare some responsibility for accepting the loan

b) The tax payers of the country are bailing the banks out... so why not give mortgage holders in arrears a break...

c) The properties they are in cannot be sold anyway, so what good is it to turf families out? Tax payers should keep essential facilities working ie. Electricity, Gas etc so the defaulters can concentrate on at least the interest on their mortgages...

d) This is life, they signed up to something that a lot couldn't realistically afford anyway in case of trouble... playing roullette if you will...

Personally, I'd go for A....

ronaneire · 18-11-2010 10:31pm

Least tomorrow is Friday

msg11 · 18-11-2010 10:37pm

If it puts a roof over someones head and holds up a DECENT family then no problem. Better than bailing out the banks. At leased the money will be put to use.

It could work something like this, if the government is paying there morgage, the government will own a certain % of the house at the end. If the person comes back into money, the option is there for the person to buy the % the government own back. 6 Month review of the persons finances to make sure, that if they are in the money the % the goverment pays will either drop to nothing or will adjust to suit the deficit the person has between how much they are paid and how much they have to pay (living expenditure)..

We could all just be stuck up about it and say, not my problem they signed this, there problem. Come on, these people need help. I'm sure they understand the mistakes they made, and I am sure if they could turn back time they would.

bobblepuzzle · 18-11-2010 10:46pm

msg11 wrote: »

If it puts a roof over someones head and holds up a DECENT family then no problem. Better than bailing out the banks. At leased the money will be put to use.

It could work something like this, if the government is paying there morgage, the government will own a certain % of the house at the end. If the person comes back into money, the option is there for the person to buy the % the government own back. 6 Month review of the persons finances to make sure, that if they are in the money the % the goverment pays will either drop to nothing or will adjust to suit the deficit the person has between how much they are paid and how much they have to pay (living expenditure)..

We could all just be stuck up about it and say, not my problem they signed this, there problem. Come on, these people need help. I'm sure they understand the mistakes they made, and I am sure if they could turn back time they would.

Government = Tax Payer...

Saila · 18-11-2010 10:48pm

this will go well

Axe Rake · 18-11-2010 10:49pm

Let's bail out ourselves you say? cool :pac:

msg11 · 18-11-2010 10:50pm

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

Government = Tax Payer...

And ?

Saila wrote: »

this will go well

Yeah just thinking that now..

bobblepuzzle · 18-11-2010 10:53pm

msg11 wrote: »

And ?

Yeah just thinking that now..

What do you mean "and?" Say it as it is, and don't water it down... tax payers will be paying for your ideas...

baldbear · 18-11-2010 10:53pm

I wish after hours was funny again! Mortgage talk in a/h! Well holy god..

Atlantic Dawn · 18-11-2010 10:54pm

Each person who has no mortgage should pay the part of the interest the mortgage holder can not afford and this will bring them very much luck in the future

stepbar · 18-11-2010 10:54pm

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

What would be your view on this topic?

There seems to be a few diffrent trains of thought on it, a couple of which are:

a) They signed the contract (no matter what pressure was put on them by the banks) they should bare some responsibility for accepting the loan

b) The tax payers of the country are bailing the banks out... so why not give mortgage holders in arrears a break...

c) The properties they are in cannot be sold anyway, so what good is it to turf families out? Tax payers should keep essential facilities working ie. Electricity, Gas etc so the defaulters can concentrate on at least the interest on their mortgages...

d) This is life, they signed up to something that a lot couldn't realistically afford anyway in case of trouble... playing roullette if you will...

Personally, I'd go for A....

I'd go with A B and D as it's essentially the same answer. Bankruptcy laws need to be reformed in a serious way if people are to see any form of light at the end of the tunnel.

Flygimp · 18-11-2010 10:54pm

msg11 wrote: »

I'm sure they understand the mistakes they made, and I am sure if they could turn back time they would.

What mistakes have allot of these people made exactly...?

Unregulated banks with badly conceived stress tests for potential mortgage applicants and their wages per annum, would be a good starting point for scrutiny...

Allot of middle income earners bought family homes throughout the country with two adults on full time wages and could afford their mortgage payments. Now some of these households are down to one wage or worse... do you blame them for lack of fore sight in a country with a false economy, when the price of houses rose on sentiment alone.

My name is URL · 18-11-2010 10:54pm

There's talk that we'll be 'borrowing' 140 billion from the IMF/ECB. I'd like to think that some of that will go towards helping the same people in the short term that are expected to pay the loan back in the long term.

bobblepuzzle · 18-11-2010 10:59pm

Flygimp wrote: »

What mistakes have allot of these people made exactly...?

