2,000 people destroyed Ireland

dragonsgates

Before chaos and riots break out I have 1 question.

Why are we all paying for the debts of 2,000 people. 100 of these are responsible for 55 billion of the debt.



Sorry let me be clear.

90 billion of our bank debt is owed by 2,000 people.

100 of these owe 55 billion Euro to the banks.

Diarmuid

dragonsgates wrote: »

2,000 people destroyed Ireland

you'll find it hard to have a reasonable discussion when you start with that.

MrMicra

It would be very useful to identify them. It would be good to do this on boards. HOWEVER I would suggest that you PM (boards email) a moderator to check that your post is kosher.

ixoy

We're paying for this because we have to, otherwise the banks will collapse and our economy will be really screwed. Morally it's repugnant but in reality it's a necessity. Let's just say they won't be on Christmas Card list.

Tipp Man

dragonsgates wrote: »

Before chaos and riots break out I have 1 question.

Why are we all paying for the debts of 2,000 people. 100 of these are responsible for 55 billion of the debt.

It wasn't just 2000 people who broke this country. I would say that the vast majority of adults in this country have been living above their means for the last 7 years (myself included), buying beemers, over priced house etc etc. All of this came on cheap, easily accessible credit which was very handy but people need to take account of their own actions. If people weren't paying stupid amounts for houses then developers wouln't have got into the frenzy they did and wouldn't have paid as much for development land and wouldn't have built as many overpriced tin can apartments as they did

Everyone was involved so everyone should pay (by everyone i mean the vast majority)

Liam Byrne

Tipp Man wrote: »

Everyone was involved so everyone should pay (by everyone i mean the vast majority)

Then say "the vast majority".

And - since you were transposing "everyone" with "the vast majority" - your sentence should read "the vast majority (involved) should pay".

As someone who hasn't overstretched, and has tried to "cut the cloth to match", as the saying goes, I can hold my head up and say that I didn't go mad....

And I have proof; if you search back somewhere you'll see my reaction when I told a bank I could afford pay €950 a month, and they STILL offered me a loan worth €1,300 a month!

I didn't take it.

So sorry, I was not part of "the vast majority" responsible, and therefore I should not be part of "the vast majority" who should pay. :mad:

brianthebard

ixoy wrote: »

We're paying for this because we have to, otherwise the banks will collapse and our economy will be really screwed. Morally it's repugnant but in reality it's a necessity. Let's just say they won't be on Christmas Card list.

That's not true there are many other, better options.

Tipp Man

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then say "the vast majority".

And - since you were transposing "everyone" with "the vast majority" - your sentence should read "the vast majority (involved) should pay".

As someone who hasn't overstretched, and has tried to "cut the cloth to match", as the saying goes, I can hold my head up and say that I didn't go mad....

And I have proof; if you search back somewhere you'll see my reaction when I told a bank I could afford pay €950 a month, and they STILL offered me a loan worth €1,300 a month!

I didn't take it.

So sorry, I was not part of "the vast majority" responsible, and therefore I should not be part of "the vast majority" who should pay. :mad:

And i applaud you for cutting your cloth to match, but you have to admit that you are in the minority in this country. And while you didn't take the 1,300 the majority of people in the country did.

My point was that the OP was trying to pin down our economic problems to 2,000 people, i am meerly highlighting that a huge amount of people in this country were living the good life (and/or buying overpriced property) which lead to some of our current problems, note some as we have other areas such as public sector spending, which are possibly bigger problems

jmayo

Tipp Man wrote: »

It wasn't just 2000 people who broke this country. I would say that the vast majority of adults in this country have been living above their means for the last 7 years (myself included), buying beemers, over priced house etc etc. All of this came on cheap, easily accessible credit which was very handy but people need to take account of their own actions. If people weren't paying stupid amounts for houses then developers wouln't have got into the frenzy they did and wouldn't have paid as much for development land and wouldn't have built as many overpriced tin can apartments as they did

Everyone was involved so everyone should pay (by everyone i mean the vast majority)

I don't drive a bmeer and never have.
I didn't get car loan to buy my car etc.
I didn't sign up for a big mortgage over last 10 years, didn't get any loans so why should I pay.
Also was not involved in building trade or any of the vested interests.
Tell you what you can pay my share, since you are so willing to suffer.

