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

Repossessions

  • 25-01-2012 11:26pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    From RTE News:

    8.1% of mortgages are in arrears (approx 60k)
    Half of these mortgages are viewed as unsustainable and will result in repossession after new legislation is introduced to 'help' home owners.

    Any views on when the banks will start to repossess these 30k properties and what will they do with them?

    Is there any speculation on distribution? I would assume SCD would be the main area with many houses over E200k in NE and many professionals on interest only payments after being made redundant. There is also the problem of paying huge mortgages for these people if we adopt the punt nua and the mortgages remain in euros.

    This basically puts an end to the question if we have hit the bottom yet.


«13456715

Comments



  • What about renters?
    Will the well connected get the biggest write downs?

    Why should person A pay taxes to help Person B live in an area Person A couldnt afford?!

    Lifestyle bailout funded by the plebs


  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    They didn't give much information in the clip but basically its up to the banks to agree on any write down, if any. Why a bank would agree to this instead of extending the mortgage term for example I don't know. Its a bandage on a bullet wound.


  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    Have any figures been given on the percentage of mortgages on interest only deals? What is the average term for these deals?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    If I'm paying to help some house owner in a lovely big house I could never afford then I'd at least like to become a lodger and get a nice room rent free for my money

    Any chance? :)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Any write down/ voluntary arrangement with banks will only be on unsecured assets under 20k in value (as per the heads of the bill). Option 3 of the personal restructuring arrangment is a new 3 year personal bankruptcy arrangement- where the person looses all possessions (again this is only from the heads of the bill).

    So- you can enter negotiations with your lender on un-secured debt up to 20k (this would include credit card and other types of debt, along with mortgage arrears below a certain level)- however if you fail to reach an agreement with your lender and opt for option 3- a limited time bankruptcy- you loose everything.

    Banks/building societies etc do not have to agree to do anything whatsoever. In the absence of an agreement with them- Person A in their mansion in Howth who has lost their job and has no means of repaying their debt- hands over the keys, along with all their possessions and is declared bankrupt.

    The big difference here- is a personal bankruptcy could be discharged in 3 years (versus the current 12). Note- this is only personal bankruptcies- business bankruptcies are covered under different legislation.

    Please note- only the heads of the bill have been published so far- the text of the bill is still being discussed and isn't due to be brought to the houses of the Oireachtas for some time..........


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,325 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    arbitrage wrote: »
    This basically puts an end to the question if we have hit the bottom yet.

    You're making an assumption that the banks will sell the repossessions at a lowball price. If NAMA is any indication then you cannot assume that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Just heard discussion about this on radio this morning, I think it was that pleb Darcy who claimed he would leave the country if kenny ever became Taoiseach.

    Anyway he starts mouthing off about how the one thing in this new proposal for bankruptcy and debt writeoffs is that the banks don't have empathy with those in mortgage trouble.
    How many of these media eejits are always on about how the poor hevily indebted mortgage holders need a break and yet never mention how the poor taxpayers that fund everyone of these "bailouts" or initatives never get a break.

    Also isn't it noticable how the politicans are dropping the terminology of debt forgiveness.


  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭shangri la


    You're making an assumption that the banks will sell the repossessions at a lowball price. If NAMA is any indication then you cannot assume that.

    what are the banks going to do with 30k repossed properties?

    Nama is a disaster of an organisation who won't even advertise or rent the majority of their properties. I wouldn't use them as an indicator of anything but state run inepitude.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    shangri la wrote: »
    Nama is a disaster of an organisation who won't even advertise or rent the majority of their properties. I wouldn't use them as an indicator of anything but state run inepitude.

    NAMA is not in my opinion a disaster of an organisation- while they may have sold off the low lying fruit todate- they have made significant profits from their transactions and generated a good return for the tax payer. You have to remember that NAMA are managing loans- they are not an estate agent, they are a loan management agency- which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Their remit is to wind down their assets and generate a return to the exchequer over a ten year period (there is talk of extending this even at this early stage)- they are not in any hurry to force the liquidation of performing assets- as long as the loans are being paid, that is what matters (thus far). Keep in mind- all loans over the threshold were transferred to NAMA- there was no distinction between good and bad loans- the loan books in their entirety were transferred en mass to the agency.

