Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
29 property suicides leave State unmoved
Options
Comments
-
thats absolute speculation. How do you know that was the reason ? I dont want to treat the topic as trivial and its going to be a very emotive subject but government policy cannot be determined either by speculation or even in the event of this being true the minority, not can bailouts.
Somebody who commits suicide is clearly not in the right frame of mind. If something like being in debt is being attributed to pushing them over the edge it could be argued that something else at some other time would have casued this action to happen anyway.
There are more people killed on the roads than being attributed to suicide due to debt. Should we all lobby the government to ban cars .....
Im sorry if this isnt comining across as sympathetic and I wouldnt wish this to happen to anybody but its wrong to use this as a lobby for bailouts
From the suicide notes they left ....0 -
People leave notes saying they don't want live because of unrequited love but you don't see newspapers campaigning for a change in the law to stop this.0
-
-
From the suicide notes they left ....
yes because the family of 3 different people showed you these notes ? or because you asked them the reason I mean that wouldnt be beyond calis to ask.
:rolleyes:
excuse me if I dont believe this, but Im too busy looking at the pigs flying outside my window :rolleyes::rolleyes:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
yes because the family of 3 different people showed you these notes ? or because you asked them the reason I mean that wouldnt be beyond calis to ask.
:rolleyes:
excuse me if I dont believe this, but Im too busy looking at the pigs flying outside my window :rolleyes::rolleyes:
I give up - I wish you all the best. But christ show a bit of respect for people who have committed suicide because of these problems. I wish none of you the ill fortune of getting caught up in debt & god forbid you might become part of a close knit small community who actually share their problems. I know 2 guys sisters & 1s mother & my sympathies are with them .0 -
So what do you suggest we do to stop such suicides? Debt forgiveness?0
-
I give up - I wish you all the best. But christ show a bit of respect for people who have committed suicide because of these problems. I wish none of you the ill fortune of getting caught up in debt & god forbid you might become part of a close knit small community who actually share their problems. I know 2 guys sisters & 1s mother & my sympathies are with them .
My uncle recently committed suicide, he didn't do it because he was in debt, he did it because he suffered from depression brought about by a failing business and financial commitments, he was in hospital at the time for this, he died as a result of negligent care and a god awful disease not the economy, people so close this always look for something or someone else to blame.0 -
I give up - I wish you all the best. But christ show a bit of respect for people who have committed suicide because of these problems. I wish none of you the ill fortune of getting caught up in debt & god forbid you might become part of a close knit small community who actually share their problems. I know 2 guys sisters & 1s mother & my sympathies are with them .
I think you have misunderstood the sentiment of the thread up until the point you first posted.
People have a great deal of sympathy for those who are left behind by suicide, whether it's related to financial worries or not. What some people here have taken issue with is that the Irish Property Council have taken ownership of this suicide issue in a bid to garner sympathy and support for their campaign to have some sort of bail out for low level developers and investors brought in. It's an absolutely disgusting use of those who have died in this way, and they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.0 -
you cant but have sympathy for anyone who feels this is there only way out.some of these people created vast amounts of jobs and also paid massive amounts of tax as well.so i for one hope it doesnt happen anyone else and may those 29 poor souls rip0
-
Advertisement
-
I think you have misunderstood the sentiment of the thread up until the point you first posted.
People have a great deal of sympathy for those who are left behind by suicide, whether it's related to financial worries or not. What some people here have taken issue with is that the Irish Property Council have taken ownership of this suicide issue in a bid to garner sympathy and support for their campaign to have some sort of bail out for low level developers and investors brought in. It's an absolutely disgusting use of those who have died in this way, and they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
Exactly.
Well said.
No one is being disrespectful to those who have, sadly, taken their own lives.
It is the IPC's cynical use of these losses which people have an issue with.0 -
I give up - I wish you all the best. But christ show a bit of respect for people who have committed suicide because of these problems. I wish none of you the ill fortune of getting caught up in debt & god forbid you might become part of a close knit small community who actually share their problems. I know 2 guys sisters & 1s mother & my sympathies are with them .
if you actually read my posts you will see that I have clearly pointed out that I wouldn't wish this upon anybody. Having respect for the dead and accepting a campaign that is shamelessly using such an emotive topic to drive an agenda are two different things.0 -
Did anybody else think of this when they read that article;Sitting on the sidelines, cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit suicide because frankly the only thing that motivates me is being able to actively change something,
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1010514.shtml0 -
Did anybody else think of this when they read that article;
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1010514.shtml
Another despicable comment from Ahern.0 -
Sorry and ignore if this has already been said -
"to protect the sanctity of the family home." I think they are trying to lay the ground for a constitutional case, which in my opinion is a good idea. Government and Banks played all the (however stupid) people like fiddles and I`m all for responsibility but not if the only other option is suicide.
