Get you debts written off!

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/debt-writeoff-scheme-agreed-44966.html

The government has agreed to create formal new arrangements which could allow individuals who cannot pay off their personal debts to have a sizeable portion of them written off without going into bankruptcy or losing their home.

Take a look at the range of incomes of the people who will avail of this

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1859

voxpop

I dont get this - why is there a push to allow ppl who have gotten into debt to write a big chunk of it off ? I had a large amount of debt over me from college loans, etc. I paid them all off, I had to take a cut in my living standards, but paid everything off none the less.

I didnt buy a house over the past few years because common sense told me that the prices were way too high, 800k for a 3 bed near templeogue!! I dont see why someone with large amounts of debt should suddenly get a part written off. Its their own fault for getting into debt in the first place.

Tipp Man

voxpop wrote: »

I dont get this - why is there a push to allow ppl who have gotten into debt to write a big chunk of it off ? I had a large amount of debt over me from college loans, etc. I paid them all off, I had to take a cut in my living standards, but paid everything off none the less.

I didnt buy a house over the past few years because common sense told me that the prices were way too high, 800k for a 3 bed near templeogue!! I dont see why someone with large amounts of debt should suddenly get a part written off. Its their own fault for getting into debt in the first place.

Agree completly and this is something that i feel very strongly about, I like you looked at house price these last 5-6 years and laughed at how stupid people were to buy these properties, now when the s''t hits the fan these guys are going to have their debts written off is ridiculous. Where has the responsibility for 1's own finances gone?

If this does come to fruitition then let me tell you this country will have learned nothing from the last 7 years of gross overindulgence. For people to simply go out and live like kings and then not suffer the consequences of having to pay them off is mind boggling. Why should i have to pay off my loans when someone else doesn't??

there are very few things that would have me marching in the streets but let me tell you if this happens it is 1 thing i would march about

Dannyboy83

The scheme is only binding if creditors representing 75 per cent of the total debts agree to its terms.

Why would the banks possibly be interested in IVAs when they already have NAMA?
The Government become the creditor, so therefore it will be a bail out for the private homer owner if the government agree to write off a percentage.

So, my tax will be paying for
A) the banks who caused the mess - NAMA
the clients who overborrowed and contributed to the mess - IVAs

Whos getting stuffed?
Me <- the one who was financially responsible and didn't buy a house.

I swear to God, if that happens, the government can either i) agree to give me the deposit for my house, or ii) the banks can lock me into a 0% interest rate.

Or I can just fcuk off to another country where I'm not a peon under the Irish Feudal system.

Dannyboy83

Or failing that, I'll just go have my own little Celtic Tiger and get a bailout next year when the parties over.

What a joke, I should of racked up a load of debt and bought myself an overpriced house. If this goes ahead I would like to get back all of the money I lost in my PRB Fund due to the banks mess.

johnnyskeleton

I know I say this with every new innovation that this government brings in to deal with the crisis, but it seems to me that such a piece of legislation is unconstitutional.

Let's say that I am one of 5 people who are owed money by Joe Soap. We are all owed 20k and Joe owes 100k in total. But, he only has 50k to offer to his creditors in total (or so he says anyway). The other 4 look at it and decide to take the 10k and cut their losses. But I know Joe quite well and know that he has some money stashed away or that he is just about to open up a new business with assets from his wife/son etc. So I say to Joe that I want all my money in full.

However, because such agreements are legally binding if 75% of the creditors agree to it (or whatever amount is ultimately specified in the legislation) I lose my right to sue for the money or seek it against his new business at a later date and so I get shafted (either by being forced to take the 10k or, seeing as it's Ireland, possibly being left out in the cold if I do not accept it). I lose 10k and Joe gets to keep that 10k because he outwitted the other 4 creditors.

