Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Repossessions

1235789

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,859 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    I think it would be a hoot if the ODS members decided to set themselves up outside the development and resolved to stay there until the Kellys were let back into "their" house.

    I'd love to see just how far the neighbours loyalty to the Kellys would stretch having a tent village of smelly hippies camped outside their doors for months on end.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Duckjob wrote: »
    I think it would be a hoot if the ODS members decided to set themselves up outside the development and resolved to stay there until the Kellys were let back into "their" house.

    I'd love to see just how far the neighbours loyalty to the Kellys would stretch having a tent village of smelly hippies camped outside their doors for months on end.

    More likely they'd set up a squat in the property- like to see the Kelly's faces then :D


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    daviddwyer wrote: »
    Havent read the thread but how in the name of god did a bank lend to this man in 2004... he would have been 64 years old.

    Some ( but not all ) bankers made crazy lending decisions, in order to make the sale and get their bonus. I know of another case where they lent someone 50 times his annual income. Not surprisingly he is in the s**t now.
    No wonder the banking system fell apart.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    true wrote: »
    Some ( but not all ) bankers made crazy lending decisions, in order to make the sale and get their bonus.
    This is true. But for every crazy lending decision there was a crazy borrowing decision. Those ultimately responsible for the crazy borrowing decisions - the owners of the banks - have been severely punished. I don't see any particular reason why those who made bad borrowing decisions should be saved from their choice at the expense of the taxpayer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    HIS other propertys maybe in negative equity,ie he cant sell them, we only know half the story.
    The banks may have lent him 2 million , on the basis of house value s in 2006 ,ie most houses are down 50 percent.ie it was a classic pyramid scheme, the bank would lend you more to buy a house, cos you had houses valued at x, ie people were buying based on capital appreciation in the future.ie many landlords made no profit,maybe the rent covered 90 per cent of the mortgage.ie in ten years time , ill sell up and take my profit.
    makes no sense to borrow 150k, if the rental income is 1200 per month.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    riclad wrote: »
    makes no sense to borrow 150k, if the rental income is 1200 per month.

    Why not- thats a 9.6% gross ROI- a very decent rate of return (anything north of 7.5% makes the figures work as a generalisation). Even with the current reduction in mortgage interest as an allowable expense to 75%- providing there aren't any significant outgoings- this is still nicely in positive territory. The abolition of mortgage interest as an allowable expense would of course nuke this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭shangri la


    This is true. But for every crazy lending decision there was a crazy borrowing decision. Those ultimately responsible for the crazy borrowing decisions - the owners of the banks - have been severely punished. I don't see any particular reason why those who made bad borrowing decisions should be saved from their choice at the expense of the taxpayer.
    how were the bankers severly punished?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    shangri la wrote: »
    how were the bankers severly punished?
    I said the owners of the banks were severely punished.


  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭shangri la


    riclad wrote: »
    HIS other propertys maybe in negative equity,ie he cant sell them, we only know half the story.
    The banks may have lent him 2 million , on the basis of house value s in 2006 ,ie most houses are down 50 percent.ie it was a classic pyramid scheme, the bank would lend you more to buy a house, cos you had houses valued at x, ie people were buying based on capital appreciation in the future.ie many landlords made no profit,maybe the rent covered 90 per cent of the mortgage.ie in ten years time , ill sell up and take my profit.
    makes no sense to borrow 150k, if the rental income is 1200 per month.
    10.4% per annum.

    it makes perfect sense now. Cant drop much more than 10% and will almost certainely be worth more in 10 years.

    the masses never learn.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    shangri la wrote: »
    10.4% per annum.

    it makes perfect sense now. Cant drop much more than 10% and will almost certainely be worth more in 10 years.

    the masses never learn.

    40 thousand repossessions in the uk.....barely has a mention........


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    40 thousand repossessions in the uk.....barely has a mention........
    And only 5 per month in Ireland where the owners don't abandon the house. Crazy considering the number of mortgages that are 90+ days in arrears.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    shangri la wrote: »
    how were the bankers severly punished?