If you are in this position and thinking about suicide - please don`t and don`t worry about the leave and never return bit - I don`t believe this - the country will fall to sh*t, morgage companies will go under, everything is to messed up for anyone to look for a needle in a hay stack!0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »Thats a good point.
While the example I gave was a bit laboured, I think the general idea has a lot of merit. As long as it remains within a reasonable margin of their previous payments, or equal to same, it should be doable.
The concept hinges on the fact that you can buy a lot more for a lot less these days, so the end result should be the same costs but a better quality of living, while smaller/lower quality places fall in price rapidly. The bank loses nothing (in fact it gains extra payments), the people moving gain, and the taxpayer doesn't pay a red cent for it. It would affect a lot of people, but probably not enough to have a significant impact on the market for family homes (which is a lot bigger than the market for shoeboxes).
Once the market stabilises, or reaches bottom, the mechanism wouldn't be needed any more since negative equity would be much less of a problem.
It would be a lot simpler for them to rent out their shoebox to a single person/couple and rent a semi-d for themselves further out. This obsession with owning the roof over one's head is what got us into this mess. Changing the basics of contract law and debt is not the way to go about it.0 -
Contracts get changed all the time, with the mutual agreement of all parties involved, as do mortgage agreements. Debt law in Ireland is a holdover from the nineteenth century, plenty of countries have looser regulations in that area than us and the roof hasn't fallen in for them, it just means the banks have to complete due diligence, which they should have been doing in the first place. It's not really related to the suggestion I was making anyway since it didn't involve debt forgiveness, just debt transfer.alejandro1977 wrote: »Changing the basics of contract law and debt is not the way to go about it.0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »Contracts get changed all the time, with the mutual agreement of all parties involved, as do mortgage agreements. Debt law in Ireland is a holdover from the nineteenth century, plenty of countries have looser regulations in that area than us and the roof hasn't fallen in for them, it just means the banks have to complete due diligence, which they should have been doing in the first place. It's not really related to the suggestion I was making anyway since it didn't involve debt forgiveness, just debt transfer.
You've completely ignored the substantive point. Why do they need to own their house? What's wrong with renting?
Your suggestion requires moving the debt to a property worth less than the debt. Do you really think that banks and those who fund them [bond investors] would be in favour?
What kind of due diligence are you talking about?
Specifically what kind of looser regulations do they have?
This suggestion really is Junior Cert stuff; sometimes "imaginative" proposals are merely daft and unworkable.0 -
I'm not sure why you related debt law and contract law to the point I was making then.alejandro1977 wrote: »You've completely ignored the substantive point.
Mortgage plus interest plus larger rent on a new place than they can get on their own place, minus their income from renting (assuming they can rent it out at all, its a renters market), plus their loss of benefits due to renting out their PPR, generally won't work out as well as just continuing to pay what they were paying before, but on a larger property. Depending on the individual situation of course.alejandro1977 wrote: »Why do they need to own their house? What's wrong with renting?
The poor oul' bond holders are in danger of usurping the EU in terms of last stand justifications to object to things at this stage. Bond holders don't have a say in the finer grained day to day running of the banks, they are basically big depositors. Would they be happier that the banks are taking more money in than they would otherwise? I would assume so.alejandro1977 wrote: »Your suggestion requires moving the debt to a property worth less than the debt. Do you really think that banks and those who fund them [bond investors] would be in favour?
Making sure that people are able to repay the loans before handing them out, insisting on large deposits, you know, all the stuff they should have done so we wouldn't end up with the lurching NAMA monstrosity.alejandro1977 wrote: »What kind of due diligence are you talking about?
You can make a start here, and do the rest of the research for yourself.alejandro1977 wrote: »Specifically what kind of looser regulations do they have?Debtors flee Irish bankruptcy laws
DEVELOPERS, financiers and prominent businessmen are seeking domicile in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in a bid to avoid Irish bankruptcy laws, according to legal sources.
The Irish Independent has learned that several high profile builders and executives have secured or are in the process of establishing residency in Britain where bankrupts can avail of a "fresh start" in less than two years compared with Ireland's cumbersome 12-year term under the 1988 Bankruptcy Act.
The spectre of relocation raised its head earlier this week when National Irish Bank informed the Commercial Court that financier Niall McFadden, whom it is suing for €6.3m, had relocated to London.
