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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Should tax payers bail out mortgage defaulters?

Options
  • 18-11-2010 11:29pm
    #1
    bobblepuzzle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭


    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....

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

    Yes
    0% 0 votes
    No
    100% 2 votes


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ronaneire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭ronaneire


    Least tomorrow is Friday


  • Options
    #3
    msg11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭msg11


    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.


  • Options
    #4
    bobblepuzzle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭bobblepuzzle


    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...


  • Options
    #5
    Saila
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,751 ✭✭✭Saila


    this will go well


  • Options
    #6
    Axe Rake
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭Axe Rake


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    msg11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭msg11


    Cmdr Keen wrote: »
    Government = Tax Payer...

    And ?
    Saila wrote: »
    this will go well

    Yeah just thinking that now..


  • Options
    #8
    bobblepuzzle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭bobblepuzzle


    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...


  • Options
    #9
    baldbear
    Registered Users Posts: 5,503 ✭✭✭baldbear


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


  • Options
    #10
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,115 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    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 :D


  • Options
    #11
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Flygimp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Flygimp


    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.


  • Options
    #13
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,059 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    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.


  • Options
    #14
    bobblepuzzle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭bobblepuzzle


    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


  • Options
    #15
    msg11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭msg11


    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..


  • Options
    #16
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    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.


  • Options
    #17
    mickdw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,260 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    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.


  • Options
    #18
    bobblepuzzle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭bobblepuzzle


    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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • Options
    #19
    msg11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭msg11


    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.


  • Options
    #20
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,059 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    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.


  • Options
    #21
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Joe C
    Closed Accounts Posts: 75 ✭✭Joe C


    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.


  • Options
    #23
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    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


  • Options
    #24
    seaniefr
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭seaniefr


    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+ yearsmad.gifmad.gifmad.gifmad.gifmad.gifmad.gifmad.gifmad.gifmad.gif


  • Options
    #25
    dave1982
    Registered Users Posts: 4,604 ✭✭✭dave1982


    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


  • Options
    #26
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    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.


  • Options
    #27
    seaniefr
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭seaniefr


    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


  • Options
    #28
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    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


  • Options
    #29
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    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 . . . .


  • Options
    #30
    Gunsfortoys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭Gunsfortoys


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

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    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 ?


Advertisement