McWilliams at it again

MysticalRain

K-9 wrote: »

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.

I agree. That'll probably happen only after the current government are booted out. Of course the cynic in me expects a very large chunk of the electorate to still vote FF despite all that's happened.

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.

We didn't have the money to give for NAMA or bank guarantees either, but we found it.

Again the point is, the long term value in giving a break to these mortgage payers, may benefit us. People are just looking at the cost now, not the savings that could go into the economy, rather than failed, bankrupt banks.

MysticalRain

K-9 wrote: »

We didn't have the money to give for NAMA or bank guarantees either, but we found it.

Again the point is, the long term value in giving a break to these mortgage payers, may benefit us. People are just looking at the cost now, not the savings that could go into the economy, rather than failed, bankrupt banks.

I think it will benefit the subsection of society that's in negative equity, and will ultimately be a net financial drain for the rest of us. I certainly don't think it's going to help one bit in the long run.

We borrowed the money for NAMA, which in theory is supposed to be paid back. We'll be lucky if we even see half of it back, and for that reason, I am of the opinion that it a near certainty that Ireland will go bankrupt at some point. The last thing we need to be doing is pouring more even money down the plug hole. All that does is hasten our downfall.

Pot Noodle =

Jeez these people need help how bad can ye be i dont think they entered in to this wanting a bailout they wanted a home Anglo gets money i do not want to give they are more worthy causes to me

JimiTime

ei.sdraob wrote: »

JimiTime

our welfare system already do house families/people in trouble (lets ignore near free council housing)

last i checked paying rent supplements are much less than paying a mortgage

Lets see, average rent was €1200 PM in my area, while mortgages were about €1300 PM. Now if we advocate basically kicking people who can't meet mortgage commitments out of their homes. (Which is basically the consaquence of what alot of you are saying, without actually saying it). These people then move on to get rent supplements instead, thus the taxpayer is STILL forking out. Either way you look at it, we are all going to bare the burden. I don't advocate the lofty attitude of so many of the hindsighters who 'KNEW' the global financial crisis was on its way.

I'd rather deal with the reality, and try encourage a viable solution which doesn't take the attitude of 'Tough sh!t'. The tax payer 'burdens' itself with paying for many who are in bad circumstances, always has done. Its part of our social concience. Its by no means flawless, and will always have its abusers, but its basic premise of helping those in need should always be remembered.

As I mentioned earlier, rather than a NAMA for the little guy, a kind of IMF may work. Rather than a generic, 'If you are in negative equity you are entitled to this', a personal assesment could be done. The person that is screaming, 'Im broke' while still driving an 07 BMW, full Sky subscription etc could be told and advised about readjusting their lifestyle (I never get the arguement 'but they're used to this or that lifestyle'). This personal IMF works out a reasonable financial solution (Not 'you can now live on bread and water', or the other extreme 'Well if you are used to sky sports you can keep it'). People can choose to reject this bodies recommendations, and then have to deal with things normally. If they accept its recomendations, then the body has the power to order the bank to follow certain things like reduced interest rates, lower monthly payments etc etc.

This is a time for creativity and originality. Things out of the ordinary may have to occur, and not everyone will be happy. Those Hindsighter/forsighters amongst us though, can be happy in the knowledge that they don't need their finances regulated for them etc, and accept the reality of the problem. Be happy that you are ok, but also be happy that those not as financially savy as yourselves, can have been spared from financial ruin.

god forbid people have to rent (no lack of homes available for rent either) because they made a bad decision

It really goads me that some folk get atop this particular high horse. This is NOT the result of simply a 'bad decision', and whatever spin you want to put on it, EVERYONE will be affected by this whatever the solution in one way or another . Be it more taxes, more slums, more crime, more homelessness, more drug abusers etc etc. 'I told you so', and 'Why should I pay for these mistakes' do not help. As I said, everyone is going to pay one way or another.

K-9

MysticalRain wrote: »

I think it will benefit the subsection of society that's in negative equity, and will ultimately be a net financial drain for the rest of us. I certainly don't think it's going to help one bit in the long run.

We borrowed the money for NAMA, which in theory is supposed to be paid back. We'll be lucky if we even see half of it back, and for that reason, I am of the opinion that it a near certainty that Ireland will go bankrupt at some point. The last thing we need to be doing is pouring more even money down the plug hole. All that does is hasten our downfall.

