McWilliams at it again

hinault

del88 wrote: »

The so called "I had to get on the property ladder or else/Bertie-made-me-do-it" brigade are young families that bought houses to live in and you paid low taxes (if you worked) off the back of the price they paid for their house.....you benefited from that.

edit : answer was to wrong poster.

del88

cson wrote: »

Riddle me this; unless the poster you quoted was hitting well above the second band, he'd have derived no tangible benefits through taxation that I'd see. If I remember correctly; the higher rate was lowered by a whopping 1% to 41% during the Ponzai Years [2001-2007] whilst first band/VAT/CGT/CAT remained unchanged. I'm open to correction on this but please for arguments sake outline how that poster would have benefitted from low taxes, I'm intrigued.

The general running of the county was paid for off the back of the property boom.....if there had been no property boom the government would have had to raise taxes by a huge amount to expect the same tax returns ...I'm not talking about low prsi.....

hinault

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well I'm afraid it is their fault. That's where the lessons our parents taught us about personal responsibility come into play. It wasn't like somebody put a gun to their heads to force them to sign on the dotted line. They fell for the oldest trick in the book by being gullible enough to believe what the politicians and the media told them.

right and wrong.

Yes, the lessons of our parents should have been heeded.
However.
I remember well the panic being caused by "if you don't buy now, you will not get on the property ladder".
That was the advice.

Granted the advice was coming from the vested interested but it was advice that was given by those who were giving it, should have known better.

del88

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well I'm afraid it is their fault. That's where the lessons our parents taught us about personal responsibility come into play. It wasn't like somebody put a gun to their heads to force them to sign on the dotted line. They fell for the oldest trick in the book by being gullible enough to believe what the politicians and the media told them.

Well a lot of their parents belived the same hype .....

K-9

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well I'm afraid it is their fault. That's where the lessons our parents taught us about personal responsibility come into play. It wasn't like somebody put a gun to their heads to force them to sign on the dotted line. They fell for the oldest trick in the book by being gullible enough to believe what the politicians and the media told them.

Ah, to carry on your point, banks in my folks time were responsible, diligent and conservative. In short, they were trusted, bankers were a group of society looked up to.

People trusted them. When people went in and were offered €500,000 to buy a 3 bed semi or €10 Million to buy the 5 acre site, 5 miles from town with no planning permission, people trusted them. Surely this bank, who will suffer if they don't pay back, have checked me out?

They didn't bother checking anything and are getting bailed out. So much for responsibility.

MysticalRain

hinault wrote: »

right and wrong.

Yes, the lessons of our parents should have been heeded.
However.
I remember well the panic being caused by "if you don't buy now, you will not get on the property ladder".
That was the advice.

Granted the advice was coming from the vested interested but it was advice that was given by those who were giving it, should have known better.

That advice was the equivalent of a casino owner telling people to place more bets, and should have been treated with about the same level of credibility.

Despite all that's happened, I'm actually still having arguments with friends and family members who still believe that "rent is dead money" and if they don't buy now, property prices are going to go up. This despite all that's happened. That sort of mentality really must be something that is deeply ingrained in Irish culture.

MysticalRain

del88 wrote: »

Well a lot of their parents belived the same hype .....

Those were probably the ones with properties in Bulgaria.

Taxipete29

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well I'm afraid it is their fault. That's where the lessons our parents taught us about personal responsibility come into play. It wasn't like somebody put a gun to their heads to force them to sign on the dotted line. They fell for the oldest trick in the book by being gullible enough to believe what the politicians and the media told them.

Or maybe they just wanted to own a house to raise a family in because neither the culture nor the legislation allowed for long-term rental of residential property. Sometimes its just that simple

hinault

cson wrote: »

I see populist Ireland still retains its remarkable ability for apportionment of blame whilst taking absolutely no responsibility itself. Sure it could never be our fault could it? :rolleyes:

Hmmmmmmmmm.

The pigs with their snouts in the trough were the ones talking up the market.
The CIF were talking about people "missing the property boat".
You had banks - the same banks were bailing out now by the way - offering equity release loans/40 year mortgages/120% mortgages.
You had politicians telling those who did warn about these things, telling those "doomersayers" to go and commit suicide.

The people who should have been prudent and impartial - snouts in the trough - did not give impartial advice.
They talked the market up.

Should the ordinary punter have ignored that advice?
In hindsight, they should have.
Been then again the advice given was assumed to be genuine.

MysticalRain

K-9 wrote: »

Ah, to carry on your point, banks in my folks time were responsible, diligent and conservative. In short, they were trusted, bankers were a group of society looked up to.