    4,500 are due for the chop by the end of the year- they're still trying to negotiate redundancy- but the sticking point is the bankers are not happy with being treated in the same manner as public sector redundancies, and are claiming special treatment. Screw them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    smccarrick wrote: »
    4,500 are due for the chop by the end of the year- they're still trying to negotiate redundancy- but the sticking point is the bankers are not happy with being treated in the same manner as public sector redundancies, and are claiming special treatment. Screw them.
    Indeed. Their organisation f*cked up so spectacularly that they had to be nationalised or go bust. Now they must reckon they are public servants... :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    What are the current figures for mortgages 6+ months in arrears?

    Any figures on how many mortgages 6+ months in arrears are primary dwellings as opposed to buy to let properties?

    Has a breakdown by county been published?


    If someone puts their house into a trust for their children and then can't pay their mortgage how difficult is it to repossess the house? What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    arbitrage wrote: »
    What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?
    Ethics?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 372 ✭✭Nidot


    arbitrage wrote: »
    What are the current figures for mortgages 6+ months in arrears?

    Any figures on how many mortgages 6+ months in arrears are primary dwellings as opposed to buy to let properties?

    Has a breakdown by county been published?


    If someone puts their house into a trust for their children and then can't pay their mortgage how difficult is it to repossess the house? What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?

    That would be considered trying to move the property out of the reach of the lender from which the lender would the ask for a court order to be made to annual the transfer , ala sean quinn and his property dealings at the moment up in the high court.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    arbitrage wrote: »
    If someone puts their house into a trust for their children and then can't pay their mortgage how difficult is it to repossess the house? What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?

    Whats to stop them?
    The law actually.
    If a property has a lien (mortgage) on it- the lender has first call on the equity in the property, and ownership of the security (the property) cannot be transferred elsewhere without their prior agreement. The 1976 law regarding family homes is not designed as a mechanism to by-pass the security on the loan- if it were, all mortgages would be considered unsecured loans, on parr with credit card debt, and wiped clean under the proposed personal insolvency act (which most certainly is not the case).

    A property could of course be purchased for the beneficial ownership of a trust- however, until such time as any outstanding debts associated with the property were discharged- the property itself would continue to be under the control of the lender until such time as any tier one debts were cleared.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    arbitrage wrote: »
    ...

    If someone puts their house into a trust for their children and then can't pay their mortgage how difficult is it to repossess the house? What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?

    Fecks sake is that you Sean ?

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    Nidot wrote: »
    That would be considered trying to move the property out of the reach of the lender from which the lender would the ask for a court order to be made to annual the transfer , ala sean quinn and his property dealings at the moment up in the high court.
    who ultimately pays the fees if the annulment is successful?

    I would assume all the fees could run into the tens of thousands for a high court action?


  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    The crowd that the banks evicted in Killiney with 21 other properties had most of their property in trust for their children even though there was mortgages on most if not all the properties. Another family sold their heavily mortgaged pub to a private ltd company which they themselves owned and their lender only became aware of this after bringing them to court.

    It is going to cost the banks and ultimately the taxpayer a fortune getting these annuled and if it is easy and straightforward to place a mortgaged property into a trust I can see it becoming quite common to keep the wolf from the door that bit longer.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    arbitrage wrote: »
    The crowd that the banks evicted in Killiney with 21 other properties had most of their property in trust for their children even though there was mortgages on most if not all the properties. Another family sold their heavily mortgaged pub to a private ltd company which they themselves owned and their lender only became aware of this after bringing them to court.

    It is going to cost the banks and ultimately the taxpayer a fortune getting these annuled and if it is easy and straightforward to place a mortgaged property into a trust I can see it becoming quite common to keep the wolf from the door that bit longer.

    A few lengthy jail terms should dissuade people from the notion that this is a viable course of action- and I for one, would support this to the fullest extreme.....

    It is not acceptable that people should imagine the tax payer will step in and pick up the tabs for these actions- there is a disincentive in that actions of this nature are illegal- however people should have no expectation whatsoever of a gain or not having to pay for actions taken against them.