People in Negative Equity are already a net financial drain.

FTB Interest relief of up to to €4,000 in lost tax revenue, up to €20,000 in Interest claimable. That's if you are lucky enough to be still in employment. If not, you maybe availing of Mortgage Interest Supplement

What is this relief used for? To bail out bank banks on top of the current tax payer funded bail out. On top of this we have increased interest rates by banks themselves.

A triple whammy. Increased taxes and cuts in services to pay for bank bail outs, increased interest rate to make up for the shortfall in the afore mentioned increased taxes and cuts in services and benefiting from tax incentives that are the very reason we are paying the triple whammy.

This was all ok in a bubble. Now, we are subsidising tax payers to pay for increased taxes that pay for the increased taxes used to bail out the banks that we are subsidising tax payers to bail out the very same bankers we are subsidising using FTB Reliefs. You couldn't make this stuff up.

SkepticOne

To follow up what has been said

I didn't hear what McWilliams was saying but like a lot of people I'm against outright forgiveness of debt for those in negative equity.

I think the middle way is to recognise a number of things

1) that for the most part people in jobs will keep paying their mortgage even though they fully realise that they overpaid for their house at the top of the boom.

2) that if they fail to pay that mortgage and hand in the keys, they may technically still owe balance of the money after the house is sold but realistically that money will never be seen again.

3) En masse defaulting (which hasn't happened yet) will result in either
a) other people losing their deposits or
b) the tax-payer once again picking up the tab.

This last point is something I think needs to be addressed as it will be the same people who resent the any sort of assistance for mortgage holders who will be first to complain when they lose money here because nothing was done.

Mister men

You know what makes me laugh, the "Bertie made me do it brigade". I mean i dispise the man as much as the next person but come on surely you are a grown adult and should have looked at a property and then the price and said feck that. I refused to buy then as i refuse to buy now. I worked in the building trade and know that the average cost of building your a run of the mill 3 bedroom was around 180,000 euro materials and labour and yet those same houses are now STILL priced at 280,000 to 300,000 euro.

As for McWilliams i've nothing but respect for the man. Put this rep on the line when everyone said he was mad but he's way wrong on this one.

JimiTime

Mister men wrote: »

You know what makes me laugh, the "Bertie made me do it brigade".

That may be a good soundbyte for your position, but it in no-way reveals the motivation behind why people bought homes for themselves and their families.

I mean i dispise the man as much as the next person but come on surely you are a grown adult and should have looked at a property and then the price and said feck that. I refused to buy then as i refuse to buy now.

Well done you, but again, hindsight can make you a king or a fool. When prices were at €200,000, 'Grown adults' could see that the property market was going nuts. Yet it continued to rise. for years. As I mentioned earlier, I know 'grown adults' who advised against house purchases when they breached €100,000 around my area. Of course, in hindsight, they became fools.

I worked in the building trade and know that the average cost of building your a run of the mill 3 bedroom was around 180,000 euro materials and labour and yet those same houses are now STILL priced at 280,000 to 300,000 euro.

Whats the building cost got to do with anything? Not to mention the labour cost being as inflated as the housing bubble. Go to Dalkey, and see houses that are pretty average priced near the 1 million bracket.

MysticalRain

K-9 wrote: »

People in Negative Equity are already a net financial drain.

FTB Interest relief of up to to €4,000 in lost tax revenue, up to €20,000 in Interest claimable. That's if you are lucky enough to be still in employment. If not, you maybe availing of Mortgage Interest Supplement

What is this relief used for? To bail out bank banks on top of the current tax payer funded bail out. On top of this we have increased interest rates by banks themselves.

A triple whammy. Increased taxes and cuts in services to pay for bank bail outs, increased interest rate to make up for the shortfall in the afore mentioned increased taxes and cuts in services and benefiting from tax incentives that are the very reason we are paying the triple whammy.

This was all ok in a bubble. Now, we are subsidising tax payers to pay for increased taxes that pay for the increased taxes used to bail out the banks that we are subsidising tax payers to bail out the very same bankers we are subsidising using FTB Reliefs. You couldn't make this stuff up.

