Mortgage Arrears Problem in Ireland.

jpb1974

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If there is a manner to do it without the Person A being screwed to subsidize Person B scenario I referred to earlier, I'm all for it.
I don't believe there is tho.

Since the banks are shattered and nationalised, the only person left is the Taxpayer.

That's fine Danny, but it really is just your opinion and I don't see the need for you to quote me in your replies as if I've stated something that I in-fact never stated.

BluePlanet

fliball123 wrote: »

Really a line of credit coming in ala the social, unmarried mothers etc would be seen in the same esteem as an asset it is an income.....

Huh? Are you now claiming your house is an income?

The social is not an asset. Try going into a bank and applying for a credit card and claim your social as proof of "income" or that your social is an "asset".
It counts as neither.

fliball123 wrote: »

So why should I bother with any of it...It should be all or nothing..and its not to retain an asset. I garentee you anyone in neg equity would jump at the chance to hand the keys back to the bank and walk away..So your argument doesnt hold water

What's stopping you?

Monty Burnz

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It wasn't all a myth. Just felt I should inform you.

Well until about '99 it was genuine. After that it became more and more to do with a credit bubble, and that created a property bubble.

Duke Leonal Felmet

dolphin city wrote: »

it was - it was based on conconctions. Some people never even knew there was a so called celtic tiger in Ireland. Because there wasn't - it was a case of
the emperor's new clothes. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, what happened in the nineties was real, sorry. I know you won't accept what I am saying, but it has to be said.

JJJJNR

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I bought a car with a car loan. I paid the market value for the car, and the bank agreed.

Now, only 3 years later, my car has halved in value! Why should I shoulder responsibility for this negative equity? The bank should have been more responsible.

Because your car has a limited lifespan and you cannot compare the deprciation of a house to that of a car.

fliball123

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So, by your logic, we should also bail out the shareholders of the banks who thought they were being properly run and regulated? And those who lost money on Eircom? And those who failed to buy Microsoft shares in 1979? And those who lost down at the racecourse?

Just because some money has already been wasted, doesn't mean it's somehow right to waste evern more. Bizarre logic.

Arent we bailing the banks out anyway??

This is completely different and I will tell you why

The gov kept the illusion up that property was only going one way..Now you can argue the merits of people buying into it all you want. But when you leaders are telling you something you kinda listen. Espeically after the gov gave out incentives such as the SSIAs and mortgage relief and other stimulas to balloon this bubble. I think people got caught. What people need to realise is that at the moment

The interest relief is now gone
Banks are increasing there interest rates
House prices are going down.
This on top of the cuts and increase in taxes

People are trapped... and unfortunately people now have a 2 year period where they will not lose their home if they cant pay...People will wait the 2 years and say I cannot pay. They will try to give them the debt ..they wont pay. Our system is not exactly equipped to follow through on penalising people in this area ala Seany Fitz and we will still have to house these people..

What people need to understand is if there is not some kind of debt forgiveness for these people what are the alternitives????

Ideas such as giving a tax credit for people in neg equity or paying a mortgage could be done..IE if someone is working instead of paying say 100 quid in tax 50 quid is taken and put off the mortgage...This way they are paying for themselves...We need ideas people not a load of cnuts saying ahh ye feckin ejjit you shouldnt have bought an overinflated house

And as I have already pointed out...
If I have no children why should I contribute my tax to childs allowences
If I am not working in the p.s why should I contribute to their wages
If I am not retired why should I contribute to existing pensioners
If I am not unemployed why should I contribute to the social welfare

So lets add one
If I dont have a house why should I contribute to people in neg equity or paying a mortgage.

the only difference is, is the perspective of the person paying the tax..

I think if a person is working and paying a mortgage they should be allowed pay less to tax - to pay the above and be allowed put their cash straight off the mortgage

Its an idea that no seems to be floating...Anyone any negs about the above idea?

Duke Leonal Felmet

JJJJNR wrote: »

Because your car has a limited lifespan and you cannot compare the deprciation of a house to that of a car.

Houses are infinite?