You comments sound very much like the line being spun by some ffers.
"We should all pay becuase we are all at fault".
People are at fault for their individual debts, but not for sinking banks with billion euro defaulting loans.
So stop trying to lay smoke screens to default attention from the ones that have scuppered our finanical institutions.

Tipp Man wrote: »

And i applaud you for cutting your cloth to match, but you have to admit that you are in the minority in this country. And while you didn't take the 1,300 the majority of people in the country did.

My point was that the OP was trying to pin down our economic problems to 2,000 people, i am meerly highlighting that a huge amount of people in this country were living the good life (and/or buying overpriced property) which lead to some of our current problems, note some as we have other areas such as public sector spending, which are possibly bigger problems

The banks are f***ed not because of personal lending, but because they lent silly money to some very well connected developers/speculators to either buy land in this country in the hope of screwing exhorbitant money out of FTBs or to invest in property overseas.

If you want to lay any blame on Irish people, blame the 40 odd percent that voted the bunch of chancers in ff into government.
An no I never voted for them either.

Long Onion

jmayo wrote: »

The banks are f***ed not because of personal lending, but because they lent silly money to some very well connected developers/speculators to either buy land in this country in the hope of screwing exhorbitant money out of FTBs or to invest in property overseas.

But you miss the point that the only reason the developers acted this way is because the banks fcuked up when it came to personal lending for those who wanted to buy the houses - the two factors cannot be divorced.

jmayo wrote: »

If you want to lay any blame on Irish people, blame the 40 odd percent that voted the bunch of chancers in ff into government.
An no I never voted for them either.

I agree, totally.

SkepticOne

Tipp Man wrote: »

My point was that the OP was trying to pin down our economic problems to 2,000 people, i am meerly highlighting that a huge amount of people in this country were living the good life (and/or buying overpriced property) which lead to some of our current problems, note some as we have other areas such as public sector spending, which are possibly bigger problems

But even those who overpaid for housing at the top of the boom are for the most part not in default or about to default. Most of them will struggle through somehow and are therefore not a problem for the banks. And they are not the majority of the country either. The problem is people who borrowed billions and will simply fold their companies when they are in trouble.

dragonsgates

Sorry let me be clear.

90 billion of our bank debt is owed by 2,000 people.

100 of these owe 55 billion Euro to the banks.

Mr. Presentable

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then say "the vast majority".

And - since you were transposing "everyone" with "the vast majority" - your sentence should read "the vast majority (involved) should pay".

As someone who hasn't overstretched, and has tried to "cut the cloth to match", as the saying goes, I can hold my head up and say that I didn't go mad....

And I have proof; if you search back somewhere you'll see my reaction when I told a bank I could afford pay €950 a month, and they STILL offered me a loan worth €1,300 a month!

I didn't take it.

So sorry, I was not part of "the vast majority" responsible, and therefore I should not be part of "the vast majority" who should pay. :mad:

I agree because I behaved similarly. Unfortunately, not only will the people who lived within their means have to pay, they will have to pay more because they have some savings, or fewer outgoings, so can afford to have more taken from them (us)

ei.sdraob

This is analogous to what happened in Nazi Germany

a small group of whackos hijacked a country

but via use of propaganda the nation fell for their lies and millions followed orders which resulted in death and destruction


now this is aint WW2 style destruction here in Ireland, but there are some similarities

there was propaganda on media making people fall into property bubble and any dissenting voices were told to go and commit suicide by the people on top, and then there was/is all the blatant denial of the dire situation in face of reality

Tipp Man

SkepticOne wrote: »

But even those who overpaid for housing at the top of the boom are for the most part not in default or about to default. Most of them will struggle through somehow and are therefore not a problem for the banks. And they are not the majority of the country either. The problem is people who borrowed billions and will simply fold their companies when they are in trouble.