This seems to me to violate my right to private property, to enter into contractual arrangements and to enforce same through the courts. Even if it wasn't strictly speaking unconstitutional, I wouldn't be interested in giving anybody an unsecured personal loan because I would lose my right to claim it back if they invoked this new legislation.

johnnyskeleton

voxpop wrote: »

I dont get this - why is there a push to allow ppl who have gotten into debt to write a big chunk of it off ? I had a large amount of debt over me from college loans, etc. I paid them all off, I had to take a cut in my living standards, but paid everything off none the less.

I didnt buy a house over the past few years because common sense told me that the prices were way too high, 800k for a 3 bed near templeogue!! I dont see why someone with large amounts of debt should suddenly get a part written off. Its their own fault for getting into debt in the first place.

Secured personal debts aren't covered it seems, only unsecured debts.

peasant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Secured personal debts aren't covered it seems, only unsecured debts.

hang on ...hang on ...

So the hard working young family that just about managed to buy an overprized carboard box in the arsehole of nowhere and now can't pay for it due to losing one (or two!) incomes gets a re-negotiaton of their repayment terms so that they don't and up in the street (instead their grandchildren will be paying off the mortgage) ...

but all the smug fucckers who maxxed out on 15 credit cards to buy three new cars and five flat screen TV's get to keep their glitter and walk away grinning even more smugly?

You MUST be kiddin' me :mad:

peasant

peasant wrote: »

hang on ...hang on ...

So the hard working young family that just about managed to buy an overprized carboard box in the arsehole of nowhere and now can't pay for it due to losing one (or two!) incomes gets a re-negotiaton of their repayment terms so that they don't and up in the street (instead their grandchildren will be paying off the mortgage) ...

but all the smug fucckers who maxxed out on 15 credit cards to buy three new cars and five flat screen TV's get to keep their glitter and walk away grinning even more smugly?

You MUST be kiddin' me :mad:

Who says these are different people? Who is being bailed out with NAMA?
Who will be bailed out with this.......... we dont know the full details of this plan yet only an obscure reference to the UK system. I wouldnt be holding out on it being an equitable show at all

peasant

Deleted User wrote: »

Who says these are different people?

Well, the way I see it there were four different kind of people during the property boom:

1) people who stayed out of it and lived prudently and within their means
2) ordinary people, young families, who needed a home and due to our miserable tennancy laws were more or less forced to buy a family home, pretty much regardless of the price
3) ordinary people who lost the run of themselves, believed that they were rich (because the price of thier one and only house had gone up) and went on a spending splurge
4) property speculators ...some of them with the cash to play the market, lots of them without.

If anyone thinks that I (member of group one) will sit quietly while my money is used to bail out the 3's and 4's ...they've got another thing coming

PCPhoto

this is simply the government trying to ensure that they manage to keep their jobs ...claiming we're helping out "the people" too.

if anyone from the government reads this (how about punishing the people responsible instead of being so nice to them - yerselves included)

This country needs serious overhaul - how can our Taoiseach earn so much more than the president of the USA, or even how can our TV presenters earn that much, most of our politicians earn as much as president of USA (if you include their "expenses")

Scofflaw

It's a way of alleviating impossible situations. I'm sure there will turn out to be ways in which it can be abused (isn't everything?), but it's mostly a recognition that recovery becomes all the more difficult if people have a perpetual open liability to their creditors if they can't settle all debts in full.

Taking this example:

Let's say that I am one of 5 people who are owed money by Joe Soap. We are all owed 20k and Joe owes 100k in total. But, he only has 50k to offer to his creditors in total (or so he says anyway). The other 4 look at it and decide to take the 10k and cut their losses. But I know Joe quite well and know that he has some money stashed away or that he is just about to open up a new business with assets from his wife/son etc. So I say to Joe that I want all my money in full.

In that situation you would persuade the other creditors that Joe Soap has the money. However, let's say he really doesn't have it:

However, because such agreements are legally binding if 75% of the creditors agree to it (or whatever amount is ultimately specified in the legislation) I lose my right to sue for the money or seek it against his new business at a later date and so I get shafted (either by being forced to take the 10k or, seeing as it's Ireland, possibly being left out in the cold if I do not accept it).