JJJJNR

Use your common sense and answer that yourself.

fliball123

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I would also remove a number of the above list. I am all for helping people who were born into poverty, but I do not want to pay for those who make stupid decisions. It is my money, I would like to have some say in where it goes. This is what democracy is about. Deal with it.


I must repeat BluePlanet's point, none of the above list leads to you retaining ownership of an asset.

and I repeat my post back to blue planet it is an active steady ncome that they get which is alot better than an asset

Monty Burnz

JJJJNR wrote: »

Because your car has a limited lifespan and you cannot compare the deprciation of a house to that of a car.

You can. It depends on the asset in question and the market. Example - houses in Japan are considered worthless after about 25 years. Their remaining value is just the land they sit on. Houses have a limited lifespan too. Unless of course you spend money on maintenance and repairs (much like you can do with a car).

Conversely, many cars appreciate in value because there is a strong demand for them after their production run has finished.

jpb1974

To be honest the feeling I get on this thread from the 'bitter ones' is that basically you should have put your life on hold for the Noughties.

Basically shack up with Mammy and Daddy, don't plan marriage, don't plan any children, don't plan to provide a better life for yourself, don't plan to put a roof over your family's head that you can call your own. Instead just sit back and stare into your crystal ball and hope you get it right.

A slow down was expected... not a total and utter crash of epic proportions.

Hindsight is great, just a shame that it's totally and utterly phuckin useless right now.

Biggest problem with this country at the moment is the amount of negativity that surrounds it. Positive thinking is the only way back.

Waffle about cars is pointless right now. The focus is on houses as homes.

Harping on about the past is a total and utter waste of time. Sure there are lessons to be learned but that will shape the future and not change the past.

Duke Leonal Felmet

JJJJNR wrote: »

Use your common sense and answer that yourself.

It's what you implied in your senseless post.

Sponge Bob

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well until about '99 it was genuine. After that it became more and more to do with a credit bubble, and that created a property bubble.

That is exactly what happened. The real Celtic Tiger got Alzheimers around 2000 and the period from 2000-2008 was a mad credit bubble where we were all getting rich rich RICH by simply selling houses to each other.

(Psst wanna buy a helicopter, one careful owner)

Duke Leonal Felmet

fliball123 wrote: »

and I repeat my post back to blue planet it is an active steady ncome that they get which is alot better than an asset

Fine, the state should get a piece of that asset in return for me paying off their mortgage for them.

Duke Leonal Felmet

jpb1974 wrote: »

To be honest the feeling I get on this thread from the 'bitter ones' is that basically you should have put your life on hold for the Noughties.

Basically shack up with Mammy and Daddy, don't plan marriage, don't plan any children, don't plan to provide a better life for yourself, don't plan to put a roof over your family's head that you can call your own. Instead just sit back and stare into your crystal ball and hope you get it right.

A slow down was expected... not a total and utter crash of epic proportions.

Hindsight is great, just a shame that it's totally and utterly phuckin useless right now.

Biggest problem with this country at the moment is the amount of negativity that surrounds it. Positive thinking is the only way back.

Waffle about cars is pointless right now. The focus is on houses as homes.

Harping on about the past is a total and utter waste of time. Sure there are lessons to be learned but that will shape the future and not change the past.

What utter babble. I had a great noughties, lived out of home, travelled the world, etc. But when my friends were in a panic about buying a house and were trying to induce the same panic in me (its dead money, get on the ladder) I sat back and did the sums. Can I honestly afford this? Do I even want to be tied to one spot? What if the property market crashes like so many economists keep saying, just like the crash in the UK some years previous? No, it doesn't make sense. I won't buy into this frenzy.

That is what happened. Not what your fantasy desires.

Monty Burnz

fliball123 wrote: »

Arent we bailing the banks out anyway??

So? Two wrongs now make a right?
[/QUOTE]

fliball123 wrote: »

This is completely different and I will tell you why

The gov kept the illusion up that property was only going one way..Now you can argue the merits of people buying into it all you want. But when you leaders are telling you something you kinda listen.