I was trying to highlight that if everyone wasn't so hell bent on buying property then the developers wouldn't have paid ridiculous prices for development land as the demand for property would not have been there. It was a real demand lead boom is what i am saying

Tipp Man

jmayo wrote: »

I don't drive a bmeer and never have.
I didn't get car loan to buy my car etc.
I didn't sign up for a big mortgage over last 10 years, didn't get any loans so why should I pay.
Also was not involved in building trade or any of the vested interests.
Tell you what you can pay my share, since you are so willing to suffer.

You comments sound very much like the line being spun by some ffers.
"We should all pay becuase we are all at fault".
People are at fault for their individual debts, but not for sinking banks with billion euro defaulting loans.
So stop trying to lay smoke screens to default attention from the ones that have scuppered our finanical institutions.



The banks are f***ed not because of personal lending, but because they lent silly money to some very well connected developers/speculators to either buy land in this country in the hope of screwing exhorbitant money out of FTBs or to invest in property overseas.

If you want to lay any blame on Irish people, blame the 40 odd percent that voted the bunch of chancers in ff into government.
An no I never voted for them either.

Hey no need to get so hot about it, I didn't buy any property either but what i am saying is that if people weren't so hell bent on buying property then the developers would not have been so hell bent on supplying it at such high prices.

you have to ask how did house prices get so high and the reason is that joe public wanted them so badly, my last landlord (a mate) qued for 24 hours to get a property in an average at best area for a price that was about 40-50% more than it should have been, now tell me how is that sane.

So just because you don't fall into the category doesn't mean a lot of people don't

Tipp Man

jmayo wrote: »

You comments sound very much like the line being spun by some ffers.
"We should all pay becuase we are all at fault".
People are at fault for their individual debts, but not for sinking banks with billion euro defaulting loans.
So stop trying to lay smoke screens to default attention from the ones that have scuppered our finanical institutions.

I don't belong to any party and have never voted for FF. I'm just merely trying to get to some of the underlying problems which is the overspending of the vast majority of people inthe country

jimmmy

Tipp Man wrote: »

if people weren't so hell bent on buying property then the developers would not have been so hell bent on supplying it at such high prices.

true, and it was the government and central bank and regulator who allowed the bubble get as big as it did. Do not forget that. The Central bank + regulator was paid to do a job + failed....we are all paying the price.

Tipp Man

jimmmy wrote: »

true, and it was the government and central bank and regulator who allowed the bubble get as big as it did. Do not forget that. The Central bank + regulator was paid to do a job + failed....we are all paying the price.

oh I agree completly, the central bank, regulator, government and the banks have huge questions to answer as to how they left it get to this stage, not for 1 second would i deny this

but for me the original post was trying to say that 2000 people had caused this mess but i think that you need to dig a little deeper and when you do you see that a lot of people in this country were living beyond there means on borrowed money. Its easy to blame the developers/banks but i would like to see all people take responsibility for their own finances and the consequences that has

AlekSmart

Too bloody right Dragonsgates...I did`nt take out an SSIA because I felt it was a somewhat typical McCreevy race-day stunt (It was,but that`s another story,innit ?)
So,post Green Party PFG the countrys priority is now to ensure the comfort and security of the chosen 2,000.....(Wonder how many are Green Party Members ?)

ei.sdraob`s comparison with 1930`s Germany is getting somewhat close to the potential truth I fear......

lmimmfn

at the end of the day its the greed of the people in ireland that caused all this, it was simply fueled by the banks and if thats the kind of people irish people have become then we deserve everything we get and a lot worse, maybe it will get people to just cop on with money and have some sense than trying to keep up with the jones's and crap.

Negitive Equity is the total fault of the buyer, anyone with common sense would never pay the stupid prices being asked for crappy 3 bedroom houses in half finished estates and the likes.

Tipp Man

lmimmfn wrote: »

at the end of the day its the greed of the people in ireland that caused all this, it was simply fueled by the banks and if thats the kind of people irish people have become then we deserve everything we get and a lot worse, maybe it will get people to just cop on with money and have some sense than trying to keep up with the jones's and crap.