I think you're forgetting a number of points:

A) most people in negative equity still have jobs and will not end up unemployed
they will muddle through their current difficulties. They'll just have a little more financially prudent about how they spend their money in the next 40 years.
C) plenty of tax break schemes existed before the bubble too.
D) yes their taxes are now being used to their banks. But that's the problem that they played a part in creating in the first place.


Unlike others, I was financially prudent during the boom times. I didn't even own a car, nevermind a house. I still don't own either and that's fine by me. However, if I'm going to be screwed again to pay for the shenanigans of a bunch of financially illiterate people who spent far above their means, then it looks like I'll be leaving the country for a second time in disgust.

MysticalRain

MysticalRain wrote: »

Unlike others, I was financially prudent during the boom times. I didn't even own a car, nevermind a house. I still don't own either and that's fine by me. However, if I'm going to be screwed again to pay for the shenanigans of a bunch of financially illiterate people who spent far above their means, then it looks like I'll be leaving the country for a second time in disgust.

Is there a price point where you would consider buying a house or do you never want to own one?
I'm just curious.
There has to be a margin on house building,I'd suggest somewhere between 15 and 20% over cost for the house builder to make it worth their while.
So are you interested in a house where theres a margin like that or do you want a below cost house?
Theres plenty of below cost houses appearing now [or at least below what it should have cost to build them]..but going into the future,there will be no below cost selling of new builds.So that means for people who do actually want a house,it's getting near decision time.
For sure,the current "market" in inverted comma's has a lot of bank enforced dumping onto the market..but when that supply dries up,the opportunities will be seen for the bargains that they are.

Make no mistake about it,the old reliable constituents of the housing market will then come back into play ie demand and supply location,location,location and prices will rise.

I don't know when that will start to happen but if I had the means to borrow at current prices, and want a house in a major urban centre I'd be looking now because it will happen.
We haven't entered a new universe where conditions have changed ,we're just in an enormous flux and that will change eventually.
We're probably nearer the end of it than the start of it.

K-9

MysticalRain wrote: »

I think you're forgetting a number of points:

A) most people in negative equity still have jobs and will not end up unemployed
they will muddle through their current difficulties. They'll just have a little more financially prudent about how they spend their money in the next 40 years.
C) plenty of tax break schemes existed before the bubble too.
D) yes their taxes are now being used to their banks. But that's the problem that they played a part in creating in the first place.


Unlike others, I was financially prudent during the boom times. I didn't even own a car, nevermind a house. I still don't own either and that's fine by me. However, if I'm going to be screwed again to pay for the shenanigans of a bunch of financially illiterate people who spent far above their means, then it looks like I'll be leaving the country for a second time in disgust.

I think the point is, you are all already being screwed by the shenanigans of a bunch of financially illiterate people who spent above their means. You better switch off the lights on the way out!

By reducing the payments the state will save tax reliefs granted, that cost us a fortune every year, of setting the cost to some degree.

JimiTime

MysticalRain wrote: »

Unlike others, I was financially prudent during the boom times. I didn't even own a car, nevermind a house. I still don't own either and that's fine by me. However, if I'm going to be screwed again to pay for the shenanigans of a bunch of financially illiterate people who spent far above their means, then it looks like I'll be leaving the country for a second time in disgust.

But why would you leave? Have you not got a job? or is it just simply anger that you may have an increase in tax that you'd upsticks? I fail to see the logic above, maybe you could clarify.

20goto10

I think this is a great idea. I can default on my mortgage for a few months, get bailed out and buy a new car with the cash I've saved!!

danbohan

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a price point where you would consider buying a house or do you never want to own one?
I'm just curious.
There has to be a margin on house building,I'd suggest somewhere between 15 and 20% over cost for the house builder to make it worth their while.
So are you interested in a house where theres a margin like that or do you want a below cost house?
Theres plenty of below cost houses appearing now [or at least below what it should have cost to build them]..but going into the future,there will be no below cost selling of new builds.So that means for people who do actually want a house,it's getting near decision time.
For sure,the current "market" in inverted comma's has a lot of bank enforced dumping onto the market..but when that supply dries up,the opportunities will be seen for the bargains that they are.

Make no mistake about it,the old reliable constituents of the housing market will then come back into play ie demand and supply location,location,location and prices will rise.

