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

Should tax payers bail out mortgage defaulters?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Absurdum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Why should taxpayers who bought modest houses (or couldnt/didnt buy a house at all) have to bail you out.

    they'll be bailing out the bank who has to take the hit on it if the homeowner walks away anyway, won't they?

    one big cluster**** of non-existent money having to be paid back innit:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #33
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Absurdum wrote: »
    they'll be bailing out the bank who has to take the hit on it if the homeowner walks away anyway, won't they?

    Two wrongs make a right ?


  • Options
    #34
    Gunsfortoys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭Gunsfortoys


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    So your criteria for deserving/undeserving is based solely on age and family status ?

    Families that have lost their jobs due to recession need help more than single people. I as a single person would not expect taxpayers to bail me out having bought an overpriced apartment regardless of whether or not I could pay it back or hope to sell it on in 5 years. Families that bought their properties as a roof for their children should receive help only in dire circumstances.


  • Options
    #35
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    What about people who opted not to have kids because they knew they couldnt afford them ?
    Families that bought their properties as a roof for their children .
    Single people (and childless/childfree couples) have just as much need for a roof over their head as families.
    msg11 wrote: »
    Maybe I am just too soft, but there is something about a family keep ****ed out on the street that doesn't sit right with me..

    Realistically how many people are going to be literally ****ed out on the street ? With all the thousands of empty properties lying about it should be possible for them to rent. It may not be a very nice thing to go through but theres a lot worse happening in the world.


  • Options
    #36
    Venom
    Registered Users Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭Venom


    For any bail outs to work there has to be a major downside so only those that really are up the creek without a paddle and not every chancer under the sun takes the option.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Who is it that pays the rent allowance for people who default on their mortgages and have their houses repossessed.


  • Options
    #38
    Absurdum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    sooner or later we have to stop trying to apportion blame and start looking at realistic solutions to this mess


  • Options
    #39
    Thoie
    Registered Users Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    Cmdr Keen wrote: »
    a) They signed the contract (no matter what pressure was put on them by the banks)

    Genuine question - were there banks out there forcing loans/mortgages on people? This keeps coming up - "the banks put pressure on me". No-one from the bank ever called to my door and threatened my goldfish if I didn't borrow money. Was I just not at home that day? Or is it that I didn't have a goldfish to threaten?


  • Options
    #40
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    Who is it that pays the rent allowance for people who default on their mortgages and have their houses repossessed.

    rent allowance and having the state bailing someone with mortgage arrears out are hardly the same thing.


  • Options
    #41
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    Yes we probably should help them out. At least they tried at life.

    We have plenty who take take take from the state. Say some 18yr old lazy fecker decides that work is not for him so he spends the next 60 years on benefits. Thats about a million euro paid out to him alone. Not a word on that during the boom.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Paddyontherun
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭Paddyontherun


    Joe C wrote: »
    People should accept the consequences of the decisions they make regardless of whether they are good or bad.

    If you were silly enough to buy a house between 2003 - 2007 , tough luck as far I'm concerned.

    So a couple getting married in 2003 and looking for somewhere to live (more likely a modest property at the going rate) should have said oh we'll hang on until 2009 and buy then. Get real.


  • Options
    #43
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Paddyontherun wrote: »
    So a couple getting married in 2003 and looking for somewhere to live (more likely a modest property at the going rate) should have said oh we'll hang on until 2009 and buy then. Get real.

    I would come down on the side of personal responsibility on this. That couple are not entitled to and should not expect a taxpayer bailout. That would be unfair to the other couples or single people who are currently in rented acomodation through choice or who couldn't afford a mortgage or who bought more modestly/sensibly.


  • Options
    #44
    Gunsfortoys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭Gunsfortoys


    What about people who opted not to have kids because they knew they couldnt afford them ?

    Eh, thats great they had the sense to do that.:confused:

    Single people (and childless/childfree couples) have just as much need for a roof over their head as families.

    No they don't, they do not have kids and they can get rented accommodation.


  • Options
    #45
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Gunsfortoys wrote: »
    No they don't, they do not have kids

    So childless/childfree people can do just fine sleeping out under the stars ?
    Gunsfortoys wrote: »
    and they can get rented accommodation.
    Just like families can
    Gunsfortoys wrote: »
    Eh, thats great they had the sense to do that.
    Whats so confusing about not expecting other people to fund your lifestyle choices ?


  • Options
    #46
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    I think the morons who bought massively over valued houses and apartments deserve what they get and are as responsible for this destruction of a nation as the bankers and the politicians. Suck it up, how could you have been so stupid to pay that much money for a house not even within the M50?


  • Options
    #47
    Gunsfortoys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭Gunsfortoys


    So single people can do just fine sleeping out under the stars ?

    As I said they can get rented accommodation, they will get rent allowance anyway. No kids so they haven't many reasons to continue living in a property they can't afford.


  • Options
    #48
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Gunsfortoys wrote: »
    As I said they can get rented accommodation.

    As I said so can families.

    Do pay attention !


  • Options
    #49
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    rent allowance and having the state bailing someone with mortgage arrears out are hardly the same thing.

    True. If you cannot afford your house, there is the social housing option.

    That is where you do not pay the market rent of the private rental sector but pay a portion of your income(usually very small) to the council.

    I wonder will there be a bailout for those in rental arrears?


  • Options
    #50
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    No-one ever goes without a roof over their head in this country unless they choose to.

    I don't really see why we should worry about bailing people out of failing mortgages - it's only bricks and mortar at the end of the day. If you lose it, it's only a house, life goes on, not the end of the world, etc.

