Does personal responsibility for one's situation exist in Ireland?

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 4:08pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Do you understand what a financial means assessment is? The only thing I would criticise people for, is for trusting the misguided advice they were given. Then again, the bank business was once a respectable business in this country so it's easy to see how people put trust in these institutions.

I'm truly flabbergasted at your level of ignorance to be fair. Are you 12?

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 4:08pm

I don't expect to change NotASheeple's mind about anything here today but the fact they are in the minority is positive. Lets all just agree not to get carried away next time there is a boom?

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 4:09pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Wait hold on a second - I think I get it. You referring to the bank as the one with superior knowledge as you put it. Banks are institutions set up to make money from you and I. You're not taking a loan out from St Vincent de Paul

If the banks assessed an applicants means, and the banks then said yes you are fine, you are well able to afford this loan. Didn't this create a false sense of security for the borrower? The banks were eager to give them money, people accepted it because after all, the banks told them they met all the criteria. So why wouldn't people sign off on the loan agreement when the banks told them they were grand and only to delighted to give them the money? It was deception and it was criminal on the part of the banks. And no amount of apologists falling over themselves here can change that fact.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 4:12pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

If the banks assessed an applicants means, and the banks then said yes you are fine, you are well able to afford this loan. Didn't this create a false sense of security for the borrower? The banks were eager to give them money, people accepted it because after all, the banks told them they met all the criteria. So why wouldn't people sign off on the loan agreement when the banks told them they were grand and only to delighted to give them the money? It was deception and it was criminal on the part of the banks. And no amount of apologists falling over themselves here can change that fact.

You have me convinced. Here's me like an eegit in a 3 bed house where I could be living in a nice detached 4 bed. And that focus? Feck it I'm getting a merc

Tommyrifle · 13-11-2014 4:12pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

If the banks assessed an applicants means, and the banks then said yes you are fine, you are well able to afford this loan. Didn't this create a false sense of security for the borrower? The banks were eager to give them money, people accepted it because after all, the banks told them they met all the criteria. So why wouldn't people sign off on the loan agreement when the banks told them they were grand and only to delighted to give them the money? It was deception and it was criminal on the part of the banks. And no amount of apologists falling over themselves here can change that fact.

It wasn't actually deception as the banks would be hurting themselves if the loanee couldn't pay back the mortgage.

The bank offers you an amount and you either agree or don't agree to the terms and conditions.

FURET · 13-11-2014 4:12pm

EoinHef wrote: »

Weird i keep seeing something on AH as well....posts saying people should have not taken about mortgages they cant afford!!

Considering most people COULD afford these mortgage when they got them i find it a very strange thing to say,do you not agree OP? It was only later when s**t really hit the fan people couldnt afford to pay,so very few took a mortgages out with the knowledge they could not pay them down the line.

^^ A very odd thing to say.

Before I started college years ago, I had saved up a few grand. Within a few weeks of starting college, I had bought some expensive clothes and sunglasses. I came home and my father asked me how much they had cost.
"Around 700 euro", I said proudly.
"Can you afford it?", he asked.
"I can", said I.
"And can you afford it 6 months from now?", he shot back bemused.

He was right and I was wrong. Six months later I needed a little bailout of my own.

People shouldn't take out huge, stupid loans unless they're confident they can weather the storms of job loss, interest rises, and other financial disasters. Always establish where the bounds of your breaking point lies before taking on a huge liability. Then double it just to be safe. If that means no one could have afforded a house in the noughties, so much the better. The bubble wouldn't have inflated to the extent that it did.

Unless you can take a job loss and an interest rate hike - and then some more - you shouldn't even think of buying a house. Anathema to most people.

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 4:15pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

If the banks assessed an applicants means, and the banks then said yes you are fine, you are well able to afford this loan. Didn't this create a false sense of security for the borrower? The banks were eager to give them money, people accepted it because after all, the banks told them they met all the criteria. So why wouldn't people sign off on the loan agreement when the banks told them they were grand and only to delighted to give them the money? It was deception and it was criminal on the part of the banks. And no amount of apologists falling over themselves here can change that fact.

....and what if the applicant lied about their means? Because unlike the banks applicants were totally honest and objective?

Plus a lot of people factored in future, nebulous gains into their affordability calculations. They assumed the market would continue to rise, hence the high number of equity release mortgages - which was the equivalent of doubling down on the bet you had already taken.

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2014 4:16pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

If the banks assessed an applicants means, and the banks then said yes you are fine, you are well able to afford this loan. Didn't this create a false sense of security for the borrower? The banks were eager to give them money, people accepted it because after all, the banks told them they met all the criteria. So why wouldn't people sign off on the loan agreement when the banks told them they were grand and only to delighted to give them the money? It was deception and it was criminal on the part of the banks. And no amount of apologists falling over themselves here can change that fact.