I don't know when that will start to happen but if I had the means to borrow at current prices, and want a house in a major urban centre I'd be looking now because it will happen.
We haven't entered a new universe where conditions have changed ,we're just in an enormous flux and that will change eventually.
We're probably nearer the end of it than the start of it.

part of the reason house prices reached the levels they did was because of the labor costs involved , i had a 19 year old tell me in 2007 that he could not live on his 875 euro per week take home pay , wage levels in construction as in many other industries in ireland will never reach the crazy levels again , house prices will never reach the unaffordable levels and will eventually settle down to European type norms , simply because so many people have been so badly burned , house prices will continue to fall until the vacant housing stock is gone and the only reason we have not had a complete crash is because of nama and the banks not forcing fire sales on a wide scale , it has nothing to do with build cost ,its because of economic situation this country finds itself in

20goto10

danbohan wrote: »

part of the reason house prices reached the levels they did was because of the labor costs involved , i had a 19 year old tell me in 2007 that he could not live on his 875 euro per week take home pay , wage levels in construction as in many other industries in ireland will never reach the crazy levels again , house prices will never reach the unaffordable levels and will eventually settle down to European type norms , simply because so many people have been so badly burned , house prices will continue to fall until the vacant housing stock is gone and the only reason we have not had a complete crash is because of nama and the banks not forcing fire sales on a wide scale , it has nothing to do with build cost ,its because of economic situation this country finds itself in

Nobody wants to buy the vacant housing stock. Would you willing move into a ghost estate with sewage seeping out of your garden? The vast majority of vacant stock are not in the equation. I sold 4 months ago and am still looking to buy. I literally cannot get the house I want. There is very little out there in my range and when it does come along there's always someone else willing to pay more. I refuse to get into a bidding war and will bide my time, but anyone who talks about an oversupply is not being realistic. There may be an oversupply on paper but the reality is there is very little choice out there when you take out what I consider to be non habitable houses.

gurramok

JimiTime wrote: »

Well done you, but again, hindsight can make you a king or a fool. When prices were at €200,000, 'Grown adults' could see that the property market was going nuts. Yet it continued to rise. for years. As I mentioned earlier, I know 'grown adults' who advised against house purchases when they breached €100,000 around my area. Of course, in hindsight, they became fools.

I grew up in 3bed terraced house a sh1thole of an area in Dublin, asking price 318k in 2006. That was one of the cheapest areas back then in all of Dublin city.

Yes, a fool who would pay 318k for my parents home back then were really thick to be blunt, no hindsight needed. On the bigger picture, people who participated in the property market lost the sense of value for money.

Taxipete29

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a price point where you would consider buying a house or do you never want to own one?
I'm just curious.
There has to be a margin on house building,I'd suggest somewhere between 15 and 20% over cost for the house builder to make it worth their while.
So are you interested in a house where theres a margin like that or do you want a below cost house?
Theres plenty of below cost houses appearing now [or at least below what it should have cost to build them]..but going into the future,there will be no below cost selling of new builds.So that means for people who do actually want a house,it's getting near decision time.
For sure,the current "market" in inverted comma's has a lot of bank enforced dumping onto the market..but when that supply dries up,the opportunities will be seen for the bargains that they are.

Make no mistake about it,the old reliable constituents of the housing market will then come back into play ie demand and supply location,location,location and prices will rise.

I don't know when that will start to happen but if I had the means to borrow at current prices, and want a house in a major urban centre I'd be looking now because it will happen.
We haven't entered a new universe where conditions have changed ,we're just in an enormous flux and that will change eventually.
We're probably nearer the end of it than the start of it.

You do realise it was the" buy now because you wont afford it later" attitude that was part of the problem and here you are saying the same thing all over again.

One of the factors in demand out stripping supply in the recent past was the huge waves of immigration from eastern europe. This is unlikely to repeat itself as this country goes through a period of correction and hopefully returns to something more stable.

Another factor in prices was the huge amount of investment properties which were bought due to the tax breaks available. These will be removed in due course making it far less attractive.

In other words if the Govt dont give tax breaks to developers etc another bubble is far less likely.

Taxipete29

20goto10 wrote: »

Nobody wants to buy the vacant housing stock. Would you willing move into a ghost estate with sewage seeping out of your garden? The vast majority of vacant stock are not in the equation. I sold 4 months ago and am still looking to buy. I literally cannot get the house I want. There is very little out there in my range and when it does come along there's always someone else willing to pay more. I refuse to get into a bidding war and will bide my time, but anyone who talks about an oversupply is not being realistic. There may be an oversupply on paper but the reality is there is very little choice out there when you take out what I consider to be non habitable houses.