That's kind of the point - you've lost your ability to hold your debt permanently over Joe's head, so that if he manages to crawl back from the abyss, nobody's waiting for him. He has settled his debts, and that settlement, unlike the informal arrangements he might otherwise have come to, is legally binding. You might not be the kind of person who would agree to "settle" for €10K now, but come after Joe the minute he looked like he had money again, but there's plenty who are.

This also has nothing to do with people like developers - anyone with the nous to incorporate as a limited liability company already has their debts covered by better arrangements.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This country is turning more and more into a badly run circus everyday :mad:

Like many other sensible people in this country I worked my arse off for years, was sensible with my money, got myself a PRB fund that is now 90% gone :mad:, I didn't / don't live beyond my means, no debts, and now on top of the government asking me to bail out the banks, building developers, a budget that will no doubt see my taxes go up and new ones come in, water rates, welfare cuts etc... I'm now been asked to bail out all the idiots that lived way beyond their means and thought the boom would never end, the wannbe yuppies with their overpriced houses, second homes they rent out, BM's and Mercs that now find themselves shopping in Aldi & Lidl every week, what a joke.

It's true what I've been told for years about this country, "the rich get rich and the poorer get poorer, if you're not rich and a crook you will be walked all over".

Amhran Nua

Somebody is going to take the hit on a scheme like this. If its the banks, why are we recapitalising them on one hand and removing their income with the other? More details are needed methinks.

AARRRGH

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Somebody is going to take the hit on a scheme like this. If its the banks, why are we recapitalising them on one hand and removing their income with the other? More details are needed methinks.

I'm going to make a wild guess and say the tax payer will pay for it. It would not surprise me at all to hear Brian Lenihan announce a "Debt Repayment" fund or something which of course is made up of a few billion of the tax payers money.

Thank god I am emigrating next year. It's the only thing keeping me going in this banana republic!

Amhran Nua

AARRRGH wrote: »

Thank god I am emigrating next year. It's the only thing keeping me going in this banana republic!

Its the sensible option. If all the people who know whats wrong leave though, who will be left to fix it?

Idbatterim

i cant believe this latest propsal, everyone who saw what was going on with the ridiculous house prices and held off buying, are now being rewarded for their foresight and correct thinking! Now this proposal! let them pay back every red cent! I couldnt care less how they do it! if they borrowed incomprehensible sums for the sh*t heaps let them pay for it for years to come! God I wish I had finnished my college course, so I could get out of this joke of a country easier!

Festus

Of course you could just get a job in RTE. The more like a plank you are the more money you make. All debts cleared within a couple of months.

thebman

It is ridiculous but was always likely to happen.

One guy I used to work with when I said, I wouldn't buy a house with the market the way it was (just as it start to collapse), he said, sure there are too many people involved now, the state can't let it fail, might as well get in now as they'll have to bail everyone out if it all falls apart.

Guess he was right :-/

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its the sensible option. If all the people who know whats wrong leave though, who will be left to fix it?

those in the public sector, the politicians and those on the dole, im sure they'll sort it out amongst themselves lmao

In the context if you move though would you really give a $hit?

its something im keeping an eye on doing personally, i dont want my family to grow up in a long term Nama/overtaxed workforce/poor economy.

AARRRGH

lmimmfn wrote: »

those in the public sector, the politicians and those on the dole, im sure they'll sort it out amongst themselves lmao

In the context if you move though would you really give a $hit?

its something im keeping an eye on doing personally, i dont want my family to grow up in a long term Nama/overtaxed workforce/poor economy.

I only have one life, so there's no way in hell I'm going to spend it in (let's be honest) a country that can be quite miserable at the best of times. When I try to imagine post-NAMA Ireland, all I can see is a shit hole.