    Perhaps- removal of citizenship/right to a passport etc might be a path someone might like to explore as a disincentive?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭who_ru


    the whole repossessions issue is now a political football that no party is prepared to tackle. i don't really see any prospect of a resolution either under the current circumstances.

    as a result we will see more people going into arrears, no longer making payments on their mortgages, essentially being given free accommodation for maybe 1-2 years, even longer in some cases.

    meanwhile the private renter continues to get screwed over by high rents, properties owned in some instances by BTL landlords in arrears themselves, and with little chance of being able to access mortgage credit.

    a dreadful situation all round.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    who_ru wrote: »
    the whole repossessions issue is now a political football that no party is prepared to tackle. i don't really see any prospect of a resolution either under the current circumstances.

    as a result we will see more people going into arrears, no longer making payments on their mortgages, essentially being given free accommodation for maybe 1-2 years, even longer in some cases.

    meanwhile the private renter continues to get screwed over by high rents, properties owned in some instances by BTL landlords in arrears themselves, and with little chance of being able to access mortgage credit.

    a dreadful situation all round.
    Nobody wants to look like a bad (i.e. realistic) guy, so it will be kicked around until either a populist policy or a populist party 'resolves' the issue at the expense of everybody else. Nobody has yet explained how taxing one person to pay the debts of another will 'boost the economy'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    I'd love if people did not buy repossessed houses. The banks are getting away Scott free. They were the professionals giving out mortgages to people who should never have been given them in the first place.

    And how in Gods name were Bank of Scotland allowed to up sticks and leave the market so easily. It was those bastards who first introduces the 110% mortgages.

    It these banks had not been nationalised those people who are happy to allow people drown in debt for the rest of their lives might be whistling a different tune.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Nobody wants to look like a bad (i.e. realistic) guy, so it will be kicked around until either a populist policy or a populist party 'resolves' the issue at the expense of everybody else. Nobody has yet explained how taxing one person to pay the debts of another will 'boost the economy'.

    My understanding from those economists looking for debt forgiveness is that those who are currently under so much debt are not spending and are unlikely to spend in the medium term. This will in turn hurt those companies and professionals offering services. By reducing their debt it allows them to inturn start spending again and employing the services of professionals. So while we may pay more taxes it would be offset by an increase in business.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    arbitrage wrote: »
    The crowd that the banks evicted in Killiney with 21 other properties had most of their property in trust for their children even though there was mortgages on most if not all the properties. Another family sold their heavily mortgaged pub to a private ltd company which they themselves owned and their lender only became aware of this after bringing them to court.

    It is going to cost the banks and ultimately the taxpayer a fortune getting these annuled and if it is easy and straightforward to place a mortgaged property into a trust I can see it becoming quite common to keep the wolf from the door that bit longer.

    in the uk...the land agency will not transfer the deeds until they get the ok off the lendeer...

    no transfer...no ownership......

    sell it as many times as you like...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    smccarrick wrote: »
    A few lengthy jail terms should dissuade people from the notion that this is a viable course of action- and I for one, would support this to the fullest extreme.....

    It is not acceptable that people should imagine the tax payer will step in and pick up the tabs for these actions- there is a disincentive in that actions of this nature are illegal- however people should have no expectation whatsoever of a gain or not having to pay for actions taken against them.

    Perhaps- removal of citizenship/right to a passport etc might be a path someone might like to explore as a disincentive?

    And what of the professional bankers who have ruined this country through their professional negligence? They get a free pass???????


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭carey2010


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'd love if people did not buy repossessed houses. The banks are getting away Scott free. They were the professionals giving out mortgages to people who should never have been given them in the first place.

    And how in Gods name were Bank of Scotland allowed to up sticks and leave the market so easily. It was those bastards who first introduces the 110% mortgages.

    It these banks had not been nationalised those people who are happy to allow people drown in debt for the rest of their lives might be whistling a different tune.

    Hang on now no one forced these people who are in arrears and cant pay their mortgages to take out such an excessive loan amount knowning damn well they wouldnt be able to pay it off trying to keep in with the jones.... if you ask me both parties are to blame for the circumstances of the country right now


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    carey2010 wrote: »
    Hang on now no one forced these people who are in arrears and cant pay their mortgages to take out such an excessive loan amount knowning damn well they wouldnt be able to pay it off trying to keep in with the jones.... if you ask me both parties are to blame for the circumstances of the country right now

    Not everyone took out excessive loans. You have heard of the 400,000 people who have lost their jobs?