Several legal sources in London and Dublin have confirmed that they have advised on relocation or have received queries from individuals about the benefits of moving to another European country where bankruptcy procedures are perceived to be more "user friendly".
The bank, in a written submission, said it feared Mr McFadden -- who put together a €28m deal to purchase 'Buy and Sell' back in 2007 and which has subsequently been sold on -- had relocated to London for the purpose of European Insolvency Regulations and in an attempt to avail of "a perceived more debtor-friendly" bankruptcy procedure.
Loathed
The practice of forum shopping, where litigants seek domicile in another EU country to protect their assets, has been trail blazed by wealthy husbands in divorce and warring parents in contested custody battles.
Now, large borrowers indebted to banks are seeking domicile outside of Ireland in a bid to avoid our bankruptcy regime which is loathed by creditors and debtors alike.
"Ireland's bankruptcy laws serve no one," said Gavin Simons, partner and head of Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency at law firm BCM Hanby Wallace.
Mr Simons, who represented secured creditors in developer Liam Carroll's Zoe Group which last night went into official liquidation, said that Ireland's personal insolvency regime needs to be reformed.
Last week's renewed Programme for Government includes a commitment to create a new system of personal insolvency regulations that will allow for a statutory, non-court-based debt-settlement regime.
Given that your master stroke was for them to "move out and rent", along your clear lack of understanding of basic bankruptcy and financial regulation as well as common contract law, I'll take that as a compliment to be honest.alejandro1977 wrote: »This suggestion really is Junior Cert stuff; sometimes "imaginative" proposals are merely daft and unworkable.
These people who joined boards in March 2010 certainly are a punchy lot, thats the third one in a week that has stirred it up in Accom/prop.0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »
Mortgage plus interest plus larger rent on a new place than they can get on their own place, minus their income from renting (assuming they can rent it out at all, its a renters market), plus their loss of benefits due to renting out their PPR, generally won't work out as well as just continuing to pay what they were paying before, but on a larger property. Depending on the individual situation of course.
hmmm you do realise that in normal property markets rental yield is related to property value? If it's impossible to rent out a city centre property it'll be pretty difficult to get a reasonable sale price for the shoebox. How can they can get this larger house for the same price despite it renting for a larger amount? This is the greatest issue I have with your proposal.
Or do you have another proposal to allow this hypothetical family sell an apartment that no one wants to rent? A National Shoebox Management Agency?
The benefits of renting out their PPR- you mean tax relief? That's a fairly small portion of one's mortgage payments; and is dependent on the Gov. If the Gov wants to free up the rental market they can level the playing field for people trapped by Negative Equity. (You have also left Stamp Duty out of your detailed calculations).Amhran Nua wrote: »Making sure that people are able to repay the loans before handing them out, insisting on large deposits, you know, all the stuff they should have done so we wouldn't end up with the lurching NAMA monstrosity.
"insisting on large deposits" - your proposal involves a bank giving out a loan greater than the value of the new property... so that's a negative deposit... I'm all for proper due diligence and hefty deposits - so less of the sarcasm please.Amhran Nua wrote: »You can make a start here, and do the rest of the research for yourself.
Given that your master stroke was for them to "move out and rent", along your clear lack of understanding of basic bankruptcy and financial regulation as well as common contract law, I'll take that as a compliment to be honest.
Quoting a speculative Sindo article as research... :rolleyes: How precisely does this fit into your proposal to allow ordinary families (rather than the developers cited above) move out of their shoebox apartment?
You have made a proposal to turn the norms of lending upside down; I have simple stated that's it's not practical. I don't consider it a "Master Stroke" - I don't consider it a panacea - I simply think it's the most practical solution for those in Negative Equity - several friends and acquaintances have rented out their places as they know they can't sell - they are getting on with life and it don't need some convoluted Bank/Government Solution that would be ripe for corrupt banking practices as it relies on new unsecured loans (you haven't addressed that).0 -
Advertisement
-
I didn't say it would be impossible to rent, and the price depends on how you define "reasonable". If they could cover their outstanding debt with the sale price, they wouldn't be in negative equity.alejandro1977 wrote: »hmmm you do realise that in normal property markets rental yield is related to property value? If it's impossible to rent out a city centre property it'll be pretty difficult to get a reasonable sale price for the shoebox.