Barcelona here I come.

lmimmfn

AARRRGH wrote: »

I only have one life, so there's no way in hell I'm going to spend it in (let's be honest) a country that can be quite miserable at the best of times. When I try to imagine post-NAMA Ireland, all I can see is a shit hole.

Barcelona here I come.

If you have the opportunity mate, then seriously go for it and dont look back

AARRRGH

lmimmfn wrote: »

If you have the opportunity mate, then seriously go for it and dont look back

That's the plan! :pac:

lmimmfn

AARRRGH wrote: »

That's the plan! :pac:

nice one, good for some , a few of my colleagues have already left, its currently not so easy for myself but something im seriously considering, the next 6 months will tell.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

In the context if you move though would you really give a $hit?

Yes, I would. I think we should keep AARRRGH here and put the politicos on the next boat out of here.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, I would.

well the majority of those that moved to another country would have enough to deal with in their new adopted country with politics/laws/tax etc. to be concerned about whats going on at home( thats not to say they wouldnt read the papers/web out of curiousity

If i moved then the fact that i moved would be enough for me not to give a crap anymore, its such an extreme step to take in the current climate that not giving a crap would come in around the point of having a job to go to in another country.

thebman

Yeah I'd need a job secured before I left but I'd love to leave this country at this stage TBH.

You can grass is greener on other side bla bla bla but the reality is there is less corruption in many other countries. This is a cosy little backwater where those with power have a close circle of friends. The whole country is too small and too easy for this to form. Combined with an electorate that don't seem to care and a state broadcaster which seems to have a monopoly on interviews with political leaders and never asks hard questions and your left with a system that doesn't ever look like changing.

Amhran Nua

thebman wrote: »

This is a cosy little backwater where those with power have a close circle of friends. The whole country is too small and too easy for this to form. Combined with an electorate that don't seem to care and a state broadcaster which seems to have a monopoly on interviews with political leaders and never asks hard questions and your left with a system that doesn't ever look like changing.

Ah we're still shaking off the detritus of the bad old days, give us a chance and we'll get there. I may be a fairly optimistic person, but I feel Ireland is just getting started.

thebman

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah we're still shaking off the detritus of the bad old days, give us a chance and we'll get there. I may be a fairly optimistic person, but I feel Ireland is just getting started.

Unfortunately the state is bankrupt, its too late to get started. Even if it wasn't too late, the government are incapable of managing us out of the crisis.

We have a serious infrastructure deficit and no money to improve it. Our only hope is th EU pities us and decides to give us free money and I don't really want that to happen or be relying on it.

If they do, we'll be back here in 20 years again waiting for an EU handout. We are the welfare bums of Europe as a nation or at least it seems that way at times

Like I say to my friends, its time to move to a real country.

Amhran Nua

thebman wrote: »

Unfortunately the state is bankrupt, its too late to get started. Even if it wasn't too late, the government are incapable of managing us out of the crisis.

They are but some people are trying to organise to put a competent government in place. There is still time to turn this around, we have a lot of assets that have been left fallow while the unicorn of the property market was pursued by those in charge.

Its not hopeless by a long shot.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

They are but some people are trying to organise to put a competent government in place. There is still time to turn this around, we have a lot of assets that have been left fallow while the unicorn of the property market was pursued by those in charge.

Its not hopeless by a long shot.

hmm, id like to think its not, however in 6 months time( by my own reckoning ) Nama will be completely irreversable, so unless you've loads of cash under the matress?

bonkey

Sniff.

All this talk of emigration being the better option...it reminds me of the good ol' 80s.

Ironically, shoulder-pads are back in fashion.

Somewhat on-topic...I haven't looked at the details, but it seems that what the government are describing is a variant of personal bankruptcy.

lmimmfn

bonkey wrote: »

Somewhat on-topic...I haven't looked at the details, but it seems that what the government are describing is a variant of personal bankruptcy.