Why? Don't people have brains of their own? I believe nothing I'm told unless I have good reason to. I think you will find that governments have a vested interest in telling you that things are going great. My advice to you in future: figure out WHY somebody is telling you something before you swallow it as truth.

fliball123 wrote: »

Espeically after the gov gave out incentives such as the SSIAs and mortgage relief and other stimulas to balloon this bubble.

The SSIAs were meant to take money OUT of the economy by incentivising savings. If people chose to blow their matured SSIA on property, rather than carry on saving, then that is their lookout.

fliball123 wrote: »

I think people got caught. What people need to realise is that at the moment

The interest relief is now gone
Banks are increasing there interest rates
House prices are going down.
This on top of the cuts and increase in taxes

Yup, all that stuff and more. Banks are all bust so they don't even have the money to give to borrowers, so prices are trapped in a downward spiral.

fliball123 wrote: »

People are trapped... and unfortunately people now have a 2 year period where they will not lose their home if they cant pay...People will wait the 2 years and say I cannot pay. They will try to give them the debt ..they wont pay. Our system is not exactly equipped to follow through on penalising people in this area ala Seany Fitz and we will still have to house these people..

Well the people can house themselves by renting if they are working. If they have no income we would have to pay for their social housing anyway.

fliball123 wrote: »

What people need to understand is if there is not some kind of debt forgiveness for these people what are the alternitives????

Ideas such as giving a tax credit for people in neg equity or paying a mortgage could be done..IE if someone is working instead of paying say 100 quid in tax 50 quid is taken and put off the mortgage...This way they are paying for themselves...We need ideas people not a load of cnuts saying ahh ye feckin ejjit you shouldnt have bought an overinflated house

I agree that a solution is needed - but aside from blaming people for making a bad decision, I think that it is perfectly fair that those who acted wisely by not buying should point out that it is unfair to take money away from them (who don't have houses) and give it to those who made a mistake (and do have houses).

fliball123 wrote: »

And as I have already pointed out...
If I have no children why should I contribute my tax to childs allowences
If I am not working in the p.s why should I contribute to their wages
If I am not retired why should I contribute to existing pensioners
If I am not unemployed why should I contribute to the social welfare

So lets add one
If I dont have a house why should I contribute to people in neg equity or paying a mortgage.

the only difference is, is the perspective of the person paying the tax..

As others have pointed out, your comparisons are not valid at all. If you cannot understand why, please refer back to the earlier post.

fliball123 wrote: »

I think if a person is working and paying a mortgage they should be allowed pay less to tax - to pay the above and be allowed put their cash straight off the mortgage

Its an idea that no seems to be floating...Anyone any negs about the above idea?

Yes. A big one. Why should they pay less towards society and keep their nice house, while others who waited for the bubble to be over have to make up the difference by paying more?

Every solution I've seen so far involves taking money away from the people who did the right thing and giving it to people who chose to do the wrong thing. Strange justice.

jpb1974

What utter babble. I had a great noughties, lived out of home, travelled the world, etc. But when my friends were in a panic about buying a house and were trying to induce the same panic in me (its dead money, get on the ladder) I sat back and did the sums. Can I honestly afford this? Do I even want to be tied to one spot? What if the property market crashes like so many economists keep saying, just like the crash in the UK some years previous? No, it doesn't make sense. I won't buy into this frenzy.

That is what happened. Not what your fantasy desires.

Keep harping on about the past... wake me up when you get back to 2011.

Can I afford a €75000 house today, sure. Can I afford it tomorrow.. dunno, could be made redundant, could be dead... OK, I won't buy.

fliball123

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The people in opposition to this are taking the livelihood of citizens of this country into consideration.

If Person A must pay for the mortgage of Person B through tax, then:
i) Person A will never afford a home themselves
ii) Person B is being rewarded for reckless borrowing
iii) Person A is being punished for responsible borrowing (or for not borrowing recklessly, as the case may be)

So lets add in Person C who has 10 kids person A and B supplimenting

Or Person D who loses their Job same thing..