Negitive Equity is the total fault of the buyer, anyone with common sense would never pay the stupid prices being asked for crappy 3 bedroom houses in half finished estates and the likes.

thats exactly what i was trying to say

lmimmfn

Tipp Man wrote: »

thats exactly what i was trying to say

i agree with you, people were living beyond their means, not only that everyone was out to rip the next person off, i.e. looking for hugh profits on their house purchase. Of course this was largely based on upgrading to a new house and those being overvalued also, but the bubble wasnt really caused by homeowners, it was caused by those who owned investment property( second houses etc. ) and trying to wrangle as mush cash out of the buyer as possible. However homeowners with just 1 house are stil partially to blame for paying above the odds for their property, so anyone with negative equity i dont really have much pity for.
I realise there are famalies in that situation and its a horible situation but its not a right to own a house, its a luxury that most of us strive for. There was always a rental market and always will be.

jmayo

Tipp Man wrote: »

I don't belong to any party and have never voted for FF. ,...

Glad to hear it

Tipp Man wrote: »

Hey no need to get so hot about it, I didn't buy any property either but what i am saying is that if people weren't so hell bent on buying property then the developers would not have been so hell bent on supplying it at such high prices.

you have to ask how did house prices get so high and the reason is that joe public wanted them so badly, my last landlord (a mate) qued for 24 hours to get a property in an average at best area for a price that was about 40-50% more than it should have been, now tell me how is that sane.

So just because you don't fall into the category doesn't mean a lot of people don't

Yes a lot of people were greedy, trying at all costs to jump on the gravy train that was the property ladder.
Also some believed the garbage being fed to them that prices would or could never drop.
And the above are the reasons I have vociferously being against ideas such as a bailout of individuals mortgages on these forums.
Some have suggested that the 60 odd billion be diverted to cut ordinary people's mortgages and I have veheminently opposed this type of claptrap.

But on this thread your comments shriek of the ff mantra, that we are all at fault for the mess that the public finances are in and the fact that the banks are affectively insolvent due to bad loans.
Acording to this mantra we should all pay for NAMA and the recapitalisation of the banks.
We should all bear the brunt of the increased taxes and increased cuts.
Bulls***.

It is too convenient to deflect the blame from those that should be tarred and feathered, while every penny they made is taken off them.

The reason for the banks going bust (and they are affectively bust) is the fact that they uncontrollably lent silly amounts to developers.
The reason the budget deficit is so bad is because the government ramped up public spending, particularly on labour costs to keep the unions on side. And they based their increased sp3ending on transactional taxes that were never going to last.
Another legacy of bertie.

And yes I am hot and bothered, because it will be people like me and others who didn't parttake in the gravy train who will end up being stiffed with the bill.

Liam Byrne

Tipp Man wrote: »

And i applaud you for cutting your cloth to match, but you have to admit that you are in the minority in this country. And while you didn't take the 1,300 the majority of people in the country did.

And now I'm paying for it. The reason I made that point was because of your "everybody / the vast majority" equivalence.

Tipp Man wrote: »

My point was that the OP was trying to pin down our economic problems to 2,000 people, i am meerly highlighting that a huge amount of people in this country were living the good life (and/or buying overpriced property) which lead to some of our current problems, note some as we have other areas such as public sector spending, which are possibly bigger problems

There's some truth in that, but here's a question for you, though.....

Developers get a loan from a bank to sell houses
The bank wants to ensure that's paid back, or at least spread thinly
Someone comes into the bank wanting to buy one of said houses

INSTANT conflict of interest.

Add in the fact that by offering you more than they should so that you can bid more (thereby ensuring the developer has better cashflow and they get paid quicker) and the fact that they were offering cash to the people bidding against you, and you have a cosy little closed shop going on that's guaranteed to cause grief.

I saw this issue YEARS ago. But I'm not an economist, regulator, Minister for Finance or Taoiseach, and I'm not a buddy of a high-ranking FF person so I was never on a consultancy, quango or advisory committee. And sure what would I know, anyway ?