It is, but with bankruptcy someone has to pay, usually its the creditors and investors however the creditors are the banks in this case and who's propping them up? oh yeah, we are!!!!! so us suckers who didnt want to get ripped off with the stupid housing prices can get shafted more on tax to 'help' out idiots who bought yet we still have f**k all?????????????

I say feck them, their problem, if they default and their property gets reposessed well then maybe they should have though of that when they bough and not fuelled the nonsense?

Id prefer to give my tax money to dole heads than to those who overstretched, a lesson in cop on will do them good.

Not only that, helping those idiots who cant pay means the property market will be artifically propped up( no repossession=market stays artificially high ) meaning again those of us who saw house prices as insane during the boom get doubly shafted and they'll still remain stupidly high.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

hmm, id like to think its not, however in 6 months time( by my own reckoning ) Nama will be completely irreversable, so unless you've loads of cash under the matress?

No I don't. But then again its not impossible to repatriate those monies the banks have accumulated through NAMA and similar initiatives (Anglo I'm looking at you). In fact, its quite doable I'd say. We might not get all of it but enough to make a difference. A sufficiently determined government could undo almost all of the damage.

bonkey

lmimmfn wrote: »

It is, but with bankruptcy someone has to pay, usually its the creditors and investors however the creditors are the banks in this case and who's propping them up? oh yeah, we are!!!!! so us suckers who didnt want to get ripped off with the stupid housing prices can get shafted more on tax to 'help' out idiots who bought yet we still have f**k all?????????????

I say feck them, their problem, if they default and their property gets reposessed well then maybe they should have though of that when they bough and not fuelled the nonsense?

I've now taken the time to read TFA, and I'm curious that your attitude (and that of everyone else protesting here seems to completely overlook this part of it:

generally the banks receive more money from the process than they would if the individual formally went bankrupt.

If that claim is accurate, then what you're basically saying is that you want the irresponsible feckers to lose everything and you're willing to pay more for the satisfaction then you otherwise would.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No I don't. But then again its not impossible to repatriate those monies the banks have accumulated through NAMA and similar initiatives (Anglo I'm looking at you). In fact, its quite doable I'd say. We might not get all of it but enough to make a difference. A sufficiently determined government could undo almost all of the damage.

i like your enthusiasm, i really do, but what youre saying there is what the current government are exactly trying to do and which has a high potential of failure for the fact that its being combined with the current irish climate( high cost of PS, higher taxes resulting in less consumer spending resulting in even more of a deflation of the economy ).

Its good to hear that they said( yesterday, link on the irish times ) this decembers budget will focus on current government expenditure rather than taxing income, but i dont believe it especially longterm when they lose money on Nama.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

i like your enthusiasm, i really do, but what youre saying there is what the current government are exactly trying to do

Unless they are talking about nationalisation they aren't saying what I'm saying. Not that there aren't other routes, but when Nobel prize winning economists call the goverment scheme "criminal" its time for the lads to take a long hard look in the mirror.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Unless they are talking about nationalisation they aren't saying what I'm saying. Not that there aren't other routes, but when Nobel prize winning economists call the goverment scheme "criminal" its time for the lads to take a long hard look in the mirror.

Nationalisation NEEDS to be done at/before the point of the movement of the loans to Nama, otherwise the shareprice of the banks will skyrocket, the bank will be completely liquid and it will be illegal( without new legislation which would make no sense as it would apply for a one off only ) to nationalise the banks in those circumstances.

Seriously and im not trying to be harsh, if youre taking the politics seriously( and i really hope you are, so please dont take what i say in a bad way ) then you need an absolutely clear aganda. You can gain some insight from folk here on whats currently the most important things that need sorting and in which order, people will disagree and what not but you can gain some insight.

hiorta

The UK has got itself into a similar position where they stand on their heads to get those who self-inflicted their financial disaster back into circulation.