    People need to comprehend what NAMA is and what it does- bitching about NAMA property being vacant, or a lack of NAMA residential units hitting the market- is a lack of understanding of what their remit is, and what their chosen course of action is.

    Further- NAMA is an independent agency- while it owes the Irish taxpayer tens of billions of Euro- it has assets to back up these loans, and is making a good return (todate) to the exchequer.

    Lets give them a chance.........


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    shangri la wrote: »
    what are the banks going to do with 30k repossed properties?

    Nama is a disaster of an organisation who won't even advertise or rent the majority of their properties. I wouldn't use them as an indicator of anything but state run inepitude.

    Ah but I don't think they are been inept, I think they are doing exactly what they were set up to do.
    There job is to make sure that a glut of properties did not hit the market and thus depress it even further.

    It was setup to buy all the sh**e loans from the banks in the pretence that it was to save us money and make the banks viable to lend again as normal banks should do.
    Except it overpaid for the loans, hasn't really made a truly viable effort to recoup the loans from dodgy developer nor offload the crud that they have taken possession of in place of the loans.
    Added to that we still paid through the nose to recapitalise the banks on top of NAMA.

    We would have been as well off to nationalise the banks and put proper debt management structures in place, but no the government and its special advisors made a half arsed attempt at moving the crud away from the banks.

    Shure isn't everyone is a winner bar the taxpayers.

    The bankers have less headaches and don't have to chase their debtors,
    the developers are given time to straighen out their affairs ;);)
    there are loads of jobs for EA and acutioneers firms
    there are loads of jobs for the legal eagles
    there are jobs for more well connected developers to act as consultants
    the politicans that set it up dig out their mates in a fashion and said they did something about the mess. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    jmayo wrote: »
    How many of these media eejits are always on about how the poor hevily indebted mortgage holders need a break and yet never mention how the poor taxpayers that fund everyone of these "bailouts" or initatives never get a break.
    What really annoys me about comments like this is that people make it sound like the people getting bailout aren't or didn't pay tax. They are tax payer too you know, plus many paid stamp duty which was a massive chunck of tax that other tax payers never paid.

    It also seems many of you have read little or nothing about what this system is like or about. It is a change so as not to add an extra burden on the state and if you are missing that! Griping about how "your" taxes fund it bare in mind you would have to fund people a lot more if they were decalred bankrupt and lost their houses. I get being annoyed but try to actually think about it beyond "they are spending my money".

    It would be more acurate to accuse OAPs for spending your pension money becasue it certainly isn't their taxes that is paying for it. If anything this system looks like it will be a way for the government to get some return on the payments they made to the banks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    smccarrick wrote: »
    NAMA is not in my opinion a disaster of an organisation- while they may have sold off the low lying fruit todate- they have made significant profits from their transactions and generated a good return for the tax payer. You have to remember that NAMA are managing loans- they are not an estate agent, they are a loan management agency- which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

    Ahh come on now smccarrick.
    They have offloaded some property that would be saleable.
    They haven't touched some of the crud that is worthless.
    It would always have been easier to offload stuff outside this country.
    Lets see them offload the stuff in the middle of nowhere or even places like the old glass bottle plant. :rolleyes:
    Are they going to hang onto this stuff until inflation has made it's sales price equal to it's purchase price ?

    They are employing the likes of Colliers to actually manage stuff so what are they doing ?
    Oh yeah they are loan managing.
    But couldn't the banks have done that anyway ?
    Why did we have to get another set of heads involved and pay another set of salaries ?
    If NAMA is managing the likes of the huge crud that was the Anglo loanbook, then what are the staff of Anglo doing, besides chasing "poor ould much put upon swap a hotel for a laptop" quinn ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    What really annoys me about comments like this is that people make it sound like the people getting bailout aren't or didn't pay tax. They are tax payer too you know, plus many paid stamp duty which was a massive chunck of tax that other tax payers never paid.