You are talking specifically about new houses though. There is a more than adequate supply of 2nd hand homes for sale in established areas. The fact that you may not be able to afford them is not a factor. It was people buying when they couldnt afford it that caused the problems in the first place.

20goto10

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You are talking specifically about new houses though. There is a more than adequate supply of 2nd hand homes for sale in established areas. The fact that you may not be able to afford them is not a factor. It was people buying when they couldnt afford it that caused the problems in the first place.

Yes but there is a lot of inaccurate comments coming from people. not just on here but also academics, professional economists and of course the media. Yes there is massive over supply on paper, we have a lot of empty houses. But they just ignore the fact that nobody is EVER going to buy these. They are not in the equation and the gap is a lot smaller than people realise. There is not an adequate supply of 2nd hand homes, not what I am looking for anyway. I have seen plenty that would fit the description but fall short, mostly on size. There's a lot of 3 bed houses that are not actually 3 bed. You can fit a bed in the small room but nothing else, that is not a bedroom to me.

Personally I think there is a gap in the market for new builds right now. The definition of a family home has been redifined imo and we need more of them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JimiTime

gurramok wrote: »

I grew up in 3bed terraced house a sh1thole of an area in Dublin, asking price 318k in 2006. That was one of the cheapest areas back then in all of Dublin city.

Yes, a fool who would pay 318k for my parents home back then were really thick to be blunt, no hindsight needed. On the bigger picture, people who participated in the property market lost the sense of value for money.

I know where you are coming from, but hindsight can leave you blind too. We need perspective. A couple I know bought a house in Ballyfermot for €220,000 back in 2001/2002. When they did, all of us were saying, 'ARE YOU MAD!!'. €200,000 for a house IN BALLYER??!!! The more prudent had years of saying to people 'ARE YOU NUTS', only to watch as the prices kept rising and rising. The confidence in what you think is prudent begins to wane, as economists started predicting the average price of a house is going to be €400,000 by 2014 etc etc.

We also live in a state, where an average earning household can't get social housing. Also, there is little security in renting. I know people who rented, and continue to rent and they find it an absolute mare at times. They have a family, kids in local school etc. Then a letter of notice comes through the door that the landlord is selling the house, or moving in or whatever. Then its the arduous task of uprooting the family and looking for another home, and then it happens again etc.

The 'prudent' among us really need to see past their own circumstances on this, and realise that there was/is an evironment where private renting is really not secure for a family. Then the bank, the government, economists etc pop up and give you the option, 'Rent? Why bother when you can have a 100% mortgage, and your repayments will be around the same as the rent you're paying now.' I really encourage you to stop gloating about how you saw it coming etc. You may just need others to have some empathy with you at some point in the future.

Taxipete29

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You do realise it was the" buy now because you wont afford it later" attitude that was part of the problem and here you are saying the same thing all over again.

I do but you can't equate the two.
We are where we are now and we were where we were then.
Whats different now? All manner of things like a halving in price.
There hasn't been a halving in salaries..10% maybe in some cases ,none in others.

One of the factors in demand out stripping supply in the recent past was the huge waves of immigration from eastern europe. This is unlikely to repeat itself as this country goes through a period of correction and hopefully returns to something more stable.

Another factor in prices was the huge amount of investment properties which were bought due to the tax breaks available. These will be removed in due course making it far less attractive.

In other words if the Govt dont give tax breaks to developers etc another bubble is far less likely.

They won't.That lesson's been learnt.
Theres very little building going on now so at some point the desire to own is going to kick in again and the over supply emptied out.
The drag is the credit crunch.
It will be very slow to happen if theres no lending.

One of the main banks is saying that it's approving 100 new mortgages a day and pretending to be open for business.
What I've been told is,they're approving them alright but for a lot less than whats being asked in the certain knowledge then that the customer won't draw down.
So if they were asked how many of those were being drawn down or how many were approved for even 80% of whats asked,the figures wouldn't stack up like the adds at all nor anything like it.
The same is true for the claims that they are doing new business loans...they are in a lot of cases double counting as they are converting over drafts into term loans and cancelling the cashflow facility.