Don't think I've read a single person here trying to suggest for a moment that the Banks were not at fault..Or indeed apologising for them , far from it.

Of course they were at fault - Terrible Sales tactics , no oversight etc. etc.

BUT - So was every person that blindly accepted the Sales schtick and signed up for a stupid mortgage.

It's a SHARED responsibility , we could debate all day on whether to apportion blame 50:50 or 60:40 or whatever but fundamentally , No one is without fault in these scenarios..

Sales people are liars , it's what they do , whether it's the door to door guy selling you a great deal on your phone service or the Broker/Bank manager selling you a financial product.

It's your responsibility to verify everything you are told and make an informed choice.. Blind acceptance from an "expert" is not a valid excuse..

Shenshen · 13-11-2014 4:17pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

If the banks assessed an applicants means, and the banks then said yes you are fine, you are well able to afford this loan. Didn't this create a false sense of security for the borrower? The banks were eager to give them money, people accepted it because after all, the banks told them they met all the criteria. So why wouldn't people sign off on the loan agreement when the banks told them they were grand and only to delighted to give them the money? It was deception and it was criminal on the part of the banks. And no amount of apologists falling over themselves here can change that fact.

My grandfather is 86.
His eye sight is poor, he's hard of hearing, he often gets confused and his reactions are glacial.

Yet he refuses to give up his driving license and car, despite friends and family urging him to and him having admitted frrequently in the past that driving is a bit beyond him these days. Why? Because when he rang his insurance company to cancel the car insurance, the lady on the phone told him that there was no law forcing him to give up the car.
And since there's no law, he's kept the car and the nice insurance lady got her renewal.

Would you blame that insurance sales agent?
Or would you blame the adult man who is fully aware and conscious of the fact that driving is beyond his capabilities, but still drives because there's no law against it?

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 4:20pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Do you understand what a financial means assessment is? The only thing I would criticise people for, is for trusting the misguided advice they were given. Then again, the bank business was once a respectable business in this country so it's easy to see how people put trust in these institutions.

Serious question NotASheeple to see if we have learned anything from the crash.

Now that we have seen what has happened and with the benefit of hindsight. Imagine things straighten out and property prices rise again. A friend comes to you and says they are spending X on a house and you think that is a bit steep considering their means. You care about your friend and say
'oh I didn't know you could afford that much for a house'.
They reply 'neither did I but the bank offered me the mortgage so I took it.

Would you advise your friend to take another look and make sure they can actually afford it, or would you say 'well if the bank approved it...'?

(I understand it might be considered rude to question your friend's finances but imagine it's normal between you)

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 4:24pm

Jawgap wrote: »

....and what if the applicant lied about their means? Because unlike the banks applicants were totally honest and objective?

Even at the height of the Tiger & negligent banking. You do realise people had to submit wage slips as proof of earnings. People had also to prove they were in permanent employment and people had also to submit a P60 as proof of their previous years earnings. On top of the standard credit checks that were carried out. So sorry, the banks were not hoodwinked by duplicitous customers.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 4:27pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Even at the height of the Tiger & negligent banking. You do realise people had to submit wage slips as proof of earnings. People had also to prove they were in permanent employment and people had also to submit a P60 as proof of their previous years earnings. On top of the standard credit checks that were carried out. So sorry, the banks were not hoodwinked by duplicitous customers.

People also got letters from their employers with future pay rises, bonuses etc high lighted

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 4:30pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Serious question NotASheeple to see if we have learned anything from the crash.

Now that we have seen what has happened and with the benefit of hindsight. Imagine things straighten out and property prices rise again. A friend comes to you and says they are spending X on a house and you think that is a bit steep considering their means. You care about your friend and say
'oh I didn't know you could afford that much for a house'.
They reply 'neither did I but the bank offered me the mortgage so I took it.

Would you advise your friend to take another look and make sure they can actually afford it, or would you say 'well if the bank approved it...'?

(I understand it might be considered rude to question your friend's finances but imagine it's normal between you)

I don't think I would need to offer any advice. If anything good came from recent years, it's that the banking profession now has the acquired the level scrutiny and innate mistrust it always should have had. People don't and will again never trust their banker they way they once did.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 4:31pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

I don't think I would need to offer any advice. If anything good came from recent years, it's that the banking profession now has the acquired the level scrutiny and innate mistrust it always should have had. People don't and will again never trust their banker they way they once did.

So you have caught up with the rest of us. That, at least, is positive

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 4:32pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

People also got letters from their employers with future pay rises, bonuses etc high lighted

That's a first for me and merely hearsay coming from you imo. But it still doesn't absolve any bank if they were stupid enough to grant loan approval on this basis.