Of course all the latter have learned is that they can get away with it and instead of becoming responsible people they just have to repeat the process time and again.
This is the recipé for utter disaster, culminating in a cant-trust-anyone society, which encourages a dog eat dog mentality which in turn escalates criminality.
This will only compound the current mess a divide an already demoralised population - or is that the real purpose?

lmimmfn

hiorta wrote: »

The UK has got itself into a similar position where they stand on their heads to get those who self-inflicted their financial disaster back into circulation.

Of course all the latter have learned is that they can get away with it and instead of becoming responsible people they just have to repeat the process time and again.
This is the recipé for utter disaster, culminating in a cant-trust-anyone society, which encourages a dog eat dog mentality which in turn escalates criminality.
This will only compound the current mess a divide an already demoralised population - or is that the real purpose?

yep, noone in the public sector takes responsibility for anything and neither do the TD's.

Again, noone in politics in ireland has any balls or vision, they just rehash the same crap in a different form and produce policies to suit themselves and their mates.

johnnyskeleton

peasant wrote: »

hang on ...hang on ...

So the hard working young family that just about managed to buy an overprized carboard box in the arsehole of nowhere and now can't pay for it due to losing one (or two!) incomes gets a re-negotiaton of their repayment terms so that they don't and up in the street (instead their grandchildren will be paying off the mortgage) ...

but all the smug fucckers who maxxed out on 15 credit cards to buy three new cars and five flat screen TV's get to keep their glitter and walk away grinning even more smugly?

You MUST be kiddin' me :mad:

In terms of the overall cost v. liklihood of repayment, it makes more sense to do it for private debt.

But don't play those gawd damn emotional heartstrings, we both know that the people who bought those shoeboxes were also those who maxed out their credit cards - both against the prudent advice.

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's kind of the point - you've lost your ability to hold your debt permanently over Joe's head

"Hold it over his head", as though I'm somehow punishing him, like Iago demanding my pound of flesh?

Let's be realistic - on the one hand there is an optional debt forgiveness whereby I say that I personally will settle for less in the current climate - that's my choice. But allow a situation whereby people who are in debt can call the shots, when in that case I simply won't lend any money at all.

At a time when we are trying to get institutions to lend, that's not a good message. And it's even worse when we take a situation whereby the creditor is actually a physical human being who has worked hard for the money, and not some nameless faceless bank who is trying to destroy ordinary joe soap's lives for some unknown invidious reason.

lmimmfn

bonkey wrote: »

I've now taken the time to read TFA, and I'm curious that your attitude (and that of everyone else protesting here seems to completely overlook this part of it:

generally the banks receive more money from the process than they would if the individual formally went bankrupt.

If that claim is accurate, then what you're basically saying is that you want the irresponsible feckers to lose everything and you're willing to pay more for the satisfaction then you otherwise would.

sorry i missed your post earlier, no, im not out on some self gratification mission. This whole problem was caused by consumers, those who chose to pay exhorbitant prices for property fueled the problem and took those mortgages with consideration for their circumstances and did so based on their perception of the future of the economy.

Its capitalism, things dont work out, you fail, you lose your property, but you still have the rental market to fall back on, not nice but hey i dont make the rules for capitalism, but if you gamble you weigh the consequences.

Of theyre bailed out via some personal bankruptcy concerning only thier homes then they default on creditors and that money needs to be paid by someone else, i.e. US the taxpayer, and no under no circumstances do i agree with that, especially for those of us who were carefull and didnt but in times of property costing stupid money, now i( who have ownership of 0 property or home ) have to bail out some fecker who f***ed up? no thanks.

Their problem, thats life and life goes on, anyone who has personal debt that they cant pay should undergo the same laws that have been in place for years, i.e. you can always claim personal bankruptcy but youll never get a loan again and may be taken to court and face imprisonment( in the sense of having huge credit card bills and not paying anything back and refusing to do so in court ).

peasant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But don't play those gawd damn emotional heartstrings, we both know that the people who bought those shoeboxes were also those who maxed out their credit cards - both against the prudent advice.

Yepp ..but on the credit cards they can declare this new and improved bancruptcy and walk away ...on a mortgage they probably won't be allowed to, it'll just be stretched and deferred to the next generation.

And to my knowledge there actually ARE people who "just" bought the overpriced house and didn't splurge on anything else. Because despite the old "they should have rented if they couldn't afford to buy" mantra ...with no control on rents and no protection for tennants, buying is actually "safer", especially if you're trying to provide a stable base for a growing family.

thebman

lmimmfn wrote: »

i like your enthusiasm, i really do, but what youre saying there is what the current government are exactly trying to do and which has a high potential of failure for the fact that its being combined with the current irish climate( high cost of PS, higher taxes resulting in less consumer spending resulting in even more of a deflation of the economy ).

Its good to hear that they said( yesterday, link on the irish times ) this decembers budget will focus on current government expenditure rather than taxing income, but i dont believe it especially longterm when they lose money on Nama.

Basically means stealth tax increases and income tax won't be changed I imagine. They have to change the tax base to things that will get more revenue.

House purchase was a once off purchase and the biggest of peoples lives so they'll put a property tax on and some other taxes like water charges and claim they aren't increasing tax.

lmimmfn

thebman wrote: »

Basically means stealth tax increases and income tax won't be changed I imagine. They have to change the tax base to things that will get more revenue.

House purchase was a once off purchase and the biggest of peoples lives so they'll put a property tax on and some other taxes like water charges and claim they aren't increasing tax.

well actually im guessing an increase on stealth taxes also, its insane if they introduce a property tax for the simple reason that those with more than 1 property and suffering a lot already( doesnt affect me, just saying ), also there will be a tonne more green taxes coming as well as water rates, heating tax( coal/gas etc. ) and petrol/diesel tax and no doubt a few more.

peasant wrote: »

And to my knowledge there actually ARE people who "just" bought the overpriced house and didn't splurge on anything else. Because despite the old "they should have rented if they couldn't afford to buy" mantra ...with no control on rents and no protection for tennants, buying is actually "safer", especially if you're trying to provide a stable base for a growing family.

that IS their problem, NOONE and i repeat NOONE asked or forced them to buy, they bought with the normal risk that comes with buying and they deal with the consequences( otherwise we'd all be buying like idiots ). Rents were reasonable enough even in dublin( but required you lived well outside the city, not only that any sane person couldnt even afford to buy in the city ).

Yes its safer to buy with a family and what not and sometimes even cheaper, however house ownership is a priviledge NOT a necessity. They could have rented, if they lose their house they can still rent, its capitalism.

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's kind of the point - you've lost your ability to hold your debt permanently over Joe's head

"Hold it over his head", as though I'm somehow punishing him, like Iago demanding my pound of flesh?

Let's be realistic - on the one hand there is an optional debt forgiveness whereby I say that I personally will settle for less in the current climate - that's my choice. But allow a situation whereby people who are in debt can call the shots, when in that case I simply won't lend any money at all.

At a time when we are trying to get institutions to lend, that's not a good message. And it's even worse when we take a situation whereby the creditor is actually a physical human being who has worked hard for the money, and not some nameless faceless bank who is trying to destroy ordinary joe soap's lives for some unknown invidious reason.

Well, no, really all you're losing as a creditor is the ability to not stick to an agreed debt reduction. The process of reduction is one of arbitration, the aim being to ensure that all creditors get paid most of what they are owed - not much different from your current ability to negotiate with your debtor - the main difference is that if the reduced repayment is agreed under this mechanism, it's legally binding, which gives the debtor peace of mind. Currently, like it or not, there's no legal weight to any agreement you come to with a creditor - you're liable, legally, for the full debt, and any arrangement is non-binding.

Plus, as bonkey has pointed out, the creditors are likely to get more under this arrangement, not less:

bonkey wrote:

I've now taken the time to read TFA, and I'm curious that your attitude (and that of everyone else protesting here seems to completely overlook this part of it:

generally the banks receive more money from the process than they would if the individual formally went bankrupt.