Also, can I say that while yes - there were many people who were greedy, those people were going to the 2,000 odd bank managers and being told "I'd give you €1,300; and whatever about being greedy, if a bank manager tells you that - supposedly not a loan shark - you would be entitled to make at least some assumption that he was happy that you'd be able to pay it back.

So while there is culpability, the fact remains that the banks shouldn't have offered it, and the bulk of the blame lies at the feet of the banks and the so-called "regulator".

lmimmfn

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And now I'm paying for it. The reason I made that point was because of your "everybody / the vast majority" equivalence.



There's some truth in that, but here's a question for you, though.....

Developers get a loan from a bank to sell houses
The bank wants to ensure that's paid back, or at least spread thinly
Someone comes into the bank wanting to buy one of said houses

INSTANT conflict of interest.

Add in the fact that by offering you more than they should so that you can bid more (thereby ensuring the developer has better cashflow and they get paid quicker) and the fact that they were offering cash to the people bidding against you, and you have a cosy little closed shop going on that's guaranteed to cause grief.

very good point, even worse add on top of that the as the house price increases in value and thereby the loan the cost of the mortgage increases and its that increase that increases bank profits. The banks were trying to keep the house prices increasing and increasing to increase their profits.

However at the end of the day its those climbing over each other queuing for hours to buy some POS house for double its value. Market forces dicatated the prices and largly thats those willing to pay that price. Inner cities had other problems with market forces whereby developers were only offloading e.g. 5 apartments at a time in a 100 apartment building to keep the demand and prices artifically high.
Nonetheless the consumer is the problem and are the ones who could have controlled the pricing.

NewDubliner

Tipp Man wrote: »

what i am saying is that if people weren't so hell bent on buying property then the developers would not have been so hell bent on supplying it at such high prices.

You make the developers sound like some kind of reluctant drug-dealer.

Tipp Man wrote: »

you have to ask how did house prices get so high and the reason is that joe public wanted them so badly,

People wanted somewhere to live and were terrified that if they didn't buy, prices would be even higher the next year.

Prices are still too high, thanks to NAMA, developers don't have to wake up to market reality.

I can well imagine how the banks and property developers were pleased when when got pay raises so they could afford to buy over-priced houses. It's ironic that, having trapped peoplein mortgages and knowing they have a bail-out to protect them in case of default, the banks & their pet economists are now calling for pay cuts.

The wage/slave tap is well and truly sprung.

Liam Byrne

lmimmfn wrote: »

very good point, even worse add on top of that the as the house price increases in value and thereby the loan the cost of the mortgage increases and its that increase that increases bank profits. The banks were trying to keep the house prices increasing and increasing to increase their profits.

And to make matters worse, the fact that stamp duty was a percentage of said-same OTT prices, the Government were happy too, which probably explains why the so-called regulator didn't do his job!

Sickening!

NewDubliner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And to make matters worse, the fact that stamp duty was a percentage of said-same OTT prices, the Government were happy too, which probably explains why the so-called regulator didn't do his job
!

Remind me, how much was the stamp duty for a first-time buyer of a new house?

Bandit12

dragonsgates wrote: »

Before chaos and riots break out I have 1 question.

Why are we all paying for the debts of 2,000 people. 100 of these are responsible for 55 billion of the debt.



Sorry let me be clear.

90 billion of our bank debt is owed by 2,000 people.

100 of these owe 55 billion Euro to the banks.

Irish people don't have the get up and go for "Chaos and rioting"

lmimmfn

NewDubliner wrote: »

People wanted somewhere to live and were terrified that if they didn't buy, prices would be even higher the next year.

Anyone who believed the scare mongering deserved what they got( negative equity ), no one was ever forced to buy, anyone with common sense could see it could never ever last. At the end of the day its just bricks/morter and a bit of land.

Its ok to want somewhere to live, there was always the rental market available, no-one was stuck, and this concept of deserving your own house is outdated, its a priviledge not a basic necessity.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Prices are still too high, thanks to NAMA, developers don't have to wake up to market reality.

I can well imagine how the banks and property developers were pleased when when got pay raises so they could afford to buy over-priced houses. It's ironic that, having trapped peoplein mortgages and knowing they have a bail-out to protect them in case of default, the banks & their pet economists are now calling for pay cuts.