Tommyrifle · 13-11-2014 4:37pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

That's a first for me and merely hearsay coming from you imo. But it still doesn't absolve any bank if they were stupid enough to grant loan approval on this basis.

A friend of mine faked some of his documentation to get the mortgage approved.

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 4:38pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Even at the height of the Tiger & negligent banking. You do realise people had to submit wage slips as proof of earnings. People had also to prove they were in permanent employment and people had also to submit a P60 as proof of their previous years earnings. On top of the standard credit checks that were carried out. So sorry, the banks were not hoodwinked by duplicitous customers.

Really?

Because my recollection is that while I was asked for wage slips, a P60 and a statement of income from my employer - the system was slack. The bank, for example, wanted to include my bonuses and expense reimbursements in their calculations - personally, I didn't mind because we were borrowing well within our means - but it could easily have gotten out of control.

I know someone else who borrowed and their overtime payments were assessed as income. Another who was self-employed and had their accountant paid a rosier picture of the business than was true.

A family member manages a credit union and they had terrible problems with people borrowing to fund deposits (people borrowed for 'redecoration' or home improvements) - the money borrowed from the credit union was put on deposit and passed off as savings, even though there was no evidence or pattern of regular saving.

The banks are by no means blameless - and if you don't think even today credit scores and ratings can't be manipulated or that it's relatively easy to misrepresent your financial situation you are quite naive.

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 4:38pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you have caught up with the rest of us. That, at least, is positive

Why weren't you here on Boards.ie back in 2005 - 2006 starting a thread to warn people? You could have signed up to Boards.ie back then to share your insight. You didn't because like the rest of the know everything after the fact brigade, you hadn't a clue about what was going on like everyone else.

Shenshen · 13-11-2014 4:39pm

Tommyrifle wrote: »

A friend of mine faked some of his documentation to get the mortgage approved.

I can't imagine he'd be the only one, either.
When we spoke to our bank about getting a mortgage, the lady we spoke to was raving about the marvelous achievement that was tippex - if you scan the document carefully, you'd never be able to tell....

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 4:41pm

Tommyrifle wrote: »

A friend of mine faked some of his documentation to get the mortgage approved.

Let's pretend I believe you, then your friend is a fraudster. Anyway that's me, I live and work in another time zone so its back to work for me.

Tommyrifle · 13-11-2014 4:42pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Let's pretend I believe you, then your friend is a fraudster. Anyway that's me, I live and work in another time zone so its back to work for me.

Yes indeed he is as are many people out there

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 4:44pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Why weren't you here on Boards.ie back in 2005 - 2006 starting a thread to warn people? You could have signed up to Boards.ie back then to share your insight. You didn't because like the rest of the know everything after the fact brigade, you hadn't a clue about what was going on like everyone else.

LOL.

I'm not saying I knew anything back in 2005. I am prepared to learn from what happened. I'm also prepared to fit the boom of the early 2000s into a broader context and see that the next boom will also end in bust. So borrowing too much money is probably a bad idea regardless of what bank's salesman is trying to convince me otherwise.

You are also allowed to learn from what happened and use that information in the future.

Or not, it's up to you

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 4:44pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

That's a first for me and merely hearsay coming from you imo. But it still doesn't absolve any bank if they were stupid enough to grant loan approval on this basis.

Apologies, not all conversations I had with friends and acquaintances were minuted. But here's a thread from 2006, right on the thick of the madness:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=36391

But it was wide spread - my own employer at the time was happy to do this (I refused). Sure you know you self - for something nice for the new house

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2014 4:48pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Why weren't you here on Boards.ie back in 2005 - 2006 starting a thread to warn people? You could have signed up to Boards.ie back then to share your insight. You didn't because like the rest of the know everything after the fact brigade, you hadn't a clue about what was going on like everyone else.

I didn't know that the economy was going to tank in 2008 when I took out my current Mortgage in 2004 , but what I did know though was what I could afford.

I also knew that the Bank did not have my best interests at heart and would try to sting me for as much as possible by offering me as large a mortgage as they thought they could get away with.

Armed with that basic knowledge , I borrowed what I could afford , not what was offered and tailored my decisions and choices on that basis.

Your continuous refusal to accept that people who took out these mortgages are in anyway responsible for their actions amazes me....

OldNotWIse · 13-11-2014 4:52pm

EoinHef wrote: »

Why would you pay your neighbors mortgage?

You might pay more taxes because the government(s) nationalised the banks (after they went bust)thus putting the banks bad loans on the books of the country. Whos fault is that? Not your neighbors imo

Aren't some mortgage holders having large chunks written off?

OldNotWIse · 13-11-2014 4:54pm

FURET wrote: »

^^ A very odd thing to say.