Unregulated banks with badly conceived stress tests for potential mortgage applicants and their wages per annum, would be a good starting point for scrutiny...

Allot of middle income earners bought family homes throughout the country with two adults on full time wages and could afford their mortgage payments. Now some of these households are down to one wage or worse... do you blame them for lack of fore sight in a country with a false economy, when the price of houses rose on sentiment alone.

I agree, many middle income families could afford it at the time, and these are the people I feel most sorry for... not the married couples on 40 grand a year taking a 300 grand mortgage... some accountability must be placed on people who took those loans

msg11 · 18-11-2010 10:59pm

Flygimp wrote: »

What mistakes have allot of these people made exactly...?

Unregulated banks with badly conceived stress tests for potential mortgage applicants and their wages per annum, would be a good starting point for scrutiny...

Allot of middle income earners bought family homes throughout the country with two adults on full time wages and could afford their mortgage payments. Now some of these households are down to one wage or worse... do you blame them for lack of fore sight in a country with a false economy, when the price of houses rose on sentiment alone.

I'm I missing something here ? Why are you quoting me if your saying the say thing. That's the mistake I am talking about ?

Look , I'll give it simple. Yes, they should be bailed out. Jesus we give wasters on the dole that have been on it years money.

Maybe I am just too soft, but there is something about a family keep ****ed out on the street that doesn't sit right with me..

stepbar · 18-11-2010 11:01pm

Flygimp wrote: »

What mistakes have allot of these people made exactly...?

Unregulated banks with badly conceived stress tests for potential mortgage applicants and their wages per annum, would be a good starting point for scrutiny...

Allot of middle income earners bought family homes throughout the country with two adults on full time wages and could afford their mortgage payments. Now some of these households are down to one wage or worse... do you blame them for lack of fore sight in a country with a false economy, when the price of houses rose on sentiment alone.

A mortgage is a LEGAL contract. No one forced anyone to sign same.

mickdw · 18-11-2010 11:02pm

Yes I definitely think the government should take partial ownership of houses that they are helping with mortgage repayments. They could base the ownership percentage on the inflated purchase price thereby giving the homeowner a bit of a leg up (by taking a smaller percentage than the current funding would realistically now buy). The Government could then wait for things to improve in a bid to break even on the deal. At least the government would be giving a properly secured loan unlike the whole Nama situation where little or no security existed against much of the loans the government have been forced to take on.

bobblepuzzle · 18-11-2010 11:04pm

mickdw wrote: »

Yes I definitely think the government should take partial ownership of houses that they are helping with mortgage repayments. They could base the ownership percentage on the inflated purchase price thereby giving the homeowner a bit of a leg up (by taking a smaller percentage than the current funding would realistically now buy). The Government could then wait for things to improve in a bid to break even on the deal. At least the government would be giving a properly secured loan unlike the whole Nama situation where little or no security existed against much of the loans the government have been forced to take on.

There you go with "government" again, say tax payer!!!! for god sake!!! irritating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

msg11 · 18-11-2010 11:08pm

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

There you go with "government" again, say tax payer!!!! for god sake!!! irritating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a different poster , it's was me the first time.

My name is URL · 18-11-2010 11:29pm

Those losing their homes and presently in court for not being able to keep up repayments should definitely be helped out. It'd be foolish not to have a plan in place. If thousands of people are effectively made homeless then the wider society will pay for it with increased welfare and affordable home subsidies. And it won't help the property market to improve by having even more empty and unaffordable houses.

stepbar · 18-11-2010 11:39pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Those losing their homes and presently in court for not being able to keep up repayments should definitely be helped out. It'd be foolish not to have a plan in place. If thousands of people are effectively made homeless then the wider society will pay for it with increased welfare and affordable home subsidies. And it won't help the property market to improve by having even more empty and unaffordable houses.

Banks can accept minimum payments if a borrower is upfront and honest. Perhaps a workable solution is that same banks accept minimum payments and freeze the mortgage until a point where borrowers can resume full repayments. Otherwise borrowers should be allowed to default and declare bankruptcy and come out the other end in a reasonable amount of time.

Joe C · 18-11-2010 11:42pm

People should accept the consequences of the decisions they make regardless of whether they are good or bad.

If you were silly enough to buy a house between 2003 - 2007 , tough luck as far I'm concerned.