    Ah our resident property investor to champion the cause of the much upon Irish property owner. :rolleyes:

    I always love the way some of our property owning classes feel that non property owning taxpayers should somehow fund their investments.

    BTW what about the mortgage interest relief that these buyers were getting or the First Time buyers grants, section 23/50 allowances, etc ?
    Did they not come out of taxes ?

    Are you seriously saying that because someone overpaid for their property but are now in trouble should a bailout of sorts because they paid a big stamp duty ?
    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    It also seems many of you have read little or nothing about what this system is like or about. It is a change so as not to add an extra burden on the state and if you are missing that! Griping about how "your" taxes fund it bare in mind you would have to fund people a lot more if they were decalred bankrupt and lost their houses. I get being annoyed but try to actually think about it beyond "they are spending my money".

    So explain to me how possibly letting people out of paying their debts, debts to institutions that have eat and will eat up our taxes (lets face it the bank recaps, NAMA costs have added to our borrowing costs one way or another), will help us in the future ?




  • smccarrick wrote: »
    NAMA is not in my opinion a disaster of an organisation- while they may have sold off the low lying fruit todate- they have made significant profits from their transactions and generated a good return for the tax payer. You have to remember that NAMA are managing loans- they are not an estate agent, they are a loan management agency- which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Their remit is to wind down their assets and generate a return to the exchequer over a ten year period (there is talk of extending this even at this early stage)- they are not in any hurry to force the liquidation of performing assets- as long as the loans are being paid, that is what matters (thus far). Keep in mind- all loans over the threshold were transferred to NAMA- there was no distinction between good and bad loans- the loan books in their entirety were transferred en mass to the agency.

    People need to comprehend what NAMA is and what it does- bitching about NAMA property being vacant, or a lack of NAMA residential units hitting the market- is a lack of understanding of what their remit is, and what their chosen course of action is.

    Further- NAMA is an independent agency- while it owes the Irish taxpayer tens of billions of Euro- it has assets to back up these loans, and is making a good return (todate) to the exchequer.

    Lets give them a chance.........


    NAMA is a disaster for Ireland, its purpose is to put a floor under the property market ruining competitiveness and preventing the correction.

    NAMA is using borrowed money and must make returns above the interest rates paid for this borrowed money. Show me where it is doing this!

    Ireland is incurring a massive loss in GDP because of the opportunity cost of Nama. Lost investment, NAMA is more money gone into dead banks and a property bubble long after it burst.

    Ridiculous that one could suggest that NAMA is economically viable at all. If NAMA were a good idea then people would be able to and would buy shares in it.

    What the govt will do is fiddle the figures to show NAMA is making money when the reality is it is making a loss for the taxpayer. Best case scenario NAMA will burn 13 billion.

    http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/06/nama-costs-in-full-detail.html

    Picture+1.png



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 gnag


    Ok, maybe i'm being very simple minded here, as I have very little knowledge on financial matters besides my own bank account, but I don't see why the taxpayer should have to pay for any of the banking crisis. There are people that have had taxes lumped on them and cut back in their lives accordingly to sustain their mortgages. There are people who have lost their jobs and cannot possibly sustain their mortgages on the dole. Then there are people who have several properties and cannot sustain all of those mortgages. NOBODY deserves to have their debt completely written off but people do need help. Personally, my husband lost his job so we can no longer pay our full mortgage payment. I am paying what we can afford yet every 3 months we get a letter to remind us how far in arrears we are. Over the 35 year term of our mortgage the bank will make approximately 300000 in profit. In my opinion any mortgage on a family home (ie not holiday or rental houses) should be renegotiated and the banks should take a hit on the amount of profit. I know they 'borrowed' this amount at a certain rate but surely getting 200000 in profit, is preferable to repossessing family homes, selling them for at least 10% less than they were originally and then chasing people for money they don't have.??


