McWilliams at it again

JimiTime

Mister men wrote: »

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

I know you did

Tea drinker

But where does this leave non-homeowners such as myself, people who knew there was something wrong?
I already paid and made my bet by renting instead of betting on rising house prices.

It seems fair to me that I should get one of those empty houses, if everyone else is geting bailed why not me?

K-9

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.

That would be the main cost involved. The opportunity cost gained would be the advantage. Tax Relief and Mortgage Interest Supplement saved by the taxpayer plus the saved repayments would be used in the general economy.

RichardAnd

Tea drinker wrote: »

It seems fair to me that I should get one of those empty houses, if everyone else is geting bailed why not me?

This sentence succinctly sums up my fears of a bail out for the normal man on the street.

K-9

Tea drinker wrote: »

But where does this leave non-homeowners such as myself, people who knew there was something wrong?
I already paid and made my bet by renting instead of betting on rising house prices.

It seems fair to me that I should get one of those empty houses, if everyone else is geting bailed why not me?

Why would you get an empty house though? I see your point but it doesn't apply to Renting. Maybe a Refund of sky high rents due to the bubble would be a better example?

Banned Account

The only real solution is to limit the right of the banks to recover to the asset on which the finance was secured in the first place. This would allow pressed homeowners to surrender their mortage without having a judgement hanging over their heads whilst causing the banks to suffer some of the pain for lending at ridiculous LTV rates.

If the banks were worried about the effect this may have on their balance sheets, they could come to some kind of agreement with the borrower. I do fully understand the regulators warning on moral hazard and whilst it's galling in the extreme to see the same agument ignored when it comes to bondholders of the banks, the fact remains that his argument is correct.

JimiTime

Tea drinker wrote: »

But where does this leave non-homeowners such as myself, people who knew there was something wrong?
I already paid and made my bet by renting instead of betting on rising house prices.

It seems fair to me that I should get one of those empty houses, if everyone else is geting bailed why not me?

What do you need to be bailed out of? The fact that you are not in debt up to your eyeballs, are financially secure etc should give you great personal satisfaction. Much like I don't begrudge people on job seekers allowance, or ask for the state to pay me some cash like this too. Why? becasue I'm ok financially at the moment.

We should really stop talking in terms of 'bailout', and talk in terms of 'social responsibility'. If you are doing ok, don't look over the fence at the neighbour who was in the sh!t, but has been rescued from it. Be happy that he didn't go to the wall, and seek that our government and financial institutions never encourage this wrecklessness again.

Banned Account

JimiTime wrote: »

What do you need to be bailed out of? The fact that you are not in debt up to your eyeballs, are financially secure etc should give you great personal satisfaction. Much like I don't begrudge people on job seekers allowance, or ask for the state to pay me some cash like this too. Why? becasue I'm ok financially at the moment.

We should really stop talking in terms of 'bailout', and talk in terms of 'social responsibility'. If you are doing ok, don't look over the fence at the neighbour who was in the sh!t, but has been rescued from it. Be happy that he didn't go to the wall, and seek that our government and financial institutions never encourage this wrecklessness again.

It's an issue of perception really, if a family is struggling to pay a mortgage and other bills and having the family go without (for example, not able to get things for the kids etc.) but see that neighbours are in a much better space after being 'rescued' then there is a temptation for them to say "fcuk it, lets do the same"

This cause the problem to snowball.

20goto10

JimiTime wrote: »

What do you need to be bailed out of? The fact that you are not in debt up to your eyeballs, are financially secure etc should give you great personal satisfaction.

Is there not a risk that people being bailed out will end up being in a better position than those not being bailed out? Those who aren't defaulting on their loans but are still putting 80% of everything into their mortgage and have no quality of life. They'd be better off defaulting a few payments and jump on the bail out band wagon. And no matter where you draw the line, there will always be people just on the other side of that line that would be better off if they were the other side.

changes

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.

The debt is between the banks and the borrower, the state should not have to pay imo.

The banks messed up big time and have been proven to have acted recklessly. They needed a bailout from the taxpayer. So already one side (the experienced side) has recieved help. I'm not comfortable with the other side (the borrower) having to bear a lifelong burden for a transaction that involved two foolish parties. When most likely in 10 or 15 years time the experienced side will be back in profit and the borrower will still be looking at another 15 or 20 years of financial burden.