    BTW I'm not saying people should get a free ride. But the banks should take at least 50% of the loss. But since the FF traitors hung us out to dry by nationalising the banks we take exception to anyone getting relief.

    The banks should not be owned by the tax payer. That is the bigger crime.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'd love if people did not buy repossessed houses. The banks are getting away Scott free. They were the professionals giving out mortgages to people who should never have been given them in the first place.
    The point has been made a hundred times, so you must be deliberately ignoring it, but the banks have NOT gotten off scot-free. The owners of the banks have been wiped out, the senior management is gone. What else should happen to them? Should the bank tellers by publicly whipped? Should the IT people have burning oil poured on their nads?

    What do you want to see happen? :rolleyes:
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    And how in Gods name were Bank of Scotland allowed to up sticks and leave the market so easily. It was those bastards who first introduces the 110% mortgages.
    And they lost a fortune. How do you think they should have been 'kept' in the market? A chain around their staff? Block the ports?
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    It these banks had not been nationalised those people who are happy to allow people drown in debt for the rest of their lives might be whistling a different tune.
    Anyone who has a pension was a shareholder in the Irish banks. I doubt people would be happy to see their pensions decimated so people who decided their two-bed shoebox wasn't worth the half-million they borrowed for it after all could just not bother paying. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Not everyone took out excessive loans. You have heard of the 400,000 people who have lost their jobs?

    A significant portion of the 400,000 who are unemployed are in receipt of Mortgage Interest Supplement- which in many cases is 100%- so irrespective of whether or not their loans were excessive- they are being covered by the taxpayer.
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    BTW I'm not saying people should get a free ride. But the banks should take at least 50% of the loss. But since the FF traitors hung us out to dry by nationalising the banks we take exception to anyone getting relief.

    So make the banks take a 50% hit on mortgages. What happens next? We need to recapitalise the banks, yet again, to cover this. Add another 100 or 200 billion to the national debt. When our figures are this high, they are meaningless anyway........

    The exercise conducted by Blackrock on behalf of the government came up with a worse case scenario of 12% default on mortgages (and a best case of 7%). The 12% default represents between 140 and 160 billion- the 7% a more manageable amount- but its all relative. Whatever way we look at this- we have a min of heading towards 100 billion- that will have to be magic'ed up from somewhere. Keep in mind- banks were made realise losses on loans of over a certain size, primarily commercial, but also development loans. Their mortgage book were not and have not been written down in a similar manner......... yet.
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    The banks should not be owned by the tax payer. That is the bigger crime.

    I agree with you here. Bank of Ireland were more prudent with their loan books- and are the only of the clearing banks to have managed to stay out of majority state ownership. AIB in comparison are fully state owned, and on their 3rd rescue in a little over 30 years (the first being a boom and bust in agricultural lending in the late 70's, the second being the life assurance debacle in the mid 80s- and here we are again.........)

    Personally I'd disband AIB altogether- having to bail them out 3 times is twice too many in my books- but I'd also chase Michael Summers etc- and make damn sure they got prison terms.

    They only bankers who are going to pay for the mess- are the 2-3000 being made redundant themselves- who seem to think they deserve better redundancy than offered to HSE and other public sector employees- and have managed via the IBOA to drag proceedings out for almost 2 years.......

    Politicians and Bankers have not copped how screwed up the country is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    My understanding from those economists looking for debt forgiveness is that those who are currently under so much debt are not spending and are unlikely to spend in the medium term. This will in turn hurt those companies and professionals offering services. By reducing their debt it allows them to inturn start spending again and employing the services of professionals. So while we may pay more taxes it would be offset by an increase in business.
    And what about the decrease in business from the money that the people who are paying extra tax now can't spend?? Which, oddly enough, is exactly the same amount that is being handed to to those who aren't paying their mortgages...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭who_ru


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Politicians and Bankers have not copped how screwed up the country is.
    they have. a long time ago as well. it's just they have prioritised their interests over ours.

    vote yes for jobs - what a f***ing laugh that is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    any pension holder was a shareholder in the Irish banks. I doubt people would be happy to see their pensions decimated so people who decided their two-bed shoebox wasn't worth the half-million they borrowed for it after all could just not bother paying. :rolleyes:

    this x 1,000,000


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    who_ru wrote: »
    vote yes for jobs - what a f***ing laugh that is.