People trusted them. When people went in and were offered €500,000 to buy a 3 bed semi or €10 Million to buy the 5 acre site, 5 miles from town with no planning permission, people trusted them. Surely this bank, who will suffer if they don't pay back, have checked me out?

They didn't bother checking anything and are getting bailed out. So much for responsibility.

The bank suffer, but the people running them don't. They get off scot free with their golden parachutes. That's how it works for the guys at the top of the pyramid scheme. Of course that sort of sociopathic behavior is not just confined to banks these days. It happens in plenty of other industries too.

hinault

MysticalRain wrote: »

That advice was the equivalent of a casino owner telling people to place more bets, and should have been treated with about the same level of credibility.

Despite all that's happened, I'm actually still having arguments with friends and family members who still believe that "rent is dead money" and if they don't buy now, property prices are going to go up. This despite all that's happened. That sort of mentality really must be something that is deeply ingrained in Irish culture.

No, it is the equivalent of a casino owner telling people to place more bets.

It was wilfull attempt by those vested interests to increase their profits.

Taxipete29

MysticalRain wrote: »

That advice was the equivalent of a casino owner telling people to place more bets, and should have been treated with about the same level of credibility.

Despite all that's happened, I'm actually still having arguments with friends and family members who still believe that "rent is dead money" and if they don't buy now, property prices are going to go up. This despite all that's happened. That sort of mentality really must be something that is deeply ingrained in Irish culture.

I believe rent is dead money but only because I believe that rent is still way too high. The artificial floor created by rent allowance is the problem.

MysticalRain

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Or maybe they just wanted to own a house to raise a family in because neither the culture nor the legislation allowed for long-term rental of residential property. Sometimes its just that simple

In 2005-2007 they could just simply have waited a few of years and saved themselves several hundred thousand euro of negative equity. People don't have to settle down and have families that quickly. A few years isn't going to make a huge difference in the long run.

del88

MysticalRain wrote: »

In 2005-2007 they could just simply have waited a few of years and saved themselves several hundred thousand euro of negative equity. People don't have to settle down and have families that quickly. A few years isn't going to make a huge difference in the long run.

I'm starting to think your just trying to stir it.......

Taxipete29

MysticalRain wrote: »

In 2005-2007 they could just simply have waited a few of years and saved themselves several hundred thousand euro of negative equity. People don't have to settle down and have families that quickly. A few years isn't going to make a huge difference in the long run.

Yes because in 2005 everyone was predicting this crash. Even those who knew things couldnt go up forever did not predict the hard landing we got.

MysticalRain

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Yes because in 2005 everyone was predicting this crash. Even those who knew things couldnt go up forever did not predict the hard landing we got.

Plenty of people were. I actually knew people involved in the building trade who were expecting a crash to happen back in 2005. Of course those were the kinds of people who are multimillionaires for a reason.

MysticalRain

del88 wrote: »

I'm starting to think your just trying to stir it.......

It might be a rather flippant way of putting it. But it's basically true.

del88

MysticalRain wrote: »

It might be a rather flippant way of putting it. But it's basically true.

maybe true in hindsight....a bit like telling someone the lotto numbers they should have picked after the draw...totally pointless

K-9

MysticalRain wrote: »

The bank suffer, but the people running them don't. They get off scot free with their golden parachutes. That's how it works for the guys at the top of the pyramid scheme. Of course that sort of sociopathic behavior is not just confined to banks these days. It happens in plenty of other industries too.

You mean the Seanie Fitzs of this world, who 2 years ago suggested cuts in Child Benefit and OAP'S?

He is laughing his arse of at the people who took cuts in Child Benefit to pay for his reckless lending and pension. The CJH of our generation.

Well, I'm sorry. I'm all for personal responsibility. I hate this idea, but the game has changed over the last 2 years. You can't expect Anglo, at the top of the pyramid, to get bailed out, bankers who all they were interested in was profit, bonuses and share schemes to get bailed out and the victims at the bottom of the pyramid, to get nothing.

K-9

MysticalRain wrote: »

Plenty of people were. I actually knew people involved in the building trade who were expecting a crash to happen back in 2005. Of course those were the kinds of people who are multimillionaires for a reason.

And laughing at the mugs who bought in at the bottom of the pyramid. I don't want a part of a society that condones that, hell, actively supports that, as it has done in the last 2 years.

MysticalRain

del88 wrote: »

maybe true in hindsight....a bit like telling someone the lotto numbers they should have picked after the draw...totally pointless

Well I am speaking with the same of people who believe I owe them money just because they didn't win last week's Lotto, and a rigged lotto game at that.