The taxpayer should not have to pay but longterm the banks should have to pay their share from their profits. We can not have the unfair situation where in 10 years time the banks are back rolling in the money and the borrower is still in pain. They both messed up!!

ei.sdraob

changes wrote: »

The debt is between the banks and the borrower, the state should not have to pay imo.

The banks messed up big time and have been proven to have acted recklessly. They needed a bailout from the taxpayer. So already one side (the experienced side) has recieved help. I'm not comfortable with the other side (the borrower) having to bear a lifelong burden for a transaction that involved two foolish parties. When most likely in 10 or 15 years time the experienced side will be back in profit and the borrower will still be looking at another 15 or 20 years of financial burden.

The taxpayer should not have to pay but longterm the banks should have to pay their share from their profits. We can not have the unfair situation where in 10 years time the banks are back rolling in the money and the borrower is still in pain. They both messed up!!

yet we can have an unfair situation where people who didnt endebt themselves now will have to pay for mistakes of others

fairness :rolleyes: does that often abused word even have meaning anymore?

JimiTime

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yet we can have an unfair situation where people who didnt endebt themselves now will have to pay for mistakes of others

In a word, yes. Like it or not, we all gonna pay one way or another. Just like we pay for those who are unemployed, incapacitated etc etc. You should look outside of the self, past personal circumstance. Are you not a student? If so, then the fact that you were not caught in this crisis could simply be due to you being lucky enough not to be in a position where you sought a home for yourself etc. You may be just lucky, so best not begrudge.

ei.sdraob

JimiTime wrote: »

In a word, yes. Like it or not, we all gonna pay one way or another. Just like we pay for those who are unemployed, incapacitated etc etc. You should look outside of the self, past personal circumstance. Are you not a student? If so, then the fact that you were not caught in this crisis could simply be due to you being lucky enough not to be in a position where you sought a home for yourself etc. You may be just lucky, so best not begrudge.

luck has little to do with my current position :rolleyes:

a little bit of copon and responsibility is something a large portion of the population needs to learn

otherwise you ensure all of this will repeat again on a much larger scale

and if it makes you feel better im doing everything possible to ensure i will not be the one paying for your mistakes, you can have your own cake and eat it too

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

danbohan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

now dont be getting too comfortable in that house , new laws soon to be intrduced means you will have to share it with the poor unfortunates who were hypnotized by evil spirits and forced into buying in the boom , either that or you pay 50% of thy neighbors mortgage , as eldrob says , many have no copon but the sense of entitlement in this country is just unbelievable

JimiTime

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And I'm delighted that you done that, I really am. The 'luck' I referred to was to a student who never got to the stage in life where he would make such a decision. Of course, its all so obvious to everyone 'now' that only feckin eejits bought.

JimiTime

danbohan wrote: »

now dont be getting too comfortable in that house , new laws soon to be intrduced means you will have to share it with the poor unfortunates who were hypnotized by evil spirits and forced into buying in the boom , either that or you pay 50% of thy neighbors mortgage , as eldrob says , many have no copon but the sense of entitlement in this country is just unbelievable

:rolleyes: Its nothing to do with entitlement. Its to do with, 'What the hell are we going to do about it??' We can be high horsed smart @rses about it all, or we can try be constructive.

Mr. Presentable

JimiTime wrote: »

In a word, yes. Like it or not, we all gonna pay one way or another. Just like we pay for those who are unemployed, incapacitated etc etc. You should look outside of the self, past personal circumstance. Are you not a student? If so, then the fact that you were not caught in this crisis could simply be due to you being lucky enough not to be in a position where you sought a home for yourself etc. You may be just lucky, so best not begrudge.

The problem is, if people can start handing back their keys and be housed at the tax-payers expense - probably in the same house - then I am also going to stop paying my mortgage and let the prudent house me.

The solution for people in repayment difficulty is to readdress their terms; lengthen the loan, or share ownership with the council etc.