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    gnag wrote: »
    Ok, maybe i'm being very simple minded here, as I have very little knowledge on financial matters besides my own bank account, but I don't see why the taxpayer should have to pay for any of the banking crisis.

    But yet you do further down, when you think that people who are having difficulty repaying their mortgages should get renegogiated mortgages where the banks, which in the case of our home grown ones, are affectively owned for the most part by us taxpayers.

    You do know that when the bank doesn't as you put it make as much of a profit then that shortfall is going to be made up by the taxpayers.
    gnag wrote: »
    There are people that have had taxes lumped on them and cut back in their lives accordingly to sustain their mortgages.

    And you know people that don't have big mortgages, hell maybe no mortgage at all also have increased taxes lumped on them ?
    gnag wrote: »
    There are people who have lost their jobs and cannot possibly sustain their mortgages on the dole.

    And those people should have mortgages renegotiated so that they are given a chance.
    But there should be no damm write off.
    gnag wrote: »
    Then there are people who have several properties and cannot sustain all of those mortgages.

    Tough sh** would be reply to this. :rolleyes:
    Why did they over extend and decide to become property investors ?
    gnag wrote: »
    NOBODY deserves to have their debt completely written off but people do need help. Personally, my husband lost his job so we can no longer pay our full mortgage payment. I am paying what we can afford yet every 3 months we get a letter to remind us how far in arrears we are. Over the 35 year term of our mortgage the bank will make approximately 300000 in profit. In my opinion any mortgage on a family home (ie not holiday or rental houses) should be renegotiated and the banks should take a hit on the amount of profit.
    ...
    I know they 'borrowed' this amount at a certain rate but surely getting 200000 in profit, is preferable to repossessing family homes, selling them for at least 10% less than they were originally and then chasing people for money they don't have.??

    If people who borrowed a lot, actually usually a lot more that they should ever have, and now are either in tough times and/or their property is worth a lot less than what they paid for it, should get some form of debt write off then what about us who didn't follow the same path ?

    I have to ask what do we get for subsidising those peoples' decisions ?

    I don't think you can just work out your total repayments over the 35 years and deduce that the difference between that and what you borrowed initially is all profit ?

    You signed up for a mortgage and I agree with flexibility on repayments if times are tough, but I do not agree that you can now decide that a chunk of it should be written off because your property is no longer worth what it once was.
    And that is what you are asking for, no matter how you chose to phrase it.

    Would you have been so willing to pay extra back if times were the reverse ?

    I don't care if you or others around here think I am an uncaring git or a me feiner.
    I was tired of a lot of the sh**e lots of people were getting up during the bubble and I am even more tired of all the sh**e I have to listen to now off some of the same people.
    There were a huge amount of people living a life that they could ill afford and are now expecting others to pay for it.

    I,nor my family chose to go overboard and I don't damm well see why we should now come to the aid of those that did.

    I am sorry OP if the above description is unfair on you and your family, but if an across the board debt writeoff/debt forgiveness system is brought in the gobsh**es that played fast and loose will have been given an escape from paying up for their decisions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 gnag


    I'm saying that there shouldn't be general debt forgiveness, but there should be something in place for people who are going to lose their family homes. I am also saying that the tax payer should not have paid for the banking crisis, the banks should have been made to take the hit. We did not get an outrageous mortgage and it is our only debt, we own our car outright and have no credit cards. When we bought the house it was well within our budget to pay the mortgage. I have no sympathy for those who took a gamble with several proprties, that's just the business theyre in. I don't want to be forgiven my debt as I entered into it of my own free will. What I do want is for the banks to acknowledge that they are primarily responsible for the house of cards that was the property Market and act accordingly. Take a hit on how much profit to be made off mortgages, to help those in trouble and reward those who have against all odds kept up payments. We would all have more money in our pockets, maybe start spending again and kick start the economy. I know, it's a silly simplistic idea and probably not in the least bit feasible, but it's seems a lit better to me than using our money to pay off bondholders.