The nutshell of what you're talking about is adding another bill (rent-definite) on top of their mortgage, and hoping that they can rent out their own place twelve months a year (a shoebox, not that easy) and hoping the two rents are equivalent or the shoebox gets a higher rent. Its normal practise to assume at least two months a year empty.alejandro1977 wrote: »How can they can get this larger house for the same price despite it renting for a larger amount? This is the greatest issue I have with your proposal.
Indeed. Properties are selling if the price is right. You might not be able to cover an equivalent rent+mortgage by renting out your small property, but someone who takes it off your hands at a discount might be able to get a decent return.alejandro1977 wrote: »Or do you have another proposal to allow this hypothetical family sell an apartment that no one wants to rent? A National Shoebox Management Agency?
...
so less of the sarcasm please.
I don't understand what you mean here. Can you clarify it please?alejandro1977 wrote: »The benefits of renting out their PPR- you mean tax relief? That's a fairly small portion of one's mortgage payments; and is dependent on the Gov. If the Gov wants to free up the rental market they can level the playing field for people trapped by Negative Equity.
If the mortgage amount remains the same, the risk remains the same. Not a negative deposit. In fact if the property is larger in the long term it will probably hold its value better.alejandro1977 wrote: »"insisting on large deposits" - your proposal involves a bank giving out a loan greater than the value of the new property... so that's a negative deposit... I'm all for proper due diligence and hefty deposits -
You were the one looking for the difference in bankruptcy terms. As for the Independent article (released on a Thursday), there are plenty of firms in the UK actively offering assistance to Irish people of every sort that want to move to the UK for the purposes of bankruptcy. As previously mentioned, google it.alejandro1977 wrote: »Quoting a speculative Sindo article as research... :rolleyes: How precisely does this fit into your proposal to allow ordinary families (rather than the developers cited above) move out of their shoebox apartment?
Debt transfer is turning lending upside down? Its very simple, add one debt to another - its called debt consolidation and its fairly established practise.alejandro1977 wrote: »You have made a proposal to turn the norms of lending upside down;
Thats great, and I'm happy they are getting on with life, but anecdotes aside its not that simple for a lot of people; you've already made reference in your own post to those who are trapped. I'm also a bit mystified as to how you would call it convoluted - its very straightforward.alejandro1977 wrote: »several friends and acquaintances have rented out their places as they know they can't sell - they are getting on with life and it don't need some convoluted Bank/Government Solution that would be ripe for corrupt banking practices as it relies on new unsecured loans (you haven't addressed that).0 -
Yep, I thought of that. Irony is apparently an Irish politician.Did anybody else think of this when they read that article;
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1010514.shtml
And apparently David McWilliams was attacked last week for being a doom monger!
But everyone nees to take responsibility. These guys didn't vote themselves in, the majority asked for it, and now they got what they asked for.
I am in favour of IQ testing before being allowed to vote. A lot of people who mindlessly ticked boxes because "daddy ticked this one" need to shoulder responibility for this treason.
You can add people needlessy dying, unread x-rays etc to the heap, lets see how many are really dead because of the brain donors at the ballot box0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »
The nutshell of what you're talking about is adding another bill (rent-definite) on top of their mortgage, and hoping that they can rent out their own place twelve months a year (a shoebox, not that easy) and hoping the two rents are equivalent or the shoebox gets a higher rent. Its normal practise to assume at least two months a year empty.
Indeed. Properties are selling if the price is right. You might not be able to cover an equivalent rent+mortgage by renting out your small property, but someone who takes it off your hands at a discount might be able to get a decent return.
I am well aware that it is normal practice to allow a gap in rental. I am not assuming that the shoebox will get a similar or higher rent - it won't - the entire premise of your whole debt transferring idea is based on the assumption that someone can sell a shoebox and get a 3 bed "a bit further out" for a similar price. This is not happening - there is a huge over supply of apartments and relatively short supply of family homes in comparison; if you think that you can swap a shoebox for a 3 bed for only 50k extra you are sorely mistaken. You also assumed that the shoebox buyer had paid off 50K off of a 350k mortgage - anyone who paid 350k 5 years ago on a 40 year mortgage has paid off much less than this. You wrote "Properties are selling if the price is right" - a fire sale won't get within an asses roar of the price for a nice family home "a bit further out"
Are you aware of the 75% interest write off for rental properties? (used be 100%) This is unfair for some one who wishes to move jobs and rent out his curent property and rent another close to new job etc.I don't understand what you mean here. Can you clarify it please?
Noooooo!If the mortgage amount remains the same, the risk remains the same.