Before I started college years ago, I had saved up a few grand. Within a few weeks of starting college, I had bought some expensive clothes and sunglasses. I came home and my father asked me how much they had cost.
"Around 700 euro", I said proudly.
"Can you afford it?", he asked.
"I can", said I.
"And can you afford it 6 months from now?", he shot back bemused.

He was right and I was wrong. Six months later I needed a little bailout of my own.

People shouldn't take out huge, stupid loans unless they're confident they can weather the storms of job loss, interest rises, and other financial disasters. Always establish where the bounds of your breaking point lies before taking on a huge liability. Then double it just to be safe. If that means no one could have afforded a house in the noughties, so much the better. The bubble wouldn't have inflated to the extent that it did.

Unless you can take a job loss and an interest rate hike - and then some more - you shouldn't even think of buying a house. Anathema to most people.

And depressingly, we are seeing the same manic buying up of houses once more. "You won't get them at this price again...we'd better camp out for 3 days in case anyone else buys them"

Stupid, stupid Irish people

Areyouwell · 13-11-2014 5:43pm

One thing Ireland will never be short of is storytellers. If you believed some, there was apparently widespread fraud from mortgage applicants for their mortgages :rolleyes:. My brother who worked in the HSE, had to supply a letter confirming that he was a permanent member of staff. He also supplied 6 monthly pay slips and his P60 from Revenue. And anybody I know had to supply similar documentation. People really will spew some nonsense to try and sway an argument. Entertaining reading if nothing else.

topper75 · 13-11-2014 5:56pm

Areyouwell wrote: »

If you believed some, there was apparently widespread fraud from mortgage applicants for their mortgages

The fraud that hit us was not so much that as the Anglo loans to developers etc.

Documentation was very much optional for certain people. No story about it, sadly for our state's coffers.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 5:56pm

Areyouwell wrote: »

One thing Ireland will never be short of is storytellers. If you believed some, there was apparently widespread fraud from mortgage applicants for their mortgages :rolleyes:. My brother who worked in the HSE, had to supply a letter confirming that he was a permanent member of staff. He also supplied 6 monthly pay slips and his P60 from Revenue. And anybody I know had to supply similar documentation. People really will spew some nonsense to try and sway an argument. Entertaining reading if nothing else.

All well and good. The p60 covered historic earnings in the previous year - a letter from an employer might state the likes of overtime, salary rises, bonuses Etc. People were desperate to get that extra few quid out of a bank, and the system was so Asian and haphazard that a bank would look favourably on such a letter - after all it was I'm their interest to make you borrow more.

Areyouwell · 13-11-2014 6:01pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

All well and good. The p60 covered historic earnings in the previous year - a letter from an employer might state the likes of overtime, salary rises, bonuses Etc. People were desperate to get that extra few quid out of a bank, and the system was so Asian and haphazard that a bank would look favourably on such a letter - after all it was I'm their interest to make you borrow more.

And the 6 months pay slips which you left out demonstrated the applicants current earnings. So coupled with a P60, confirmation of job permanency and cleared credit checks. All was sufficient to root out the unsuitable. The problems was banks didn't do this and they also failed to tell many applicants they weren't unsuitable.

Fuhrer · 13-11-2014 6:03pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

and the system was so Asian

What does that mean?

Michael Weston · 13-11-2014 6:15pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

People on the dole were getting 220 per week at one stage - and yet they claim they never benefited. Public servants were walking in and out of government buildings every couple of years with 10% + pay increases and yet they claim they did not nfit. Workers in the private sector had very low taxes and yet they claim they did not benefit.

All bull****. To varying degrees everyone got a slice of the pie. And now it is payback time and they moan about water charges when every other country pays far more for than they are being asked. Where are all the protesters against such high variable rate mortgage interest!? Oh yeah they are at work digging the country out of the mess. Seems only people on the dole have the time to go out and protest instead of using that time to find a job.

I don't care if someone is a street sweeper or bin collector. They earn a hell of a lot more respect from me than someone sitting on their ass moaning about the government.

Every other country pays far more than we are being asked?? Wake up will you, tell me all these country's paying more than we are after paye , usc , lpt , vat and the countless other stealth taxes.

What we get in return for what we put in is absolutely disgraceful with regards to health care and education.

I'm sick of all this protecting the welfare system, we need to tackle those on unemployment benefit over three years and get serious answers why they remain unemployed. They need to be accountable show letters of rejection and application forms. If you are capable of work and ap not spending forty hours a week actively looking for employment you're not taking it seriously and should have your benefits cut, perhaps then we could stop fleecing they paye workers.

topper75 · 13-11-2014 6:24pm

Areyouwell wrote: »

All was sufficient to root out the unsuitable.

If it hadn't cost us so much, I would actually love the term 'sub-prime'.