MysticalRain

K-9 wrote: »

And laughing at the mugs who bought in at the bottom of the pyramid. I don't want a part of a society that condones that, hell, actively supports that, as it has done in the last 2 years.

I was so disgusted at that particular attitude of people at the time that it was actually a factor in my decision to emigrate.

MysticalRain

K-9 wrote: »

You mean the Seanie Fitzs of this world, who 2 years ago suggested cuts in Child Benefit and OAP'S?

He is laughing his arse of at the people who took cuts in Child Benefit to pay for his reckless lending and pension. The CJH of our generation.

Well, I'm sorry. I'm all for personal responsibility. I hate this idea, but the game has changed over the last 2 years. You can't expect Anglo, at the top of the pyramid, to get bailed out, bankers who all they were interested in was profit, bonuses and share schemes to get bailed out and the victims at the bottom of the pyramid, to get nothing.

Who said I expected Anglo to be bailed out? I wish it had been left to collapse, and Seanie Fitz along with it. I hope he goes to jail and has to pay back every penny he does.

But the fact is, characters like Seanie Fitz don't come about by accident. He's a product of the society we live in. Everybody who believed that house prices could only go up facilitated his greed. And yes, the people who put him up on his pedestal need to learn a lesson by paying back all that owe. At least then they'll be wiser the next time they encounter another shyster like him.

K-9

MysticalRain wrote: »

I was so disgusted at that particular attitude of people at the time that it was actually a factor in my decision to emigrate.

Good point, but who profited from that, mostly?

Banks. Selling mortgages became their business, their whole business model depended on selling mortgages. As we've found out, once they didn't sell these mortgages, they became bankrupt. They had no buyers for the property loans they were selling.

If banks were not getting bailed out to such a degree as they are, this thread wouldn't have the legs it has.

MysticalRain

K-9 wrote: »

Good point, but who profited from that, mostly?

Banks. Selling mortgages became their business, their whole business model depended on selling mortgages. As we've found out, once they didn't sell these mortgages, they became bankrupt. They had no buyers for the property loans they were selling.

If banks were not getting bailed out to such a degree as they are, this thread wouldn't have the legs it has.

I personally think the banks should have been nationalized and made to pay back every penny the government loaned to them. Every non-essential bank should have been let go to the wall as a lesson to the rest of them. That's not what happened of course. But the fact is, two wrongs don't make a right. Arguing for a second bailout for homeowners is basically asking for the rest of us to be robbed a second time, despite having no money left to give.

MysticalRain

The bigger problem here is the moral hazard question. I can flat out guarantee you that if a generation of financially irresponsible people are bailed out this time, the next generation will have no compulsion not to screw up even more spectacularly. But ultimately it's not good for our society.

Taxipete29

MysticalRain wrote: »

The bigger problem here is the moral hazard question. I can flat out guarantee you that if a generation of financially irresponsible people are bailed out this time, the next generation will have no compulsion not to screw up even more spectacularly. But ultimately it's not good for our society.

This is exactly the reason why future generations will have to bail out the banks again.

MysticalRain

Taxipete29 wrote: »

This is exactly the reason why future generations will have to bail out the banks again.

Sure, you don't have to be a genius to predict that in another 10-15 years or so, we will be seeing the banks screwing up yet again.

So that makes it okay to make the problem even worse by adding another bunch of people to the list to be bailed out?

K-9

MysticalRain wrote: »

I personally think the banks should have been nationalized and made to pay back every penny the government loaned to them. Every non-essential bank should have been let go to the wall as a lesson to the rest of them. That's not what happened of course. But the fact is, two wrongs don't make a right. Arguing for a second bailout for homeowners is basically asking for the rest of us to be robbed a second time, despite having no money left to give.

MysticalRain wrote: »

The bigger problem here is the moral hazard question. I can flat out guarantee you that if a generation of financially irresponsible people are bailed out this time, the next generation will have no compulsion not to screw up even more spectacularly. But ultimately it's not good for our society.

This is were it needs to be a well thought out plan. Inconceivable I know, with the current Govt. in charge. Definitely No Investors or people owning 3,000 sq. ft. houses. Maybe use the old first time buyer grant size, which would include people in the 3/4 bed semi category, but also exclude apartment investors.

Taxipete29

MysticalRain wrote: »

Sure, you don't have to be a genius to predict that in another 10-15 years or so, we will be seeing the banks screwing up yet again.

So that makes it okay to make the problem even worse by adding another bunch of people to the list to be bailed out?

No. i am against a bailout