As I say the only difference is point of view.and you can float assets vs income they are are historically all on the credit side of any balance sheet in accountancy, except a house bought which is now neg equit which is actually over the debtor side of things..

danbohan

jpb1974 wrote: »

To be honest the feeling I get on this thread from the 'bitter ones' is that basically you should have put your life on hold for the Noughties.

Basically shack up with Mammy and Daddy, don't plan marriage, don't plan any children, don't plan to provide a better life for yourself, don't plan to put a roof over your family's head that you can call your own. Instead just sit back and stare into your crystal ball and hope you get it right.

A slow down was expected... not a total and utter crash of epic proportions.

Hindsight is great, just a shame that it's totally and utterly phuckin useless right now.

Biggest problem with this country at the moment is the amount of negativity that surrounds it. Positive thinking is the only way back.

Waffle about cars is pointless right now. The focus is on houses as homes.

Harping on about the past is a total and utter waste of time. Sure there are lessons to be learned but that will shape the future and not change the past.

Sure there are lessons to be learned but that will shape the future and not change the past.

these lessons should been learned in the 50s in the 80s etc, learning can only take place if the people doing the learning are motivated to do so or lose out by not doing so , in ireland the corrupt elite have no wish to learn , they remain largely unaffected by current situation and their position remains pretty secure ,even you are a fianna fail td and kicked out you will still have a pension 2x times average income

the generation that has been caught out now in housing collapse are a lost generation , their children will not make the same mistakes , but in 50 years time whos to say another property bubble wont do exactly the same thing

positivity is needed , but not as much as realism , it was excessive positivity that made people think their 3 bed semi was worth 1 million or that they needed 3 houses +3 cars ~+3 foreign holidays , the results of that are all plain to see now

Duke Leonal Felmet

jpb1974 wrote: »

Keep harping on about the past... wake me up when you get back to 2011.

Wakey, wakey. You brought up the past. Do keep up.

It is now 2011, and I have a good job with a decent salary and good prospects. I still wouldn't buy a house because a mortgage is too expensive. In my opinion, house ownership is a mugs game. The bulkiest asset of all. I may never buy one. The Swiss might be on to something.

CiaranC

jpb1974 wrote: »

To be honest the feeling I get on this thread from the 'bitter ones' is that basically you should have put your life on hold for the Noughties.

Basically shack up with Mammy and Daddy, don't plan marriage, don't plan any children, don't plan to provide a better life for yourself, don't plan to put a roof over your family's head that you can call your own. Instead just sit back and stare into your crystal ball and hope you get it right.

Once again, (and again and again and again) you could have rented. You didnt. The position you are in is YOUR FAULT. Not the governments, not the banks, not your mammys, not the medias, not anyone elses - YOURS.

Harping on about the past is a total and utter waste of time. Sure there are lessons to be learned but that will shape the future and not change the past.

Its not a waste of time, because there are clearly people like you who have learned NOTHING.

jpb1974

it was excessive positivity that made people think their 3 bed semi was worth 1 million or that they needed 3 houses +3 cars ~+3 foreign holidays , the results of that are all plain to see now Today 10:08

I love the way the most of extreme of examples are being used to enforce a point.

I have one house, mortgage €240K, this is my family home, one small child aged 7. I've had one holiday in the past 5 years.

Could I pay the mortgage 5 years ago... yup. Can I pay the mortgage today... yup. If I lost my job in a month could I pay the mortgage... yup. If I didn't find work within 2 years of losing my job could I pay the mortgage... probably not.

Monty Burnz

jpb1974 wrote: »

To be honest the feeling I get on this thread from the 'bitter ones' is that basically you should have put your life on hold for the Noughties.

The bitter ones are the ones who screwed up and bought a two-bed apartment in the Docklands for 525k, right?

jpb1974 wrote: »

Basically shack up with Mammy and Daddy, don't plan marriage, don't plan any children, don't plan to provide a better life for yourself, don't plan to put a roof over your family's head that you can call your own. Instead just sit back and stare into your crystal ball and hope you get it right.