  • Registered Users Posts: 152 ✭✭variety


    gnag wrote: »
    I'm saying that there shouldn't be general debt forgiveness, but there should be something in place for people who are going to lose their family homes.
    And what if a tenant can no longer afford the over-inflated rents (which are entirely due to the property boom) in a home they have lived in for the past 4, 5, 6, etc... years (whether or not "through no fault of their own"- a classic turn of phrase used here too often!:rolleyes:).

    Should the taxpayer subsidise them so they can remain in what is effectively their family home?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    gnag wrote: »
    I'm saying that there shouldn't be general debt forgiveness, but there should be something in place for people who are going to lose their family homes.
    Are you for real ?
    You cannot have such a blanket guarantee.
    What about someone who decided that they can't be bothered paying the mortgage and let them slide into arrears.
    And from anecdotal evidence this may be happening.

    What about the situation where someone decided to buy a 6 bedroom (all ensuites) 4,000 sq ft house and now are in deep sh**.
    Should the next door neighbour who bought a 3 bedroom 1500 sq ft home now subsidise them ?

    Ever hear of a thing called moral hazard ?
    gnag wrote: »
    I am also saying that the tax payer should not have paid for the banking crisis, the banks should have been made to take the hit.

    Sorry but I do think you were right when you stated
    "Ok, maybe i'm being very simple minded here, as I have very little knowledge on financial matters besides my own bank account"

    The banks were insolvent and did not have the liquidity to pay their outstanding obligations to the entities (other banks, Central banks, bondholders, etc) that had in affect loaned them money.
    They could not as you put it "take the hit" as they were effectively bankrupt.
    Added to that their share prices were collapsing.

    Most of us reckon some of them (Anglo and INBS) should have been let slide since the vast majority of people had no direct dealings with them.
    Yes their bankruptcy would have ramifications to the whole banking system and indeed pensions/long term investments, but it would have left the taxpayer long term better off.
    But most agree the two main banks would have had to have been bailed out or the financial system in the country would have dried up overnight.
    gnag wrote: »
    We did not get an outrageous mortgage and it is our only debt, we own our car outright and have no credit cards. When we bought the house it was well within our budget to pay the mortgage. I have no sympathy for those who took a gamble with several proprties, that's just the business theyre in. I don't want to be forgiven my debt as I entered into it of my own free will. What I do want is for the banks to acknowledge that they are primarily responsible for the house of cards that was the property Market and act accordingly.

    What do you mean by "act accordingly" ?

    To paraphrase Homer Simpson "it takes two to borrow, one to borrow and one to lend".

    The banks played a large part in the massive lending spree, but a lot of people were more than glad to take the money.
    What about us people who decided to act prudently and not accept big loans, mortgages, etc ?
    gnag wrote: »
    Take a hit on how much profit to be made off mortgages, to help those in trouble and reward those who have against all odds kept up payments. We would all have more money in our pockets, maybe start spending again and kick start the economy.

    That argument sounds like the one made by public sector unions who claim that public sector employees should not face pay cuts since they will then cut their spending. :rolleyes:
    BTW if the banks cuts peoples' debts then the ones that have to at the end of the day come up with the necessary money are invariably the ones that now own and financially support the banks, the taxpayers.
    That will probably mean high level of taxes, so how does that affect the spending of taxpayers ?

    What about rewarding those of us who don't owe them anything and yet have to support their fookups ?
    gnag wrote: »
    I know, it's a silly simplistic idea and probably not in the least bit feasible, but it's seems a lit better to me than using our money to pay off bondholders.

    Whilst I might not agree with paying off bondholders, neither do I agree with my taxes being used to payoff somebody elses debts.
    BTW that somebody includes developers, builders and personal mortgage holders.