The big picture in returning your keys/defaulting on your mortgage also includes the fact you will no longer be able to borrow. No car/holiday/credit card. Sky won't want you if you have a credit rating that includes "Grievous loan defaulter", so no telly either.

ei.sdraob

JimiTime wrote: »

And I'm delighted that you done that, I really am. The 'luck' I referred to was to a student who never got to the stage in life where he would make such a decision. Of course, its all so obvious to everyone 'now' that only feckin eejits bought.

im well past a student stage Jimi
it took me many years of hard work and saving to be able to build own place
im not asking anyone for handout nor do i expect to pay for others mistakes,

enough is enough, i can understand and pay taxes towards welfare and public service, and hell i can even live with banking bailouts but this whole thing is really crossing the line now and taking the piss


your walking into serious moral hazard territory, where people who were prudent start to ask questions and make decisions that can tople this system

ei.sdraob

JimiTime wrote: »

'What the hell are we going to do about it??' .

we will do nothing

its a problem to solve for the banks and the people involved

bad enough we practically own most of these banks



the government is betting billions on property prices "recovering" in a decade, sit tight and wait for the "recoverah" :P

K-9

JimiTime wrote: »

:rolleyes: Its nothing to do with entitlement. Its to do with, 'What the hell are we going to do about it??' We can be high horsed smart @rses about it all, or we can try be constructive.

In a few years, when the banks are back making profits again, we'll be left with this mess. Something will be have to be done about it then. People aren't happy with the bail out of banks and naturally aren't happy with an extension of that to Mortgage holders.

Our bankruptcy laws are due a change here to bring them up to UK levels and something maybe included in that to address the situation.

JimiTime

ei.sdraob wrote: »

luck has little to do with my current position :rolleyes:

Are you or are you not a student?

a little bit of copon and responsibility is something a large portion of the population needs to learn

I agree.

otherwise you ensure all of this will repeat again on a much larger scale

Again, I would tend to agree.

and if it makes you feel better im doing everything possible to ensure i will not be the one paying for your mistakes, you can have your own cake and eat it too

Well if you stay in this country you will be. In case you haven't noticed, billions have gone to the banks for their mistakes and criminal activity. As for me, I'm ok. I'm just not as tunnel visioned as some. I don't want to see my neighbours go to the wall. Its why I want to see a solution which encourages personal responsibility, but also doesn't soap-box about 'you made your bed'. There are many factors involved here, but the bottom line is, I don't want to see people in financial ruin, especially when a precadent was set by giving billions to those who were the 'experts' in all of this.

danbohan

JimiTime wrote: »

:rolleyes: Its nothing to do with entitlement. Its to do with, 'What the hell are we going to do about it??' We can be high horsed smart @rses about it all, or we can try be constructive.

or we can ignore it . and make sure no government elected by us now or in the future introduces nama2 for dummies. the people in arrears will have their house repossessed , they will owe the balance to the bank , thats just the way it has to be , unfortunate as it is for the people involved . this country/taxpayers cannot afford the bailouts that has already taken place let alone additional ones to bail out distressed homeowners

ei.sdraob

JimiTime wrote: »

Are you or are you not a student?

im not

JimiTime wrote: »

Well if you stay in this country you will be. In case you haven't noticed, billions have gone to the banks for their mistakes and criminal activity. As for me, I'm ok. I'm just not as tunnel visioned as some. I don't want to see my neighbours go to the wall. Its why I want to see a solution which encourages personal responsibility, but also doesn't soap-box about 'you made your bed'. There are many factors involved here, but the bottom line is, I don't want to see people in financial ruin, especially when a precadent was set by giving billions to those who were the 'experts' in all of this.