The wage/slave tap is well and truly sprung.

+1 agree 100% and with the stupid Nama the prices will remain artificially high indefinately( outside of Nama property which and ohh the irony will probably be rebought by the original developers for 25% of what they originally recieved a loan on it for ).

NewDubliner wrote: »

Remind me, how much was the stamp duty for a first-time buyer of a new house?

They never needed stamp duty on new property, the VAT paid by the devs and the PAYE of the developers employees would have made up the difference.
Second hand products passing between consumers have a very low tax yield or none at all unless directly taxed as stamp duty does, new products have the tax and vat paid before completion

NewDubliner

lmimmfn wrote: »

and ohh the irony will probably be rebought by the original developers for 25% of what they originally recieved a loan on it for

I'll give you some more irony....some of the properties/site in NAMA were probably sold by the government to the private sector as it tried to raise the billion it needed for the decentralisation scam.

bonkey

dragonsgates wrote: »

Why are we all paying for the debts of 2,000 people. 100 of these are responsible for 55 billion of the debt.

When you owe your bank a hundred grand, you take your bank manager to lunch.

When you owe them a hundred million, they take you to lunch.

lmimmfn

NewDubliner wrote: »

I'll give you some more irony....some of the properties/site in NAMA were probably sold by the government to the private sector as it tried to raise the billion it needed for the decentralisation scam.

lol, thats most likely what happened, whats the odds on brown envelopes and what not for 'special' Nama deals for developers? current Nama legislation doesnt even require them to say what was sold, and for how much, only the balance sheet at the end of the year, that in itself is a disaster waiting to happen.

NewDubliner

lmimmfn wrote: »

lol, thats most likely what happened, whats the odds on brown envelopes and what not for 'special' Nama deals for developers? current Nama legislation doesnt even require them to say what was sold, and for how much, only the balance sheet at the end of the year, that in itself is a disaster waiting to happen.

See my other post, €315 million spent so far and not a lot to show for it. Parlon was flogging state property all over the place (to fund wheezes like moving departments offices into their ministers constituencies) and boasting about how much he was getting for it....now it looks like that chicken has come home to roost.

johnnyskeleton

ixoy wrote: »

We're paying for this because we have to, otherwise the banks will collapse and our economy will be really screwed. Morally it's repugnant but in reality it's a necessity. Let's just say they won't be on Christmas Card list.

No alternative to NAMA eh? Few things:

1) there are several mooted alternatives to NAMA

2) even if a NAMA time organisation is needed, the only reason it focuses on particular bad debts is because the people who hold such bad debts are owed one by our politicians. Otherwise, if NAMA really was about fixing the banks, it would include personal unsecured debt etc

3) There is a world of a difference between saying that all banks will collapse never to be replaced and saying that these particular banks will collapses. I see nothing wrong with these particular banks collapsing, in fact it's quite healthy in a capitalist society to allow unsuccessful businesses to fail

4) our economy is already screwed, NAMA is only transferring the problems from private hands (more particularly the 4000 or so private hands that the OP referred to) into public hands which is a decision that your children's children could still be paying off

5) for the above reasons, I don't see why it is necessary or even desirable for us to relieve the debts of builders/developers/speculators (and that is what will ultimately happen with NAMA) and equally I don't see why it is necessary to keep the current banks alive. In fact, the current banks will become even more reckless if we bail them out, such is called moral hazard.

johnnyskeleton

jmayo wrote: »

Some have suggested that the 60 odd billion be diverted to cut ordinary people's mortgages and I have veheminently opposed this type of claptrap.

Which would be payable to everyone with a mortgage, even if they are not in NE/ arrears, but not to people that don't have mortgages.

The only bailout that is fair and reasonable is to give the €60bn equally to every person who currently pays or will pay tax in Ireland, or roughly €30k each. That will alleviate the burden on ordinary people's mortgages by giving them a €30k boost, and it will also ensures that those who don't have a mortgage can afford a nice little deposit to buy a house (or whatever they want).