    Perhaps.
    However- despite all our cutbacks thus far- we're still running a budget deficit of 13 or 14 billion- which has to be financed from somewhere. If we vote no- it would akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. Short of a general sovereign default- we'd be finished. We may have to default anyhow- but deliberately precipitating a default would be foolhardy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Perhaps.
    However- despite all our cutbacks thus far- we're still running a budget deficit of 13 or 14 billion- which has to be financed from somewhere. If we vote no- it would akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.

    The people who benefit most from the country currently borrowing 14 billion a year are the public servants and the public servant pensioners and the politicians. They are the ones still creaming it compared to most other people. The average public servant in Donegal or Drogheda is still paid double that in Downpatrick or Dundonald. The country is still spending double on the public service compared to what it did ten years ago. The sooner the house of cards is brought down the better, for the sake of our grandchildren.

    The banks are afraid to start repossessing in volume, because many there made such foolish lending decisions 4 or 5 years ago. The commission they got for mis-selling should be clawed back of the individuals concerned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭who_ru


    true wrote: »
    The people who benefit most from the country currently borrowing 14 billion a year are the public servants and the public servant pensioners and the politicians. They are the ones still creaming it compared to most other people. The average public servant in Donegal or Drogheda is still paid double that in Downpatrick or Dundonald. The country is still spending double on the public service compared to what it did ten years ago. The sooner the house of cards is brought down the better, for the sake of our grandchildren.
    absolutely.

    this is their primary motivation now if you ask me. Maintain the croke park agreement at all costs, when it's not even remotely transparent.

    they are still awarding increases in many depts across the public sector.

    makes me ill just thinking about it.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    true wrote: »
    The people who benefit most from the country currently borrowing 14 billion a year are the public servants and the public servant pensioners and the politicians. They are the ones still creaming it compared to most other people. The average public servant in Donegal or Drogheda is still paid double that in Downpatrick or Dundonald. The country is still spending double on the public service compared to what it did ten years ago. The sooner the house of cards is brought down the better, for the sake of our grandchildren.

    The banks are afraid to start repossessing in volume, because many there made such foolish lending decisions 4 or 5 years ago. The commission they got for mis-selling should be clawed back of the individuals concerned.

    If you want to sit down and look at actual figures- the social welfare budget along with HSE sanctioned disbursements- is per claimant 12-14% higher than the gross average pay of a public sector employee (of course this also includes Mortgage Interest supplement and a bewildering array of other entitlements- but the fact of the matter is that more is spent on the average social welfare recipient, than on the average public sector employee). We all hear the stories about the ridiculous excesses of politicians and bankers- because they make good headlines- they don't however reflect the average employee- they are not exceptional by any means, given we have so many of them- but they are also not the norm.

    Yes- the average public sector salary here is double that of a public sector employee in the UK- the inverse of this is our social welfare entitlements are, when enumerated, over 5 times the UK level. If you want to bring down public sector salaries and social welfare entitlements- you need to reduce the cost of living here- so it is comparable with where-ever you want to compare headline entitlements with.

    The recent OECD study on how austerity and cuts are affecting people- states plainly that the only group in Irish society largely unaffected thus far by austerity are pensioners. It also pointed out that workers are delibertly having smaller families while social welfare recipients are having larger families, and suggested the government to explore how to lower childcare costs for workers as a matter of urgency. Wonder how they'll address this one- seeing as its not even tax deductable. Also seeing as its the OECD and not the Troika- doubt anything will happen.

    We're getting away from the point of this thread though- which is repossessions.