Theres statistics eh... and then theres damn lies.

Those are the banking activities that have to be challenged or we're truly fcuked.

gurramok

JimiTime wrote: »

I know where you are coming from, but hindsight can leave you blind too. We need perspective. A couple I know bought a house in Ballyfermot for €220,000 back in 2001/2002. When they did, all of us were saying, 'ARE YOU MAD!!'. €200,000 for a house IN BALLYER??!!! The more prudent had years of saying to people 'ARE YOU NUTS', only to watch as the prices kept rising and rising. The confidence in what you think is prudent begins to wane, as economists started predicting the average price of a house is going to be €400,000 by 2014 etc etc.

We also live in a state, where an average earning household can't get social housing. Also, there is little security in renting. I know people who rented, and continue to rent and they find it an absolute mare at times. They have a family, kids in local school etc. Then a letter of notice comes through the door that the landlord is selling the house, or moving in or whatever. Then its the arduous task of uprooting the family and looking for another home, and then it happens again etc.

The 'prudent' among us really need to see past their own circumstances on this, and realise that there was/is an evironment where private renting is really not secure for a family. Then the bank, the government, economists etc pop up and give you the option, 'Rent? Why bother when you can have a 100% mortgage, and your repayments will be around the same as the rent you're paying now.' I really encourage you to stop gloating about how you saw it coming etc. You may just need others to have some empathy with you at some point in the future.

As I said its all about value for money. Is 220k for that house in Ballyer worth it to someone? Not me and i'm not been snobbish there.;)

When it went up to 300k+, the same approach applies. Prices went way ahead of inflation and wages for a person that wanted to live there.

Yes, renting laws are weak on the landlord selling side, its a downside but not all landlords were like that. Its a small risk worth taking as opposed to getting yourself into long term massive debt.

Oh and remember, when you see those economists on the news saying the 'buy now mantra' constantly, they were paid to say that by the banks as the banks employed them. I'd take the word of university economists anyday over the ones employed by the banks and estate agents.

RichardAnd

My own opinion on this is that there should be no bail out to anyone in arrears as, quite simply, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Now, I am not one of those boards.ie economists who saw all this coming, not do I have a mortgage myself but even if I did, my views on this matter would be identical.

One of the biggest problems in Ireland is, and always has been, an utter lack of maturity. I know very intelligent people who, in the right circumstances, morph into puerile fools for X Y or Z reasons. But as my dad always told me, one of the first steps to becoming a man is accepting responsibilities for your own mistakes.

Anyone who took out a 100% mortgage, regardless of the reason, made a mistake. One can spin this anyway they wish but the fact is that no one was forced into borrowing their life away to pay for house. If a bail out was offered then we would loose the chance of a national lesson being learned, that of responsibility.

I don't wish a life of debt onto anyone, and I'm not so devoid of altruism that I can't feel sympathy for someone who will, quite possibly, pass away in debt. However, I am a realist and I know that if every single mortgage was paid off, the vast majority of people would probably make the same mistake again if we had another boom.

So, even though I begrudge no one their mistake, I firmly believe that if you make a bed, you must accept the responsibility of you actions and sleep in it.

20goto10

RichardAnd wrote: »

My own opinion on this is that there should be no bail out to anyone in arrears as, quite simply, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Now, I am not one of those boards.ie economists who saw all this coming, not do I have a mortgage myself but even if I did, my views on this matter would be identical.

One of the biggest problems in Ireland is, and always has been, an utter lack of maturity. I know very intelligent people who, in the right circumstances, morph into puerile fools for X Y or Z reasons. But as my dad always told me, one of the first steps to becoming a man is accepting responsibilities for your own mistakes.

Anyone who took out a 100% mortgage, regardless of the reason, made a mistake. One can spin this anyway they wish but the fact is that no one was forced into borrowing their life away to pay for house. If a bail out was offered then we would loose the chance of a national lesson being learned, that of responsibility.

I don't wish a life of debt onto anyone, and I'm not so devoid of altruism that I can't feel sympathy for someone who will, quite possibly, pass away in debt. However, I am a realist and I know that if every single mortgage was paid off, the vast majority of people would probably make the same mistake again if we had another boom.

So, even though I begrudge no one their mistake, I firmly believe that if you make a bed, you must accept the responsibility of you actions and sleep in it.