Probably the greatest weasel word every invented.

Andrewf20 · 13-11-2014 6:40pm

It will be interesting to see if people learn anything from the last recession. With almost certain certainty, there will be recessions in the future as there has in the past. And with the risk of interest rates rises, theres that additional concern also. Im also in negative equity.

With this in mind, I wont be blowing the savings on new tvs and the like. My crusty old CRT 28 incher will do fine as will my 1995 kitchen.

Peist2007 · 13-11-2014 7:04pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Even at the height of the Tiger & negligent banking. You do realise people had to submit wage slips as proof of earnings. People had also to prove they were in permanent employment and people had also to submit a P60 as proof of their previous years earnings. On top of the standard credit checks that were carried out. So sorry, the banks were not hoodwinked by duplicitous customers.

You do realise that being examined as to your means was for the Bank's benefit and not yours? A mortgage is a commercial transaction and the Bank are in it only to make money. Would you walk into the Horse Fair in Ballinasloe and let the guy selling you the horse do all the due diligence? Or would you do some of your own? He would have as much interest in your financial welfare as the Bank.
You seriously need to grow up because sane adults wont listen to some of the rubbish you have been spouting. The mortgage was your call and your call alone.

Fighting Irish · 13-11-2014 7:25pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The government this, the government that....look at what the government did, what they are doing and why they shouldn't do it.

These are the arguments I hear literally every day from friends and all sorts. A lot of them have mortgages and are now in trouble, some are on the dole and have lost some income.

I do wonder who frog marched the mortgage holders in to a bank to take out a loan they could not afford and who has these people dependent on the dole when you look at their lives in totality.

It just makes me think does anyone (other than the government) take any personal responsibility for the situation they are in in their own lives? To paraphrase the Nyberg report on the crash - "Never mind the government, the Irish people went mad".

Unpopular to say but I believe the situation the country is in is more (note I do not say government and regulators did not screw up) down to collective personal wrecklessness and fecklessness than anything a government has done.

I guess people need scapegoats to divert from their own failings. I don't think this is a distinctly Irish mentality but I do think it comes across stronger in this country that it is always other peoples (preferably powerful and wealthier) fault. I guess begrudgery also feeds in to this.

What is your thesis on this assumption?

Without the people of Ireland this mess wouldn't have happened
Nobody forced anyone to buy property
At the time of the boom, if the gov/banks had stopped giving out loans, the people would have been in uproar

note: when i say "people" i don't mean everyone

KomradeBishop · 13-11-2014 8:34pm

It's sad how some people are ignorant of banking/mortage fraud, and Irelands history of political corruption, that they would think "we're all responsible for this" - rather than actually looking at the signs of mismanagement and corruption spanning across government/business/finance.

It's especially sad, because ignorance like that, plays a part in helping ensure there will be no reform - and helps guarantee that exactly the same thing will happen again in the future, with (again) lack of adequate reform of laws/regulations, with very few going to prison.

Also: When it comes to resolving problems like the economic crisis and large amounts of private-debt/unsustainable-mortgages, people need to recognize that the primary solutions have to be done at a European level (you can't look at economic issues at an Ireland-only level, and find solutions - not unless those solutions, rely upon reducing dependence on the Euro) - and debt-forgiveness/writedowns/jubilees at a European level, definitely do not mean everybody else paying more to take up the slack; that is true at a local level, but at a European level, debt forgiveness/writedowns can make the debt disappear entirely.

Another thing people in general are quite unaware of, is the very wide array of solutions to these problems; people really should start researching the alternatives, and learn that a lot of the economically-simplistic assumptions made in these topics, are flat-out wrong.

EoinHef · 13-11-2014 11:44pm

FURET wrote: »

^^ A very odd thing to say.

Before I started college years ago, I had saved up a few grand. Within a few weeks of starting college, I had bought some expensive clothes and sunglasses. I came home and my father asked me how much they had cost.
"Around 700 euro", I said proudly.
"Can you afford it?", he asked.
"I can", said I.
"And can you afford it 6 months from now?", he shot back bemused.

He was right and I was wrong. Six months later I needed a little bailout of my own.

People shouldn't take out huge, stupid loans unless they're confident they can weather the storms of job loss, interest rises, and other financial disasters. Always establish where the bounds of your breaking point lies before taking on a huge liability. Then double it just to be safe. If that means no one could have afforded a house in the noughties, so much the better. The bubble wouldn't have inflated to the extent that it did.

Unless you can take a job loss and an interest rate hike - and then some more - you shouldn't even think of buying a house. Anathema to most people.