    Our politicians love playing to the media- and have enshrined the family home in the constitution. They have also allowed us the top five most expensive- gas, heating, electricity, food, clothing, footwear and car tax and insurance in Europe. So- on the one hand they're the good guys- and on the other hand- they have made living here so expensive compared with most of Europe, that our social welfare and healthcare bill exceeds our total tax take (ignoring all other expenditure- including public sector pay and pensions). Sometimes you have to scratch your head to check- do these people really think money grows on trees?

    Irish society has historically been defined by parish pump politics- sure I'll vote for Jimmy and he'll get a new library for us, or a new road, or a swimming pool, or extra teachers for the school, or keep the local barracks open etc etc etc. Everyone is looking at how much they can grab for themselves at a local level- including the politicians, and no-one is looking at the bigger picture- actually governing Ireland as a small state on the periphery of Europe. And you know what- the few who have tried, and there have been a few, were punished by voters for not delivering the extra teacher, or filling in a few potholes or whatever.

    As long as the population refuse to accept that there isn't a magic money tree rooted in the back garden of the Taoiseach's office on Merrion Row- that can be liberally shaken for whatever today's pet project might be- we are finished, troika or no troika.

    The current arguments over whether we will be able to borrow more if we vote no to the fiscal treaty- are symptomatic of this. Do we really want to be incrementing our national debt by 10-15 billion a year ad infinitum? Where does it end? We are already considered toxic by the largest economy in Europe (Germany) and by the holders of 30% of Europe's government debts (Norway). If they allowed Greece default- we're certainly not the important spoke our leaders like to allude to. The only thing keeping us together- is the fear of Spain, France and Italy- and what they might do to ease their own predicaments- this weekends events make this even harder to call........


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    smccarrick wrote: »
    our social welfare and healthcare bill exceeds our total tax take (ignoring all other expenditure- including public sector pay and pensions).
    The healthcare bill is largely public sector pay and pensions. ~800,000 persons are entirely dependent on the state for all of their income, between the public sector and the unemployed. The workforce is what, 2, 2.4 million? The upshot is that out of every three people two are paying for the third in taxes. The solution obviously isn't to tax the two to keep the third in the manner to which they are accustomed, its to cut the spending on the third.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'd love if people did not buy repossessed houses. The banks are getting away Scott free. They were the professionals giving out mortgages to people who should never have been given them in the first place.

    And how in Gods name were Bank of Scotland allowed to up sticks and leave the market so easily. It was those bastards who first introduces the 110% mortgages.

    It these banks had not been nationalised those people who are happy to allow people drown in debt for the rest of their lives might be whistling a different tune.

    AFAIK it is not against forum rules to state a post is complete bullsh**.

    BTW I think basic economics and budgeting should be compulsory subjects in school upto junior cert and unless people got an C or better in it they should never be lent a penny or cent in their lifetime.
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    My understanding from those economists looking for debt forgiveness is that those who are currently under so much debt are not spending and are unlikely to spend in the medium term. This will in turn hurt those companies and professionals offering services. By reducing their debt it allows them to inturn start spending again and employing the services of professionals. So while we may pay more taxes it would be offset by an increase in business.

    Did it ever cross your mind that the ones ultimately paying for this will have less disposabole income to spend? :rolleyes:
    It used to be called robbing Peter to pay Paul.
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    The healthcare bill is largely public sector pay and pensions. ~800,000 persons are entirely dependent on the state for all of their income, between the public sector and the unemployed. The workforce is what, 2, 2.4 million? The upshot is that out of every three people two are paying for the third in taxes. The solution obviously isn't to tax the two to keep the third in the manner to which they are accustomed, its to cut the spending on the third.

    Doc away with you and your sensible opinions.
    Don't you know the majic money tree will pay for it all. ;)

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    A review of planning across 34 city and county councils found that in 2008 42,000 hectares were zoned for residential purposes — enough for 4m extra people on top of the 4.4m population at that time.


    An Taisce further claims that 40% of the €75bn property portfolio transferred to Nama was categorised as “development land” which will be reclassified to agriculture over the coming years. This will result in the value of Nama’s development land plummeting from a paper figure of €30bn to a single-digit figure, costing tens of billions in losses for taxpayers over generations.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    The healthcare bill is largely public sector pay and pensions. ~800,000 persons are entirely dependent on the state for all of their income, between the public sector and the unemployed. The workforce is what, 2, 2.4 million? The upshot is that out of every three people two are paying for the third in taxes. The solution obviously isn't to tax the two to keep the third in the manner to which they are accustomed, its to cut the spending on the third.