    It should be made a less harrowing prospect of course to default on your mortgage, but I don't see any reason why people should be prevented from doing so.


  • Options
    #51
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jackal


    There is a safety net, its called social housing, which is for people who cannot afford to put a roof over their heads.

    /thread


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    seamus wrote: »
    It should be made a less harrowing prospect of course to default on your mortgage, but I don't see any reason why people should be prevented from doing so.

    By default on your mortgage do you mean declare bankruptcy ? I thought the only way out of that was to declare bankruptcy. ie you stop paying and default - the bank reposesses, sells instantly at a MASSIVE loss and pursues you indefinitely for the difference. So essentially someone like alison o riordan ends up owing in the ballpark of 450k and is in a rented bedsit.


  • Options
    #53
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    jackal wrote: »
    There is a safety net, its called social housing, which is for people who cannot afford to put a roof over their heads.

    /thread

    Exactly. What I see from the pro-mortgage defaulters brigade is snobbery.

    They bought an overpriced house on feck all means and it scares the living daylights out of them if they have to end up in a council house due to their own stupidity.


  • Options
    #54
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Morlar wrote: »
    By default on your mortgage do you mean declare bankruptcy ? I thought the only way out of that was to declare bankruptcy. ie you stop paying and default - the bank reposesses, sells instantly at a MASSIVE loss and pursues you indefinitely for the difference. So essentially someone like alison o riordan ends up owing in the ballpark of 450k and is in a rented bedsit.
    Hence the "less harrowing" bit. Our laws should recognise that when you take out a loan, there are actually two parties taking a risk - both you and the bank. As it stands, you take all the risk and the bank take effectively none because they can hold you to your debt forever.
    I wouldn't be in favour of allowing "jingle mail" either, but a happy middle ground must be possible where the person loses a sizeable portion of their assets in return for the debt being cleared and their credit history cleared after 7 or 8 years.
    In other words, Alison O'Riordan loses her apartment, her savings, her VW Beetle (or whatever she's driving) and any other major items of note (like TVs) and then she walks away, free to start again on her current income.


  • Options
    #55
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    I can see pros and cons to shifting the risks associated with mortgage default onto banks (as is the case in some countries) If it ever happens here dont be suprised when:
    1) Mortgage interest rates take a hike
    2) Mortgage companies become extremely reluctant to lend (although on balance this could be considered a good thing)
    3) Mortgage companies become more impatient/ruthless with customers who miss only a couple of payments owing to some short term financial difficulties which could otherwise have been deemed surmountable.
    seamus wrote: »
    No-one ever goes without a roof over their head in this country unless they choose to.

    I wouldnt go quite that far but people seem to be confusing not owning their own home (although until the last mortgage payment they dont really own it anyway) with being homeless.

    Having to move out of a home owned by ones bank into a one owned by a landlord may not be a particularly pleasent experience for a family to go through but its hardly the end of the world either.

    Lots of families (either through choice or necessity) have always lived in rented accomodation (public or private) and have to pay tax. Why should they have to fund other peoples bad decisions ?

    Expecting the taxpayer to bail out people who lost a gamble on property ownership is straight out of the Daily Mail school of socialism.


  • Options
    #56
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    seamus wrote: »
    Hence the "less harrowing" bit. Our laws should recognise that when you take out a loan, there are actually two parties taking a risk - both you and the bank. As it stands, you take all the risk and the bank take effectively none because they can hold you to your debt forever.
    I wouldn't be in favour of allowing "jingle mail" either, but a happy middle ground must be possible where the person loses a sizeable portion of their assets in return for the debt being cleared and their credit history cleared after 7 or 8 years.
    In other words, Alison O'Riordan loses her apartment, her savings, her VW Beetle (or whatever she's driving) and any other major items of note (like TVs) and then she walks away, free to start again on her current income.

    That all sounds far too reasonable and considered for after hours.

    I fully agree btw.


  • Options
    #57
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Hell to tha no.


  • Options
    #58
    bobblepuzzle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭bobblepuzzle


    Maybe extending the moritorium might me an option...


  • Options
    #59
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    "the banks put pressure on me"

    More likely people fell for peer pressure from friends and family with that age old chestnut:

    'Rent is Dead Money'

    Sure some woman was on Whineline STILL throwing that phrase out. She was on a 100% Mortgage was €4,000 behind her payments and 'couldn't sleep at night'.

    Even when she said she'd have second thoughts about the mortgage, she was asked would she rent she still said 'Rent is dead money'. Thing is she bought in 07 and thus hasn't even begun to pay back the Capital on this mortgage. She's still paying 'dead money' on interest (which is probably more than her monthly rent would be now)

    For christ's sake. Have people learned nothing during this crisis!

    Until you break this 'psychological' disorder on renting, reform Landlord and Tenant laws and outlaw 100% mortgages, we'll be right back here again in a couple of decades.

    And no, there should be no bailout for homeowners. It's not going to kill people to rent, even with a family.

    The key though, reform the Landlord and Tenant laws and the Bankruptcy laws.


  • Options
    #60
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    Cmdr Keen wrote: »
    Maybe extending the moritorium might me an option...

    Or allow extension of mortgage repayments? Means less going out per month.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Flygimp wrote: »
    Allot of middle income earners bought family homes throughout the country with two adults on full time wages and could afford their mortgage payments. Now some of these households are down to one wage or worse... do you blame them for lack of fore sight in a country with a false economy, when the price of houses rose on sentiment alone.

    Yes. Nobody to blame but themselves. The banks gave money they shouldnt have, but if the people taking it had a bit of cop on they wouldnt have taken it


Advertisement