I have personally taken 30% in cut in wages on top of the tax increases over the last few years and im still able to pay my mortgage so i understand quite well how to manage money. How can anybody plan for a recession of the scale of the one we are in though? I was just lucky i have a decent job. Im sure there are plenty of people out there that planned for bad times but still ended up in a situation where they couldnt afford there mortgage because of pay cuts,job losses and extra taxes that have taken place are unprecedented in the western world. For those saying its all happened before,please show me info on when a GLOBAL financial crisis has happened before.

Yes mistakes were made,by banks,governments and individuals. To lay all the blame at the individuals door is a joke though.

As people have stated here it takes 2 to enter a contract yet all the blame lays with the individual,laughable. People keep saying banks are just there for a profit which they are,but where is the profit in giving loans to people who can pay them back? Stupid logic imo
Thats why due dilligence exists and the banks failed in that area and the government failed to use regulation/legislation to reel in an over inflated market. Failure all round,the individual is just one part of the system yet he should shoulder all the blame? Again laughable imo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Aren't some mortgage holders having large chunks written off?

Yes they are,but there in conjunction with the new debt legislation. And its not like these people just walk away scot free with a house and no debt. Thats not how it works. The agreements can be quite penal to the individual and the banks also have vetos on the proposals which means its nearly always going to be in there favor.

The government nationalised the banks because if they hadnt they would have failed. It was the government who without the mandate of the people decided to save the banks and add all what turned out to be toxic debt on the countries balance sheet. In a capatilist country any bank who gives out a bad loan should absorb the losses on that bad loa. But the rules changed this time,that should never have happened. Private debt was made public,the banks should have been responsible yet the tax payer was put on the hook. And yet the individual is to blame again,if thats the case banks and governments should continue as were and its only individuals with lessons to learn. Again,utterly laughable imo

Jawgap · 14-11-2014 9:02am

People can't plan for a recession or depression on the scale of the one we're in, but people can still plan. The evidence is that a lot of households weren't even trying to save for a drizzly day never mind a rainy day.

Savings rates fell of a cliff in Ireland during the boom - they only started to recover guess when?

You guessed it, Q2 of 2009 and they climbed steadily since then as people were using them to pay down debt. People were using credit instead of savings to fund their consumption and one of the great tragedies of the boom is how little income was converted into wealth - everyone thought they were 'wealthy' because they had some equity in their house. Anyone else experience conversations with people saying they'd 'earned' more from their house in a given year than their salary?

One of the more disturbing figures to come out of the Central Bank recently is that the rate of household savings is starting to decline and the decline appears to be accelerating.

As I said earlier, people who borrowed sensibly and were prudent but were overtaken by events should be helped as long as they can demonstrate they were sensible and prudent - the people who punted need to be made face up to their obligations otherwise they'll just do it again.........

Saipanne · 14-11-2014 9:04am

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's sad how some people are ignorant of banking/mortage fraud, and Irelands history of political corruption, that they would think "we're all responsible for this" - rather than actually looking at the signs of mismanagement and corruption spanning across government/business/finance.

It's especially sad, because ignorance like that, plays a part in helping ensure there will be no reform - and helps guarantee that exactly the same thing will happen again in the future, with (again) lack of adequate reform of laws/regulations, with very few going to prison.

Also: When it comes to resolving problems like the economic crisis and large amounts of private-debt/unsustainable-mortgages, people need to recognize that the primary solutions have to be done at a European level (you can't look at economic issues at an Ireland-only level, and find solutions - not unless those solutions, rely upon reducing dependence on the Euro) - and debt-forgiveness/writedowns/jubilees at a European level, definitely do not mean everybody else paying more to take up the slack; that is true at a local level, but at a European level, debt forgiveness/writedowns can make the debt disappear entirely.

Another thing people in general are quite unaware of, is the very wide array of solutions to these problems; people really should start researching the alternatives, and learn that a lot of the economically-simplistic assumptions made in these topics, are flat-out wrong.

Yup. People forced to take mortgages at gunpoint. I remember it well.

MRnotlob606 · 14-11-2014 9:06am

everything always someone elses fault here.

Quin_Dub · 14-11-2014 10:00am

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's sad how some people are ignorant of banking/mortage fraud, and Irelands history of political corruption, that they would think "we're all responsible for this" - rather than actually looking at the signs of mismanagement and corruption spanning across government/business/finance.

It's especially sad, because ignorance like that, plays a part in helping ensure there will be no reform - and helps guarantee that exactly the same thing will happen again in the future, with (again) lack of adequate reform of laws/regulations, with very few going to prison.

Also: When it comes to resolving problems like the economic crisis and large amounts of private-debt/unsustainable-mortgages, people need to recognize that the primary solutions have to be done at a European level (you can't look at economic issues at an Ireland-only level, and find solutions - not unless those solutions, rely upon reducing dependence on the Euro) - and debt-forgiveness/writedowns/jubilees at a European level, definitely do not mean everybody else paying more to take up the slack; that is true at a local level, but at a European level, debt forgiveness/writedowns can make the debt disappear entirely.