Ronin247 · 18-11-2010 11:47pm

Lets see,I built a modest 3 bed house,scrimped and saved for years and had a 7 year old car and no holidays for years.

My neighbour built a massive 6 bedroom mansion,had 3 sunshine holidays a year and drove a brand new car every year.

I have a small mortgage I can afford while he is in deep trouble and someone thinks I should pay more taxes to help him out................

Fcuk them and the horse they rode in on.

If you cant afford the mortgage on the mansion move into a 2 bed semi in ballymun and let someone else buy your trophy house for E150,000

seaniefr · 19-11-2010 12:00am

We may as well get on with it and bend over & take one for the team as we as a people are going to have to get the vaseline out for the next 50+ years

dave1982 · 19-11-2010 12:09am

Lads i have a question there is most likely some reason why it can't be done.

Bailout money give it all to the banks but instead just giving it to them.

They pay off chucks of our mortgages to the banks

That way banks are getting their money

You and me have money to spend back into the shops get the businesses selling again,causing companies to start hiring people again

Taking people off the Dole

Please explain why this would not work

stepbar · 19-11-2010 12:47am

dave1982 wrote: »

Lads i have a question there is most likely some reason why it can't be done.

Bailout money give it all to the banks but instead just giving it to them.

They pay off chucks of our mortgages to the banks

That way banks are getting their money

You and me have money to spend back into the shops get the businesses selling again,causing companies to start hiring people again

Taking people off the Dole

Please explain why this would not work

Because people would just act in self interest and hoard the money given to same for free.

seaniefr · 19-11-2010 12:52am

dave1982 wrote: »

Lads i have a question there is most likely some reason why it can't be done.

Bailout money give it all to the banks but instead just giving it to them.

They pay off chucks of our mortgages to the banks

That way banks are getting their money

You and me have money to spend back into the shops get the businesses selling again,causing companies to start hiring people again

Taking people off the Dole

Please explain why this would not work

Simply put,
the amount that the banks owe to bondholders already as a result of the shoddy lending practices for the crazy get rich quick schemes is greater than the bailout being proposed not including the money owed by mortgage holders to the banks

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 3:32pm

If the state (taxpayer) pays your mortgage then the state (taxpayer) should take ownership of the house and charge you market rent*.

If you cant pay market rent then you need to find someplace cheaper.

Why should taxpayers who bought modest houses (or couldnt/didnt buy a house at all) have to bail you out.

* In current market conditions even that probably amounts to more of a subsidy than is really called for

Morlar · 19-11-2010 3:39pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Why should taxpayers who bought modest houses (or couldnt/didnt buy a house at all) have to bail you out.

This should be an interesting answer . . . .

Gunsfortoys · 19-11-2010 3:53pm

Families who are having trouble keeping a roof over their head = yes.

Twentysomething idiots who bought overpriced apartments the size of shoeboxes = No

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 3:58pm

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Families who are having trouble keeping a roof over their head = yes.
Twentysomething idiots who bought overpriced apartments the size of shoeboxes = No

So your criteria for deserving/undeserving is based solely on age and family status ?

Absurdum · 19-11-2010 4:01pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Why should taxpayers who bought modest houses (or couldnt/didnt buy a house at all) have to bail you out.

they'll be bailing out the bank who has to take the hit on it if the homeowner walks away anyway, won't they?

one big cluster**** of non-existent money having to be paid back innit:rolleyes:

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 4:02pm

Absurdum wrote: »

they'll be bailing out the bank who has to take the hit on it if the homeowner walks away anyway, won't they?

Two wrongs make a right ?

Gunsfortoys · 19-11-2010 4:05pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So your criteria for deserving/undeserving is based solely on age and family status ?

Families that have lost their jobs due to recession need help more than single people. I as a single person would not expect taxpayers to bail me out having bought an overpriced apartment regardless of whether or not I could pay it back or hope to sell it on in 5 years. Families that bought their properties as a roof for their children should receive help only in dire circumstances.

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 4:10pm

What about people who opted not to have kids because they knew they couldnt afford them ?

Families that bought their properties as a roof for their children .

Single people (and childless/childfree couples) have just as much need for a roof over their head as families.

msg11 wrote: »

Maybe I am just too soft, but there is something about a family keep ****ed out on the street that doesn't sit right with me..

Realistically how many people are going to be literally ****ed out on the street ? With all the thousands of empty properties lying about it should be possible for them to rent. It may not be a very nice thing to go through but theres a lot worse happening in the world.

Venom · 19-11-2010 4:17pm

For any bail outs to work there has to be a major downside so only those that really are up the creek without a paddle and not every chancer under the sun takes the option.

jimmycrackcorm · 19-11-2010 4:27pm

Who is it that pays the rent allowance for people who default on their mortgages and have their houses repossessed.

Absurdum · 19-11-2010 4:29pm

sooner or later we have to stop trying to apportion blame and start looking at realistic solutions to this mess

Thoie · 19-11-2010 4:30pm

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

a) They signed the contract (no matter what pressure was put on them by the banks)

Genuine question - were there banks out there forcing loans/mortgages on people? This keeps coming up - "the banks put pressure on me". No-one from the bank ever called to my door and threatened my goldfish if I didn't borrow money. Was I just not at home that day? Or is it that I didn't have a goldfish to threaten?

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 4:31pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Who is it that pays the rent allowance for people who default on their mortgages and have their houses repossessed.

rent allowance and having the state bailing someone with mortgage arrears out are hardly the same thing.

sollar · 19-11-2010 4:36pm

Yes we probably should help them out. At least they tried at life.

We have plenty who take take take from the state. Say some 18yr old lazy fecker decides that work is not for him so he spends the next 60 years on benefits. Thats about a million euro paid out to him alone. Not a word on that during the boom.

Paddyontherun · 19-11-2010 4:47pm

Joe C wrote: »

People should accept the consequences of the decisions they make regardless of whether they are good or bad.

If you were silly enough to buy a house between 2003 - 2007 , tough luck as far I'm concerned.

So a couple getting married in 2003 and looking for somewhere to live (more likely a modest property at the going rate) should have said oh we'll hang on until 2009 and buy then. Get real.

Morlar · 19-11-2010 4:55pm

Paddyontherun wrote: »

So a couple getting married in 2003 and looking for somewhere to live (more likely a modest property at the going rate) should have said oh we'll hang on until 2009 and buy then. Get real.

I would come down on the side of personal responsibility on this. That couple are not entitled to and should not expect a taxpayer bailout. That would be unfair to the other couples or single people who are currently in rented acomodation through choice or who couldn't afford a mortgage or who bought more modestly/sensibly.

Gunsfortoys · 19-11-2010 5:11pm

What about people who opted not to have kids because they knew they couldnt afford them ?

Eh, thats great they had the sense to do that.

Single people (and childless/childfree couples) have just as much need for a roof over their head as families.

No they don't, they do not have kids and they can get rented accommodation.

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 5:15pm

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

No they don't, they do not have kids

So childless/childfree people can do just fine sleeping out under the stars ?

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

and they can get rented accommodation.

Just like families can

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Eh, thats great they had the sense to do that.

Whats so confusing about not expecting other people to fund your lifestyle choices ?

BraziliaNZ · 19-11-2010 5:17pm

I think the morons who bought massively over valued houses and apartments deserve what they get and are as responsible for this destruction of a nation as the bankers and the politicians. Suck it up, how could you have been so stupid to pay that much money for a house not even within the M50?

Gunsfortoys · 19-11-2010 5:22pm

So single people can do just fine sleeping out under the stars ?

As I said they can get rented accommodation, they will get rent allowance anyway. No kids so they haven't many reasons to continue living in a property they can't afford.

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 5:23pm

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

As I said they can get rented accommodation.

As I said so can families.

Do pay attention !

gurramok · 19-11-2010 5:24pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

rent allowance and having the state bailing someone with mortgage arrears out are hardly the same thing.

True. If you cannot afford your house, there is the social housing option.

That is where you do not pay the market rent of the private rental sector but pay a portion of your income(usually very small) to the council.

I wonder will there be a bailout for those in rental arrears?

seamus · 19-11-2010 5:27pm

No-one ever goes without a roof over their head in this country unless they choose to.

I don't really see why we should worry about bailing people out of failing mortgages - it's only bricks and mortar at the end of the day. If you lose it, it's only a house, life goes on, not the end of the world, etc.

It should be made a less harrowing prospect of course to default on your mortgage, but I don't see any reason why people should be prevented from doing so.

jackal · 19-11-2010 5:31pm

There is a safety net, its called social housing, which is for people who cannot afford to put a roof over their heads.

/thread

Should tax payers bail out mortgage defaulters?

Are mortgage defaulters fair game for a Taxpayer bailout? 2 votes

Comments