The risk on a mortgage is related to the loan to value ratio. This is the most fatal flaw in your whole proposal
"Probably" - Speculative, there are a plethora of other factors.In fact if the property is larger in the long term it will probably hold its value better.0 -
Now, I've already mentioned why this is happening. The returns on say a €350,000 investment with a rent of €800 per month, are what, somewhere under 3%, which is ridiculous, even if you ignore interest and other payments entirely. If the property was sold for €150,000, it becomes more like 7%, which is a lot more attractive to BTL investors.alejandro1977 wrote: »the entire premise of your whole debt transferring idea is based on the assumption that someone can sell a shoebox and get a 3 bed "a bit further out" for a similar price. This is not happening -
Depends on where the family home is, and whether or not its an apartment with more than one bedroom.alejandro1977 wrote: »relatively short supply of family homes in comparison; if you think that you can swap a shoebox for a 3 bed for only 50k extra you are sorely mistaken.
I believe the standard mortgage term was 30 years - besides, in terms of front loaded interest the banks will probably need to be flexible, as they have been already with thousands of other renegotiated mortgages.alejandro1977 wrote: »You also assumed that the shoebox buyer had paid off 50K off of a 350k mortgage - anyone who paid 350k 5 years ago on a 40 year mortgage has paid off much less than this.
It doesn't need to, if you can carry over the negative equity.alejandro1977 wrote: »You wrote "Properties are selling if the price is right" - a fire sale won't get within an asses roar of the price for a nice family home "a bit further out"
You keep pointing our fatal flaws - I don't think that word means what you think it means. If the long term prospects for a shoebox are that it will drop to a very low price, and the long term prospects for a larger property are that it won't fall so far or fast, which risk is larger, given the additional strain put on the family by the addition of a new member or members of their household?alejandro1977 wrote: »The risk on a mortgage is related to the loan to value ratio. This is the most fatal flaw in your whole proposal0 -
alejandro1977 wrote: »You've completely ignored the substantive point. Why do they need to own their house? What's wrong with renting?
The problem with renting is that people live longer and wish to retire at some point. Most people outside of the public sector have insufficient pensions and thus left with the option of a 25-30 year mortgage after which they need to make no more capital payments or else rent for maybe 40-50 years during which they will still need to make payments, which may well continue to rise.
This would leave a large number of people unable to ever retire.
Its easy talking but I rent because I'm not in a position to buy, I find rents obscene considering the appalling standards of what I get for the money I pay, even compared to friends who bought at the height of the boom, and I live in morbid terror of what is going to happen in 30 years time if I don't find something. If people are encouraged to rent perpetually we could end up with a huge crisis in housing for elders in 30 years time.
I am not even saying the ONLY answer should be buying, but there are simply no options for working single people other than either privately renting on the market or buying. Social housing is simply not open to you and the very few hybrid alternatives are not widely available. I don't particularly want to buy but neither do I want to be unable to retire at 67/8 because I wouldn't be able to afford my rent.0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »A good start might be to allow people to sell their houses and carry over the difference to a new mortgage, returning a little mobility to people who might for example have kids on the way but are stuck in a shoebox.
NO!!!!!!!!!!
You walk off the job. WHY? WHY? would you honour you obligations when the bank hasn't honoured theirs'?
Walk off the job and let the pigs try to dispose of the house. Simple!0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »NO!!!!!!!!!!
You walk off the job. WHY? WHY? would you honour you obligations when the bank hasn't honoured theirs'?
Walk off the job and let the pigs try to dispose of the house. Simple!
A well thought through solution, very well thought through.
I'm surprised more people haven't decided to go with this fantastic idea of yours.:rolleyes:0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »NO!!!!!!!!!!
You walk off the job. WHY? WHY? would you honour you obligations when the bank hasn't honoured theirs'?
Walk off the job and let the pigs try to dispose of the house. Simple!
yeah good idea. You do realise you still have to pay the debt ANYWAY :rolleyes:0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Let Darwin do his work we will be better off
Wow! The very theory that allowed the Famine! Trevalyan lives!
I've heard of three men who committed suicide in the last few weeks. One had painful health problems and severe financial pressure, and shot himself. Another was a banker who had just had a talk with investigators and came home and hanged himself. Another was a father of young children who hanged himself; he was crushed by mortgage debt.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sh|t happens, and some people don't see a way out. As someone once said of suicide; "a permanent solution for a temporary problem".Qualitymark wrote: »I've heard of three men who committed suicide in the last few weeks. One had painful health problems and severe financial pressure, and shot himself. Another was a banker who had just had a talk with investigators and came home and hanged himself. Another was a father of young children who hanged himself; he was crushed by mortgage debt.0
Advertisement