The easiest way to distribute this bailout is not to send them all a cheque because that would be open to fraud/theft etc. The best way to distribute it is to simply not borrow it in the first place.

That's the kind of bailout we as taxpayers should be looking for.

AlekSmart

1mimmfn posted...

Its ok to want somewhere to live, there was always the rental market available, no-one was stuck, and this concept of deserving your own house is outdated, its a priviledge not a basic necessity.

Aside from a small number of posters knocking around boards.ie few appear willing to countenance this differentiation between Privilege and Basic Necessity.

And in a very simple way,that reluctance will ensure that the rest of mainland Europe will have managed a somewhat smoother recovery than whatever will pass for it as Gaeilge.

Why oh Why was our entire financial system allowed to funnel such unfeasible amounts of money through such a small number of individuals into ONE single area of development ?

Worse still,why oh why,is NAMA,as a state agency seriously skewed towards trying to refloat this quite obviously unseaworthy ship ?

The simple answer is to take that "Rental Market",reform and support it`s expansion by using whatever funds (NAMA like) to invite developer/managers into the business with far longer term returns and with solid State Backed guarantees for Landlord AND Tenant.

Sadly,we never really bought into the "Greater Good" as a principle and most likely now...never will

lmimmfn

AlekSmart wrote: »

1mimmfn posted...

Aside from a small number of posters knocking around boards.ie few appear willing to countenance this differentiation between Privilege and Basic Necessity.

Not only that, the perception was that you had to own more than one property to be keeping up with the jones's

AlekSmart wrote: »

Why oh Why was our entire financial system allowed to funnel such unfeasible amounts of money through such a small number of individuals into ONE single area of development ?

Seriously though its the peoples fault, noone gave a damn about Ireland as a nation, everyone just wanted to screw the next guy, offload their property with a huge profit so they could rebuy a larger property with more cash and expect to make more selling that( obviously fuelling the whole problem ).

AlekSmart wrote: »

Worse still,why oh why,is NAMA,as a state agency seriously skewed towards trying to refloat this quite obviously unseaworthy ship ?

I totally agree and on top of that Nama will keep the value of properties fictionally high for the forseeable future as the market is stagnent and will remain so with the perception of large tax increases in decembers budget which will further erode the ability of anyone looking for a mortgage.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The simple answer is to take that "Rental Market",reform and support it`s expansion by using whatever funds (NAMA like) to invite developer/managers into the business with far longer term returns and with solid State Backed guarantees for Landlord AND Tenant.

Exactly perception of it being your absolute right to own property is completely outdated, you get what you can afford and no more. Thank god the day of idiotic 100% mortgages is over. If anyone had any sense they would have been renting until the property prices decreased to something actually viable for your average person.

Last place i rented the landlord put the house on the market( June 2008 ) for 310,000Euro, 8 weeks later he was trying to flog it for 265,000EUR, complete insanity.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Sadly,we never really bought into the "Greater Good" as a principle and most likely now...never will

Did we feck, it was all about f***ing over the next guy for as much cash as you could get, its embarressing to think thats in essence what we are as a nation( i cant paint everyone with the same brush but the majority ), on top of that loads complain about the politicians and whoever and corruption and everyone would just milk the system in the same way.

Ive hated Ireland in the past 10 years as a nation, no respect for money, people running around with flash new cars year after year, buying 2,3 or 4 houses( and enjoying boasting about it ), several foreign holidays a year, buying bull$hit expensive handbags and crap, spending 1000's of euros on christmas pressies for the kids, grrrrrrrrrrr i could go on.

ronbyrne2005

Banking crisis will in probably cost no more than a one off hit of 30billion , a lot but not 55 or 90 billion.
The budget deficit is 25billion EVERY YEAR unless expenditure falls or taxes rise. Even after rest world recovers we will be short 10-15billion a year on current income and expenditure levels.

Amhran Nua

Tipp Man wrote: »

but for me the original post was trying to say that 2000 people had caused this mess but i think that you need to dig a little deeper and when you do you see that a lot of people in this country were living beyond there means on borrowed money.