    If the government decide to blanket bailout a bunch of mortgage holders, then I don't see why I should not get a bailout of my own.
    Say they pay off my car and give me a wad of cash to go to the cheltenham festival.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 gnag


    I already stated that the tax payer shouldn't have to pay for the bad debt, and I don't think there should be a blanket debt forgiveness. What I'm saying is that the banks would be financially better off to keep me in my house paying slightly less, than to repossess it and sell it and try to chase me for Money I don't have. Well done you for not having a mortgage, but have you never done something and then looked back and saw maybe it wasn't the best decision? Paying an extra €200 a month to own our own home as opposed to renting, seemed like the way to go at the time. I'll just jump into my time machine and tell myself not to bother.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    gnag wrote: »
    I already stated that the tax payer shouldn't have to pay for the bad debt, and I don't think there should be a blanket debt forgiveness. What I'm saying is that the banks would be financially better off to keep me in my house paying slightly less, than to repossess it and sell it and try to chase me for Money I don't have. Well done you for not having a mortgage, but have you never done something and then looked back and saw maybe it wasn't the best decision? Paying an extra €200 a month to own our own home as opposed to renting, seemed like the way to go at the time. I'll just jump into my time machine and tell myself not to bother.

    Anyone who cannot afford their repayments on a mortgage should be evicted and the properties placed on the market gradually.
    You cannot keep something you don't own.

    PS: It is not your house.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭howamidifferent


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Anyone who cannot afford their repayments on a mortgage should be evicted and the properties placed on the market gradually.
    You cannot keep something you don't own.

    PS: It is not your house.


    I'm against bailing out anyone rich or poor...Bail everyone or no one... :D
    But to the comment above that it is not your house...Try telling that to the judge when you dont pay the household charge.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Anyone who cannot afford their repayments on a mortgage should be evicted ...

    Do we then leave them on the roadside, or have you given any thought to what should happen them next?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Do we then leave them on the roadside, or have you given any thought to what should happen them next?

    That is really between them and the welfare system/social housing authorities.
    No amount of heart string pulling is ever going to reconcile the potential moral hazard.
    No amount of heart string pulling is going to suddenly pour cash into the state coffers.
    And if we cannot house the unemployed/homeless maybe we will be finally seen as the basket case second world country that we are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,854 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    Do we then leave them on the roadside, or have you given any thought to what should happen them next?


    Just because someone can no longer afford the boomtime mortgage they took out doesn't mean that they have no income at all, it may just mean that they can no longer sustain the boomtime mortgage repayment.

    In many cases, could people not downsize and maybe even >>>> heaven forbid <<<<< rent a smaller place that they CAN afford while they work at turning around their situation ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Zamboni wrote: »
    That is really between them and the welfare system/social housing authorities.
    The welfare system is paid for by the taxpayer. So, in effect, you are saying that they should become a charge on us. I'm not fundamentally opposed to state provision for those in need, but I think that things should be thought through.
    No amount of heart string pulling is ever going to reconcile the potential moral hazard.
    No amount of heart string pulling is going to suddenly pour cash into the state coffers.
    Does it pull at your heartstrings when I raise the question of what should be done about homeless families?
    And if we cannot house the unemployed/homeless maybe we will be finally seen as the basket case second world country that we are.
    One up from the third world, eh?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    gnag wrote: »
    I already stated that the tax payer shouldn't have to pay for the bad debt, and I don't think there should be a blanket debt forgiveness.

    But you did.
    You said the following.
    gnag wrote: »
    I'm saying that there shouldn't be general debt forgiveness, but there should be something in place for people who are going to lose their family homes.

    That is a blanket debt forgiveness for those who are about to lose family home.
    gnag wrote: »
    What I'm saying is that the banks would be financially better off to keep me in my house paying slightly less, than to repossess it and sell it and try to chase me for Money I don't have.

    Yes but that should mean some sort of renegogiation of mortgage timescale with lower repayments in the short term, but not a bloody writeoff of a chunk of it.
    gnag wrote: »
    Well done you for not having a mortgage, but have you never done something and then looked back and saw maybe it wasn't the best decision?