Or possibly they rented a place? Or saw that the country was going to go down the tubes and emigrated to beat the rush? Why is there this narrow-minded obsession with owning a place? As has been pointed out, in Switzerland - arguably the wealthiest country in the world - only 22% of people own their homes. I've rented there - it works just fine.

jpb1974 wrote: »

A slow down was expected... not a total and utter crash of epic proportions.

Expected by whom? Speak for yourself here - I and many others expected an epic crash, and it wasn't kept secret or anything. We were just called 'doomsayers' and ignored by the happy-clappy bubble believers.

jpb1974 wrote: »

Hindsight is great, just a shame that it's totally and utterly phuckin useless right now.

I already posted a link from 2006 where I predicted the bubble would burst. That is called 'foresight' and it is very, very useful.

jpb1974 wrote: »

Biggest problem with this country at the moment is the amount of negativity that surrounds it. Positive thinking is the only way back.

Positive thinking is exactly what caused the bubble. We need realistic thinking.

jpb1974 wrote: »

Waffle about cars is pointless right now. The focus is on houses as homes.

Indeed. And I don't want to buy yours for you. Unless you want to buy me a nice car?

CiaranC

jpb1974 wrote: »

Keep harping on about the past... wake me up when you get back to 2011.

Can I afford a €75000 house today, sure. Can I afford it tomorrow.. dunno, could be made redundant, could be dead... OK, I won't buy.

Wow, now you are getting it. Finally.

fliball123

dolphin city wrote: »

look I don't mean to sound insensitive but really, nobody forced them into buying anything. It was their own choice as adults. THEY ALONE should have contemplated things going wrong.

If they are to be compensated, then the people who acted with a bit more restraint and DID NOT go into an overpriced mortgage because they know that if anything went wrong they could support it should be all getting free houses I say.

so please, yes the country is in dire straits but if you went into a morgage with your eyes closed thats your own fault.

So we should have an unmarried single non working women killed if they have a child and cannot name the father...they have acted irresponsibly and expect the state to pick up the tab...

But people will alway argue what are the alternitives...Leave the woman alone and not support her...She will end up dead/prostitution/but not working as she needs to look after her child or support her

So lets see what options have we got for a person who typically

bought a house
is now in neg equity
down either in wage or lost a job
cannot declare bankrupcy
have a family to support.

So whats the options as above do not support them.
This family will either emigrate - leaving the debt to the tax payer anyway
Try to suffer through which will eventually lead to the breakup of the family as unmarried mothers are really well looked after see above

or we support them

Either way people the tax payer will either directly or indirectly support these people. The sooner we face up to this we can come up with some intelligent ideas one poster said about the gov paying 10k off the house and owning it partially ...thats a good idea..Any sale of these houses then the gov aka tax payer get paid first..

or as I have already stated a person paying a mortgage should be allowed to instead of paying some of their tax they should be allowed use it to pay the mortgage...

jpb1974

In my opinion, house ownership is a mugs game. The bulkiest asset of all. I may never buy one.

My parents bought and now own their house... my mother had to work 2-3 jobs to pay the mortgage. It's not impossible. Now they have no rent.

In my opinion paying rent is a mugs game. You're just paying someone else's mortgage... you end up with nothing, you pay your landlord's mortgage. It has it's uses but in the long term I want a home to raise and expand my family.

CiaranC

fliball123 wrote: »

So we should have an unmarried single non working women killed if they have a child and cannot name the father...they have acted irresponsibly and expect the state to pick up the tab...

:rolleyes:

or as I have already stated a person paying a mortgage should be allowed to instead of paying some of their tax they should be allowed use it to pay the mortgage...

Or hows about this - the person paying a mortgage pays the mortgage and their taxes. In full.

jpb1974

Wow, now you are getting it. Finally.

So how many ordinary people have an absolute 100% guaranteed income for the duration of their mortgage?

JJJJNR

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It's what you implied in your senseless post.

I don't see that sorry, you should learn how to read.

jpb1974

The bitter ones are the ones who screwed up and bought a two-bed apartment in the Docklands for 525k, right?

Sorry... didn't realize that this was a Dublin only debate.

There are 25 other counties in this country