Another thing people in general are quite unaware of, is the very wide array of solutions to these problems; people really should start researching the alternatives, and learn that a lot of the economically-simplistic assumptions made in these topics, are flat-out wrong.

I for one am certainly not saying that there should not be Banking reform , of course their should..

Light touch regulation does not work and in fact evidence suggests that clear, strong regulation is better for growth and sustainable profits anyway.

There are also more than a few bankers that need to be brought to book for their behaviour.

Look at it this way - If I park my car in town and leave the door unlocked with my laptop on the front seat and it gets stolen , A crime has most definitely been committed and the perpetrator should be found and prosecuted..

That doesn't however absolve me from being, at worst stupid and at best naive in my actions that facilitated the crime..

I have to accept that responsibility and learn from it and try not to make the same mistakes again.. I can't simply say "It was all the criminals fault".. Because it wasn't....

foxy farmer · 14-11-2014 10:02am

We don't do admission of guilt/ liability very well. We'll do anything rather than admit failure, weakness or bad judgement or even breaking the law.

Jawgap · 14-11-2014 10:12am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I for one am certainly not saying that there should not be Banking reform , of course their should..

Light touch regulation does not work and in fact evidence suggests that clear, strong regulation is better for growth and sustainable profits anyway.

There are also more than a few bankers that need to be brought to book for their behaviour.

Look at it this way - If I park my car in town and leave the door unlocked with my laptop on the front seat and it gets stolen , A crime has most definitely been committed and the perpetrator should be found and prosecuted..

That doesn't however absolve me from being, at worst stupid and at best naive in my actions that facilitated the crime..

I have to accept that responsibility and learn from it and try not to make the same mistakes again.. I can't simply say "It was all the criminals fault".. Because it wasn't....

It wasn't your fault and it wasn't the criminals fault........it was society's fault they made him the criminal that way:D

The problem in Ireland is not light or heavy regulation - it's that even if you had the best regulations in the world they wouldn't be implemented in a way that creates consequences - just as there are only a few who borrowed irresponsibly who are being made face the consequences of their recklessness, there are even fewer in the banks who have been sacked and imprisoned - I'm open to correction, but has anyone been imprisoned for their management of the financial institutions?

Likewise, regulators who oversaw the mess still have their pensions.

Why? Because in this great little country it's all about the 'process' - if you follow the process (be it lending, borrowing or employment conditions) you are 'entitled' not to be held to account for your actions even if you have been negligent or reckless.

Which brings me back to my original post on this thread - the total and absolute lack of accountability in Irish life is at the heart of the problem and it allows people, with the tacit unspoken agreement of the rest of us, to avoid personal responsibility for their actions and situation.

AudreyHepburn · 14-11-2014 10:33am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The government this, the government that....look at what the government did, what they are doing and why they shouldn't do it.

These are the arguments I hear literally every day from friends and all sorts. A lot of them have mortgages and are now in trouble, some are on the dole and have lost some income.

I do wonder who frog marched the mortgage holders in to a bank to take out a loan they could not afford and who has these people dependent on the dole when you look at their lives in totality.

It just makes me think does anyone (other than the government) take any personal responsibility for the situation they are in in their own lives? To paraphrase the Nyberg report on the crash - "Never mind the government, the Irish people went mad".

Unpopular to say but I believe the situation the country is in is more (note I do not say government and regulators did not screw up) down to collective personal wrecklessness and fecklessness than anything a government has done.

I guess people need scapegoats to divert from their own failings. I don't think this is a distinctly Irish mentality but I do think it comes across stronger in this country that it is always other peoples (preferably powerful and wealthier) fault. I guess begrudgery also feeds in to this.

What is your thesis on this assumption?

OP I couldn't agree with you more!

From those in power down to ordinary joe/jane soap on the street we all have a part to play in the way things have gone and to try and claim otherwise is at best naive and at worst woefully delusional.

The sooner we start owning our own choices and accepting the mistakes we made as our own the sooner we will start to make changes and see things improve.

Of course nobody planned for a major recession and of course the banks shouldn't have offered those huge loans nor should developers have been so greedy but equally nobody forced you to take that crazy loan, no forced you to buy that extra property or the second car.

The people in power made mistakes, but that doesn't absolve us, the ordinary people, from our mistakes.

Peist2007 · 14-11-2014 12:41pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's sad how some people are ignorant of banking/mortage fraud, and Irelands history of political corruption, that they would think "we're all responsible for this" - rather than actually looking at the signs of mismanagement and corruption spanning across government/business/finance.