I dont want to see people in financial ruin either, but if someone makes a mistake its grossly unfair dumping that mistake on society, not only that you ensure no one learns from their mistakes and this whole mess repeats on a larger scale

we dont have enough money to pay our welfare and ps and have to borrow, and then there are flipping banks (if you read past posts im not to thrilled about them getting a cent)

this really is the straw that would break the camels back


anyone who is in difficulty should follow the advice of the regulator and contact their bank, the banks are more than willing to change terms since it suits no one to have evictions

JimiTime

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im well past a student stage Jimi

Apologies so, i don't know why I thought you were.

it took me many years of hard work and saving to be able to build own place
im not asking anyone for handout nor do i expect to pay for others mistakes,

But we all pay for the needs of others already. Unemployment, rent allowance etc. The fact that you haven't required handouts is great. I haven't neither, and I feel blessed. Maybe one day things will change though. I don't want to P1ss on the less fortunate though due to my own circumstance. Rather, I'm greatful for my circumstance, and wish it upon others.

enough is enough, i can understand and pay taxes towards welfare and public service, and hell i can even live with banking bailouts but this whole thing is really crossing the line now and taking the piss

Again, a 'bailout' is not what I'm seeking.

your walking into serious moral hazard territory, where people who were prudent start to ask questions and make decisions that can tople this system

I agree, but I think it would help if we could talk in terms of reality. the reality being, that some people will be left jobless, with kids etc and not afford to pay their mortgage. Its a very real problem, and 'tough sh!t, i was prudent' simply doesn't cut it.

ei.sdraob

JimiTime wrote: »

But we all pay for the needs of others already. Unemployment, rent allowance etc. The fact that you haven't required handouts is great. I haven't neither, and I feel blessed. Maybe one day things will change though. I don't want to P1ss on the less fortunate though due to my own circumstance. Rather, I'm greatful for my circumstance, and wish it upon others.

in case you havent noticed the country and its people are insolvent
you cant squeeze blood out of a stone
anyone who is capable of paying not will/have moved their wealth out of here
that leaves people who are also already struggling

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, a 'bailout' is not what I'm seeking.

you want to change the terms, the banks are already doing that

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree, but I think it would help if we could talk in terms of reality. the reality being, that some people will be left jobless, with kids etc and not afford to pay their mortgage. Its a very real problem, and 'tough sh!t, i was prudent' simply doesn't cut it.

how many people?
where?
when?
how much?
how many people are in negative equity AND are unemployed?


theres a serious lack of figures in this debate, which is frustrating to say the least
yee go on about a problem, but no one is willing to quantify a problem
i asked for figures in another thread, but it always endsup at being an "ethical/philosophical" discussion,
without figures you are reduced to using words like "fairness" and "we are all in this together"

JimiTime

danbohan wrote: »

or we can ignore it .

But you can't. If you have thousands of people defaulting, and being left bankrupt, people with families etc you are breeding a social nightmare. You wont ignore it when its stealing your car, or robbing your house, or mugging your children etc etc. this 'Tough sh!t' approach will cost us all in the long run.

20Cent

How come bailing out Joe Soap is now the last straw?
Ye didn't protest the bank bailouts or the developers.
Slag off those who are. Now when a fellow citizen needs some help then its the last straw all of a sudden.

Some kind of mechanism could be put into place.
If a house is x% in negative equity then a lump sum is used to pay off a percentage of it which goes directly to the bank. Helps out the homeowner reduces their mortgage payments and recapitalises the bank. More money to lend and we won't have the ridiculous situation of evicting people in a country with hundreds of thousands of empty houses.
Currently we are just pouring money into banks with no benefit for the public.

ei.sdraob

20Cent wrote: »

Ye didn't protest the bank bailouts or the developers

head explodes ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eDfrMgFQM

JimiTime

ei.sdraob wrote: »

in case you havent noticed the country and its people are insolvent
you cant squeeze blood out of a stone
anyone who is capable of paying not will/have moved their wealth out of here
that leaves people who are also already struggling

Thats why I would be more inclined to have the majority of the load fall on the banks. As I mentioned earlier, a sort of IMF for people scenario. They go through your finances and tell you where your cuts will be, and will also be able to order banks to do whatever necessary.

you want to change the terms, the banks are already doing that

Extending the term is not a goer if that term goes past retirement age though is it?

how many people?
where?
when?
how much?
how many people are in negative equity AND are unemployed?


theres a serious lack of figures in this debate, which is frustrating to say the least
yee go on about a problem, but no one is willing to quantify a problem
i asked for figures in another thread, but it always endsup at being an "ethical/philosophical" discussion,
without figures you are reduced to using words like "fairness" and "we are all in this together"

i'm going on about a 'potential' problem, but you are most certainly correct. We need figures, and thats not my forté.