I tend to agree with you but there is an argument for it albeit not the argument being put forward. People should be absolved of their debt but not in the form of a bailout by the tax payers. In the states you can walk away from your debt. You'll never get another loan again but over there the risk is with the lender. The same should apply here if you ask me. If I invest in something and it goes belly up I can't go chasing people for my money back or drag them through the courts. The banks are taking a gamble and if that gamble fails then it should be their problem.

Likewise, a limited company can go bankrupt and the directors simply walk away, gather their bearings and start again.

JimiTime

RichardAnd wrote: »

My own opinion on this is that there should be no bail out to anyone in arrears as, quite simply, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The problem with that, is that a giant bailout has already occured. I don't think any right thinking person would advocate some generic bailout for people, but it is simply not right to take the money of those, including those who now find themselves insolvant, to payout to an industry that were not only irresponsible, but criminal in some cases. Then have the audacity to say, you just have to put up with it. Something has to be done. These normal people wont be walking away with €600,000 pensions or golden handshakes. You can't just say 'Lets draw a line', or you simply show that it is an elitist society. Solutions can be thought of which don't remove personal responsibility, and I agree that simply 'bailing out the people' may just cause wrecklessness in the future.

One of the biggest problems in Ireland is, and always has been, an utter lack of maturity. I know very intelligent people who, in the right circumstances, morph into puerile fools for X Y or Z reasons. But as my dad always told me, one of the first steps to becoming a man is accepting responsibilities for your own mistakes.

The problem is, is that we had a system being sold to us by our government and our banks. People bought into the hype fed to them by bodies who were supposed to be responsible. The hype was backed by evidence too. Its much to simplistic to say it was personal mistakes. I DO wish to encourage personal responsibility, but there is more to this issue than simple personal mistakes.

Anyone who took out a 100% mortgage, regardless of the reason, made a mistake.

Why was that a mistake compared to say a 92% mortgage?

One can spin this anyway they wish but the fact is that no one was forced into borrowing their life away to pay for house. If a bail out was offered then we would loose the chance of a national lesson being learned, that of responsibility.

Its all well and good talking of national lessons, but peoples lives are at stake here. Solutions need to be sought which balance encouraging personal responsibility with helping those in trouble.

I don't wish a life of debt onto anyone, and I'm not so devoid of altruism that I can't feel sympathy for someone who will, quite possibly, pass away in debt. However, I am a realist and I know that if every single mortgage was paid off, the vast majority of people would probably make the same mistake again if we had another boom.

Personally, I'm looking for a creative solution which would encourage personal responsibility but also help those in their time of need.

So, even though I begrudge no one their mistake, I firmly believe that if you make a bed, you must accept the responsibility of you actions and sleep in it.

The problem is, that its more complicated than the homeowner alone making their bed.

Mister men

JimiTime wrote: »

That may be a good soundbyte for your position, but it in no-way reveals the motivation behind why people bought homes for themselves and their families.


Well done you, but again, hindsight can make you a king or a fool. When prices were at €200,000, 'Grown adults' could see that the property market was going nuts. Yet it continued to rise. for years. As I mentioned earlier, I know 'grown adults' who advised against house purchases when they breached €100,000 around my area. Of course, in hindsight, they became fools.


Whats the building cost got to do with anything? Not to mention the labour cost being as inflated as the housing bubble. Go to Dalkey, and see houses that are pretty average priced near the 1 million bracket.

If you actually read the post you'd see i did include labour costs.

SkepticOne

20goto10 wrote: »

I tend to agree with you but there is an argument for it albeit not the argument being put forward. People should be absolved of their debt but not in the form of a bailout by the tax payers. In the states you can walk away from your debt. You'll never get another loan again but over there the risk is with the lender. The same should apply here if you ask me. If I invest in something and it goes belly up I can't go chasing people for my money back or drag them through the courts. The banks are taking a gamble and if that gamble fails then it should be their problem.

This is something that might possibly have been possible before the boom but now if people start handing back the keys in large numbers another bailout of the banks will be required.

JimiTime

SkepticOne wrote: »

This is something that might possibly have been possible before the boom but now if people start handing back the keys in large numbers another bailout of the banks will be required.

So what happens to people who can't pay their mortgages now? Other than reposession, what happens to them?