It's especially sad, because ignorance like that, plays a part in helping ensure there will be no reform - and helps guarantee that exactly the same thing will happen again in the future, with (again) lack of adequate reform of laws/regulations, with very few going to prison.

Also: When it comes to resolving problems like the economic crisis and large amounts of private-debt/unsustainable-mortgages, people need to recognize that the primary solutions have to be done at a European level (you can't look at economic issues at an Ireland-only level, and find solutions - not unless those solutions, rely upon reducing dependence on the Euro) - and debt-forgiveness/writedowns/jubilees at a European level, definitely do not mean everybody else paying more to take up the slack; that is true at a local level, but at a European level, debt forgiveness/writedowns can make the debt disappear entirely.

Another thing people in general are quite unaware of, is the very wide array of solutions to these problems; people really should start researching the alternatives, and learn that a lot of the economically-simplistic assumptions made in these topics, are flat-out wrong.

Thinking that people should live within their means and knowledge of our society's inherent corruption are not mutually exclusive.

Do you think i should get a house i cant afford and be able to rely on the "sure this place is corrupt" excuse when i seek to have my fellow taxpayers pick up my tab?

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2014 12:51pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I for one am certainly not saying that there should not be Banking reform , of course their should..

Light touch regulation does not work and in fact evidence suggests that clear, strong regulation is better for growth and sustainable profits anyway.

There are also more than a few bankers that need to be brought to book for their behaviour.

Look at it this way - If I park my car in town and leave the door unlocked with my laptop on the front seat and it gets stolen , A crime has most definitely been committed and the perpetrator should be found and prosecuted..

That doesn't however absolve me from being, at worst stupid and at best naive in my actions that facilitated the crime..

I have to accept that responsibility and learn from it and try not to make the same mistakes again.. I can't simply say "It was all the criminals fault".. Because it wasn't....

You present the laptop analogy in order to portray people who took out a mortgage as either irresponsible/stupid/naive, but you don't explain how that is in any way analogous? (if you say they are analogous, because you think both represent cases of irresponsibility/stupidity/naivety, that would be a circular argument, because that's the conclusion you're trying to show with the analogy)

Arguing against debt forgiveness, hurts everybody in the economy, because that debt is helping to hold the whole economy down - by holding aggregate demand down (because people are repaying debt instead of spending).
Debt forgiveness does not mean everybody else paying for it, so long as it is done properly at a European level.

So people here have got it backwards: It's keeping people in debt that is harming us all (whether we are in debt ourselves or not), and it is debt forgiveness (at a European level) that helps resolve this for everybody.

"People should take personal responsibility" is just a simplistic moral argument, that ignores the more complicated economic issues, which show that (in the current economy) that viewpoint/policy actually harms everybody.

Jawgap · 14-11-2014 1:05pm

Debt forgiveness in a lot of cases is just another phrase for rewarding recklessness. The people who actually deserve debt forgiveness, to my mind, are quite a small group.

If we're going to have 'debt forgiveness' why not write everyone's debts down by the same proportion?

If the answer to sluggish growth is to forgive the debt of some people, why not forgive the debt of everyone and really allow the economy to blossom?

Surely, the people who did borrow sensibly will save and invest sensibly if they find themselves with more disposable income? What's to stop people who get a pass on their debts from going off and doing it all over again?

EDIT: Plus I don't believe withholding 'debt forgiveness' hurts everyone - if it's acting as a brake on inflation and limiting the scope for feckless politicians to introduce populist policies then there is an argument for continuing to dispense it in very measured amounts.

denhaagenite · 14-11-2014 1:21pm

Sure the same thing is happening now, people camping out overnight to buy houses. Complaining that they have to have 20% of the value of the house saved as a deposit. The banks are now attempting to behave responsibly and people are still complaining.

Leopardhyena · 14-11-2014 1:22pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You present the laptop analogy in order to portray people who took out a mortgage as either irresponsible/stupid/naive, but you don't explain how that is in any way analogous? (if you say they are analogous, because you think both represent cases of irresponsibility/stupidity/naivety, that would be a circular argument, because that's the conclusion you're trying to show with the analogy)

Arguing against debt forgiveness, hurts everybody in the economy, because that debt is helping to hold the whole economy down - by holding aggregate demand down (because people are repaying debt instead of spending).
Debt forgiveness does not mean everybody else paying for it, so long as it is done properly at a European level.

So people here have got it backwards: It's keeping people in debt that is harming us all (whether we are in debt ourselves or not), and it is debt forgiveness (at a European level) that helps resolve this for everybody.

"People should take personal responsibility" is just a simplistic moral argument, that ignores the more complicated economic issues, which show that (in the current economy) that viewpoint/policy actually harms everybody.

Do you fancy giving me a loan?

Does personal responsibility for one's situation exist in Ireland?

Comments