    We have a total public sector of approx 395,000 (down about 50,000 since 2008, through non-replacement policies). While you may argue that this is too high- in comparison to other EU countries- its the second lowest number of public sector employees per head of population, and its the lowest 10 in the 2011 OECD survey. The portion of the healthcare bill, when ascribed to various subheads- has fallen significantly in the pay subhead since 2008 (superannuation has risen- but this is a reflection of increased numbers opting for early retirement on pre-wage cut salary scales).

    We have cut the paybill for the public sector- in two directions- by reducing numbers by 12% and also through paycuts and the abolition or serious curtailment of non-core pay disbursements (travel/various allowances etc). We have also initiated significant pension deductions for post 1995 employees. Certainly there is lots of further scope to tackle allowances and other payments- however the bashing the public sector gets on an ongoing basis in the media- almost seems like a vendetta, rather than a fair assessment of the situation- when you sit down and look at the figures.

    With respect of our unemployment bill- the fact of the matter is that the vast bulk of the new unemployed are predominantly men, many of whom left school early without any qualifications- to get into the construction sector (and who can blame them when brickies were bringing home more net pay than public sector surgeons). When the bubble burst- this cadre of people had no fallback position- and indeed if the economy recovers- unless they receive significant training and assistance towards qualifications- they are going to languish on the dole queues forever (or unless they emigrate- as significant numbers are electing to do of their own volition).

    We have not made significant cuts to core social welfare entitlements- we have cut many of the fringe payments- and indeed the proposals are to cut even more of them. Our headline social welfare rates are startling- when compared to most EU countries- hell, our basic social welfare rate is higher than 3 of the members of OPEC. Our cost of living is higher here too- however we need to ask ourselves- what should social welfare pay for- and why is our system a disincentive to working- as it most certainly is........

    We have much wrong in our country- and do need to make significant revisions to literally everything we do. Playing the private sector card against the public sector- and vice versa- is simply letting the politicians off the hook- and honouring the sacrificial goat that Independent Media like to roast- as it sells papers....... Much is wrong in our country- and we do need debate- however instead of regurgitating sensationalism from the Indo- its probably better to look at facts........?


  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    Any figures for the number of mortgages granted so far this year?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    arbitrage wrote: »
    Any figures for the number of mortgages granted so far this year?
    Off the top of my head, the numbers are down 93% in volume terms since the peak of the bubble, and 97% in value.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭Villa05


    arbitrage wrote: »
    Have any figures been given on the percentage of mortgages on interest only deals? What is the average term for these deals?
    Down 30% on the previous quarter


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 661 ✭✭✭thewing




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Davy's hinting at necessity to repossess BTL in arrears.
    It is a no brainer really unless you have an angle for the status quo.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0817/davy-urges-banks-to-take-action-on-btl-mortgages-business.html

    http://www.davy.ie/LR?id=5281


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Repossessing any property not protected under the Family Home act- is a total no-brainer..... Why is it so controversial? Its simple business practice- you have a loan secured on an asset. You are unable to service the loan. QED, you loose the asset. It really is that simple.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Repossessing any property not protected under the Family Home act- is a total no-brainer..... Why is it so controversial? Its simple business practice- you have a loan secured on an asset. You are unable to service the loan. QED, you loose the asset. It really is that simple.

    All very well, but the bank then has to realise the asset. That means throwing more property on the market and further depressing prices. That leads to more negative equity and more arrears leading to further repossessions and on it goes. It will also cause higher rents since the supply of rental property will go down. This creates a problem for prospective buyers who cannot save a deposit because of higher rents and because the banks will insist on a higher deposit because of falling prices caused by selling former buy to lets.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    It will also cause higher rents since the supply of rental property will go down.
    I don't see how - it's not like the property vanishes, it is either bought buy a landlord and ends up back on the rental market, or houses a household, thereby reducing the demand for rental property by one unit.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement