Media: Article - Home Repossessions surge to 60 a week

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I genuinely don't get the idea that 'something must be done to keep people in the family home'. Surely the home is where the family is. I mean it makes a mockery of those of us who rent. I have a home. It's not mine. I don't expect to stay in it if I can't afford it just because I have a child

The idea that there is a moral principle involved in the policy of preventing repossession does not stand up to any scrutiny.
This is being done for the same reason as NAMA was set up. i.e. to stop the property market from dropping too sharply and finding it's level, thereby exposing the insolvency of the banking system (now largely government owned)

Whenever a mortgage goes into arrears and stops being paid for then the cost of the house is ultimately borne by wider society. (This happens fairly directly in a country with a high proportion of state-owned banks)
Society has a duty to provide for those in need of housing. In a welfare state, government fulfills this role through taxation and spending the money on social housing, rent supplement etc...
When repossession is not permitted then society is indiscriminately subsidising the asset purchase of any individual or company who does not make repayments on secured loans.
In many cases, where families would lose their homes through repossession and repayments have not been made on the mortgage due to the family not being able to pay then society/government will continue to pay for that family's housing need after repossession takes place.
In many other cases, houses on which repossession is sought are vacant or are being rented out and the rent received not used to pay the mortgage or belong to an owner who can pay the loan.
In these cases society/government's resources that are being used are at the expense of those who are eligible for housing assistance.

The policy of the last few years where repossession was largely prevented just exaggerates social inequity.
Those that were (at least at one time) sufficiently wealthy/well paid to take out a mortgage for a house can effectively skip the long queue that is the housing list and, ignoring any eligibility requirements, take a shortcut to subsidised housing at the direct expense of those who are waiting longer and may be in more pressing need.
Those that were never able to take out a mortgage (e.g. those that were from less wealthy backgrounds and could not borrow deposit from family, those that were educationally disadvantaged and did not have access to high paying employment as a consequence, those disadvantaged by disability or illness) are kept even longer waiting for their housing needs to be met as a consequence of the policy that home-owners are to be subsidised indiscriminately at the expense of everything else.

The policy of no-repossessions was enacted solely to try to hide the insolvency of the banks and not for any moral reason.

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

37k houses which haven't paid a penny in 2 years??! That's outrageous! Even if the house gets taken they've saved a fortune. Mother of God that's 25k I'd have saved in rent if I wasn't paying it for two years! And we're saving like crazy for a mortgage under new terms while paying high rent?

And 15k buy to let properties? They can't possibly all be vacant... Not with the rental market the way it is.

God I should just not read this stuff. It's depressing. We're so close but feel so far from our own place

You know what you do.
During the run up to next years election, when your local politicans call ask them if they think there should be some form of debt forgiveness for the "poor people" in mortgage default.
I would bet most if not all will start bluddering on about helping those "poor people".

Then hit them with the jist of your post and tell them go fund it themselves out of their politicans salaries.
Actually personally I would tell them go f000k themselves.

And I can think of very prominent politican who I talked to pre last general election who is all for helping those in mortgage arrears.
Yes stand up mr stephen donnelly and take a bow.
I always marvel how many laud this so called financial expert (what with the CV he keeps trotting out) who thinks it is ok to bail out mortgage defaulters at the cost of others trying to get a home (rented or purchased).