    Yes I have and I have lost money.
    I regretted it and I learnt a lesson.
    Did I go off whinging that I had made a bad investment or bad purchase and that I should get other people to cough up for me ?
    NO I fooking didn't.
    gnag wrote: »
    Paying an extra €200 a month to own our own home as opposed to renting, seemed like the way to go at the time. I'll just jump into my time machine and tell myself not to bother.

    Did you have a large deposit to put towards a house ?
    Did you ever reckon that it interest rates went up by a lot or your salary was hit that you might have issues paying the mortgage ?
    Did you buy all new furniture and all new appliances right away when you moved in ?

    And please just because you were gullible enough to believe the vested interest idiots that were shouting that rent was dead money doesn't wash as an excuse.
    How many of your friends, colleagues and family chose to continue renting and more importantly how many of those were then labelled as losers by you and the ones that bought ?
    Do we then leave them on the roadside, or have you given any thought to what should happen them next?

    Funny a big chunk of the rest of Europe manage to live without owning their homes.

    We could always cut the cr** out of the defined benefit public sector pensions to pay for all of this. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    On the main point the thread was started it seems clear that the government are bringing in a system to deal with bankrupt people in a more sensible way than people here would have it. What I love about the people complaining is they will do nothing and did nothing when the problem was brewing. Inaction is certainly comparable to participation whether they would beleive it or not.

    Anybody wo thinks owning any property makes somebody a different class to them has an obvious chip on their sholder.

    It is most likely cheaper in the long run not to evict people from their homes and then sell off the property to somebody who has cash. The instability it would casue would actually mean that there would be a new elite.

    In saying that the problem is being over exagerated along with cliams about who would benifit. I don't think there are thousands of people living in massive houses that are on the brink of financial collapse. There certainly are more families in financial trouble where being bankrupt would benifit nobody and casue more trouble.

    Obviously the children of such foolish parents deserve to be punished too. It isn't like there was anybody else there who was meant to make sure the market and banking practices where kept in check.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    On the main point the thread was started it seems clear that the government are bringing in a system to deal with bankrupt people in a more sensible way than people here would have it. What I love about the people complaining is they will do nothing and did nothing when the problem was brewing. Inaction is certainly comparable to participation whether they would beleive it or not.

    So now anyone that did not engage in the buying frenzy, did not work for the vested interests, did not vote for the governments of the time are now to blame since we didn't organise a coup to safe the idiots from themselves. :rolleyes:
    And I just love how people of your ilk always find a way to share the blame around, especially now that things have gone t*ts up.

    Fook sake has brian lenihan being reincarnated as yourself.
    Of course a fianna failer would always come back as a proeprty speculator/investor if they ever did come back. :rolleyes:
    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Anybody wo thinks owning any property makes somebody a different class to them has an obvious chip on their sholder.

    No, I have no problem with anybody owning anything so long as they don't think I will help them pay for it. :mad:
    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    It is most likely cheaper in the long run not to evict people from their homes and then sell off the property to somebody who has cash. The instability it would casue would actually mean that there would be a new elite.

    What would the new elite be, the ones who actually were prudent and did not act like alcoholics on a day trip to Guinesses ?
    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    In saying that the problem is being over exagerated along with cliams about who would benifit. I don't think there are thousands of people living in massive houses that are on the brink of financial collapse. There certainly are more families in financial trouble where being bankrupt would benifit nobody and casue more trouble.

    Obviously the children of such foolish parents deserve to be punished too. It isn't like there was anybody else there who was meant to make sure the market and banking practices where kept in check.

    But it is ok, according to you, if my children are punished for other parents fook ups ?

    And once again you try and absolve people of personal responsibility by claiming there were no practices to keep the banks in check.

    It is always nice to hear the Irish property investors point of view. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    It is most likely cheaper in the long run not to evict people from their homes and then sell off the property to somebody who has cash. The instability it would casue would actually mean that there would be a new elite.

    If elitism represents logic and prudence rather than greed and poorly research specualtion, then I for one applaud the new elite.


Advertisement