It should be fairly easy to track the volume of mortgages sold in the period 2001 to 2006, what, around 300,000 or so? Thats less than 10% of the population.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It should be fairly easy to track the volume of mortgages sold in the period 2001 to 2006, what, around 300,000 or so? Thats less than 10% of the population.

In 1998 it was impossible to get rental property in Dublin close to whereever you worked, i moved there in September '98 and people were queuing outside residences from 8am to get to rent them, so your years are wrong. This all started around '98 and ended in 2008( april would be my best guess of when things felt they were changing quickly ).

I dunno where you got the 300,000 mortgages( i would agree that 300,000 new mortgages would probably be correct but that it wouldnt included previous mortgage extensions for trading up ), also many would have consolidated several mortgages into 1 thus the count wouldnt tally to actual number of houses as it wouldnt be a 1:1 ratio.
On top of that 300,000 mortgages does not equate to 10% of the population, a lot will be married and a lot will have families. Most likely you are taking minimum 600,000 people involved and maximum 1 million, now youre taking 20-25% of the population involved in the housing nonsense of the past 10+ years.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

On top of that 300,000 mortgages does not equate to 10% of the population, a lot will be married and a lot will have families.

Thats the number it affected, not the number that took out mortgages. Also there would have been a significant portion of those mortgages for investment purposes (40% in 2006) so you can assume a lot of people had more than one mortgage. The actual number is probably in the region of 15% of the population, which is still a very far cry from "the majority". The shared guilt stuff doesn't wash at all in my opinion.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Thats the number it affected, not the number that took out mortgages. Also there would have been a significant portion of those mortgages for investment purposes (40% in 2006) so you can assume a lot of people had more than one mortgage. The actual number is probably in the region of 15% of the population, which is still a very far cry from "the majority". The shared guilt stuff doesn't wash at all in my opinion.

Please post a link to your information that that was the total number affected? as i find that extremely hard to believe.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

Please post a link to your information that that was the total number affected? as i find that extremely hard to believe.

"a lot will be married and a lot will have families" = total number affected. The children didn't take out mortgages and aren't responsible.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

"a lot will be married and a lot will have families" = total number affected. The children didn't take out mortgages and aren't responsible.

Im not on about that you stated that 300,000 people were affected, where are you getting this information from?

wobzilla1

dragonsgates wrote: »

2,000 people destroyed Ireland

I think there's a fair amount more than 2000 africans in ireland

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

Im not on about that you stated that 300,000 people were affected, where are you getting this information from?

Ah I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Lets start again.
Q: Are the majority responsible for this problem?
A: No they are not since the number of mortgages taken out over the course of the boom is considerably less than 50% of the population no matter how you cut it.

Long Onion

wobzilla1 wrote: »

I think there's a fair amount more than 2000 africans in ireland

Seriously classy, our country needs more people like you:rolleyes:

People who post drivel like this are responsible for the fact that some people can't be arsed trying to rescue the country from the morass we are now in. Go back to the stone from whence you crawled you idiot.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Lets start again.
Q: Are the majority responsible for this problem?
A: No they are not since the number of mortgages taken out over the course of the boom is considerably less than 50% of the population no matter how you cut it.

ok fair enough but you cant state figures without a source or that theyre youre best guess, i dont mean to be a twat, but it should be stated.

It would need to be analysed with proper figures from the banks. A very large proportion of the population is involved in the spending splurge and it didnt include just mortgages but remortgaging, splurging or new cars, several holidays and nonsense like that.
In 2006 25% of the population were aged 25-40( http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=76966 ), those are the ones who will be mostly affected by this crisis in ireland( excluding pension funds which is an international problem ) for the simple fact that they will have high loan to value ratios for those with mortgages but also those who didnt have mortgages would have spent/loaned money for other things

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

It would need to be analysed with proper figures from the banks. A very large proportion of the population is involved in the spending splurge and it didnt include just mortgages but remortgaging, splurging or new cars, several holidays and nonsense like that.

I wouldn't be too bothered by short term unsecured debt, credit cards and so on, it would be very unusual for people to go bankrupt over something like that, so I'm focusing on the mortgage/top up loans as being the problem as it were.