If that claim is accurate, then what you're basically saying is that you want the irresponsible feckers to lose everything and you're willing to pay more for the satisfaction then you otherwise would.

It strikes me, given the complete absence of response to bonkey's post, that this thread isn't actually about the proposed mechanism at all, but rather an opportunity for people to complain about the fecklessness of (other) people in debt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

lmimmfn wrote: »

under no circumstances do i agree with that, especially for those of us who were carefull and didnt but in times of property costing stupid money, now i( who have ownership of 0 property or home ) have to bail out some fecker who f***ed up? no thanks.

These people have debts they can't meet. Either which way, they cost of whatever they don't meet falls onto whoever loaned them the money. As a taxpayer bailing out the banks under NAMA, this means that the less money the banks get back, the more you pay. The more money the banks get back, the less you pay.

So if under no circumstances do you agree that you should pay at all, your objection isn't to this scheme at all, but rather that you ahve to bail the banks out in the first place. Your objections against this scheme would, therefore, be misplaced.

If, on the other hand, you accept that you will be bailing out the banks one way or another, then your objective is to minimise your costs, right? The evidence in the UK suggests that this scheme will result in the banks recovering more money (i.e. it will cost you less) then otherwise.

Their problem, thats life and life goes on, anyone who has personal debt that they cant pay should undergo the same laws that have been in place for years, i.e. you can always claim personal bankruptcy but youll never get a loan again and may be taken to court and face imprisonment( in the sense of having huge credit card bills and not paying anything back and refusing to do so in court ).

This is mostly irrelevant to the point I was making.

If, as a taxpayer, your objective is to minimise the bailout costs of the banks, opposing this scheme seems to be 100% the wrong way to go.

If, on the other hand, you want to see those who got over their heads get theirs, then thats fair enough...but you should be aware (and accept) that you - as a taxpayer - will pay more to see them lose their houses and possibly face jail then you would to take the more compassionate approach.

See them get whats coming to them....or minimise your own costs. That's pretty-much what it boils down to if the evidence from the UK is accurate and applicable.

peasant

bonkey wrote: »

the more compassionate approach.

compassionate ...me arse !

This system just makes shure that those who always get fuccked get fuccked properly and by everybody ...wouldn't want to leave anyone out, now would we.

sorry ...but I just need to vent a bit ....

I don't care how much economic sense NAMA makes or doesn't make, I don't really care if it is actually cheaper in the long run to let the private splurgers get away with a benevolent bancruptcy ...I'm just fed up. Royally.

I ...and many others in this country ...was sensible. I lived within my means. I did not buy things I could not afford. I did not speculate in property, I have no debts.

More importantly ...I didn't get rich either, I have no fancy car, no fancy house or flashy gizmos. Instead I had to suffer ridiculously high prices for anything I did buy, paid out of a modest income.
I had to watch everybody overtake me on the prosperity ladder, grinning smugly at me while they were doing so. I didn't mind, I was happy and content with what I had.

I do however mind, that as these smug feckers come tumbling down, I'm the one that's supposed to cushion their fall. Not only could they grin at me on the way up ...they can now take me from behind on the way down. Bankers, builders, profiteers and feckless spenders ...the whole procession takes a grab at my back pocket as they pass.

That sucks. Big time.
It simply isn't fair. Not at all.

And what really, really stinks is the fact that in this dictatorship of the greedy masses (aka Irish Democracy) there will be no exemptions made for the sensible and modest few. We will not be given an opt out clause, never mind a reward for being prudent ...nope ...we have no choice but to accept the majority decision ....and the feckless majority has decided that once again the prudent few will get fuccked.

That starts from the top down with our so called leaders splurging on my money, it continues with the arrogant bankers and builders and it stops at Pat down the road who now expects me to help him pay off his beemer and his two flat screen TV's.

Bastards!