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

Mortgage Arrears Problem in Ireland.

Options
1…457910…20

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    dolphin city wrote: »
    if they are going to people to bail out their mortgages we should call it the "stupid decision" fund. BUT ONLY IF THERE IS A "SENSIBLE THINKER" scheme for people to receive the exact same amount because they DIDN'T purchase a house and practiced sensible thinking.

    Cool well then we will call unmarried mothers the sluts who cant keep thier legs shut fund
    The chlidrens allowence the little fecks who should not have been born when their mothers cannot afford them
    The pensions the old fcuks who should have died already fund
    The Ps as the over bloated over inflated over wages cnut fund
    the unemployed as the scratch say no more
    The refugees - as they shouldnt be in my country fund
    The banks - I think just the Cnuts fund would be sufficient

    There is argument for all of these for people who are helping these out. one significant demographic in this society cannot be just told tough sh1t and the quicker we realise this the better..and this is one of the main reasons why FG is gathering pace as they are only ones who are willing to put back in place the mortgage interest relief


  • Options
    #183
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    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.
    Its absolutely insane to think the delusional attitudes that destroyed this country are alive and well today in 2011, even after everything that has happened. Nauseating stuff.


  • Options
    #184
    danbohan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    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.


    of course it is , rent is always dead money ask the swiss or the germans

    by all means buy a house , but if and when you do and the sh11t hits the fan and you cant pay for it dont go looking for the taxpayers to bail you out


  • Options
    #185
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    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.
    Once again, proving that Irish people have learned nothing from the bubble.

    Here are the facts: unless you are buying with cash this is the situation.

    1. You buy with a mortgage -> you pay interest on the capital -> interest is rent on money
    2. You rent -> you pay rent on the property

    Either way you are paying rent. But you say - 'oh no, after 30 years, I will own the house'. Yeah? Well depending on interest rates, capital appreciation, rent levels etc. - after 30 years, the renter may have enough saved to buy the house for cash anyway, with some to spare. If rent is 'dead money' then that applies equally to the rent you pay the bank for borrowing their cash.


  • Options
    #186
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    There are 25 other counties in this country ;)
    Yes, of course, there are bitter bubble property buyers from all over the country. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I'm sorry, that's just not true. If, after food and whatever essentials, you have 1k left per month, and your mortgage is 2k, then you can't pay your mortgage. But you can rent a place for 1k - so the taxpayer isn't paying.

    Having said that, I sincerely hope things work out for your family.

    And what about the 2k that still needs to be paid off the mortgage???


  • Options
    #188
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,354 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    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.
    See?
    You're the "Rent is Dead Money" crowd.
    Yet here you are moaning about the present circumstances looking for a bailout.
    You've learned nothing.

    Rent = Freedom (freedom to up and move to where the jobs are)

    My wife and I are sick to the teeth of this place. We had to listen to folks like you for the last 6 or 7 years tellings us how foolish we were not to buy a house. We stuck around renting.

    Now here we are, we've got a healthy savings while people like yourself are massively in debt, the future is bleak in this country and there is a chorus of whingers looking for a bailout. A bailout from our pockets no doubt. Well, you are not getting mine.


  • Options
    #189
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    fliball123 wrote: »
    And what about the 2k that still needs to be paid off the mortgage???
    What? Why would you rent a house for 1k and pay the mortgage on a house you aren't living in? :confused:


  • Options
    #190
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    @Monty Burnz -

    How about this proposal -

    If you are made redundant at some point in the future the state will refuse to grant you any rent allowance.

    You should have known that your employment wasn't going to last forever... so let's cut your job seekers allowance and/or dole payments to nil.

    You shouldn't have went travelling when you did, you should have saved that money for a rainy day.

    If you then wake up the next day with a heart problem then the state won't help you out. No medical care unless you pay out of your own pocket. You should have know that you needed to exercise more and change your diet.

    If you have any kids then all welfare payments will be terminated. You should have seen your redundancy coming the road and worn a condom.

    If you decide to house your family on the streets in a card-board box then the state will impose a tax on you for the space you occupy.

    Basically you can fend for yourself... and I will sit pretty in my job knowing that not a cent on my tax money is going to you because you should have know better.


  • Options
    #191
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    @Monty Burnz -

    How about this proposal -

    If you are made redundant at some point in the future the state will refuse to grant you any rent allowance.

    You should have known that your employment wasn't going to last forever... so let's cut your job seekers allowance and/or dole payments to nil.

    You shouldn't have went travelling when you did, you should have saved that money for a rainy day.

    If you then wake up the next day with a heart problem then the state won't help you out. No medical care unless you pay out of your own pocket. You should have know that you needed to exercise more and change your diet.

    If you have any kids then all welfare payments will be terminated. You should have seen your redundancy coming the road and worn a condom.

    If you decide to house your family on the streets in a card-board box then the state will impose a tax on you for the space you occupy.
    One question - what the hell has this got to do with anything?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,354 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    One question - what the hell has this got to do with anything?
    It's an example of his bitterness, i think.


  • Options
    #193
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    One question - what the hell has this got to do with anything?

    It's an application of your logic.

    Does it make you happy that none of my tax would go to assist you because you never had the foresight to know what tomorrow holds?


  • Options
    #194
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    It's an application of your logic.

    Does it make you happy that none of my tax would go to assist you because you never had the foresight to know what tomorrow holds?
    It's not an application of my logic. I suggest you re-read my posts as you don't seem to understand what I've been saying at all.


  • Options
    #195
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    No - I think I do.

    Nobody else should benefit your from your tax in a time of need.

    It is the expectation of every citizen of this country to see into the future and plan accordingly.

    Never own a home unless you have a contract that states that you will be in guaranteed employment until the expiration date of your mortgage.


  • Options
    #196
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    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.

    What's stopping you?


    No I was argueing that the socail welfare/childs allowence is a line of income? read the post and as I say any balance sheet an asset or line of credit /income is on the credit side.


  • Options
    #197
    chicken fingers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 645 ✭✭✭chicken fingers


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    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.
    You demonstrate a below average level of intellect, with a poor understanding of the fundamentals of the concept.
    It appears that your post is coming directly from a property supplement circa 2006.

    You can have a family in rented accomodation, like half of Europe does, no big deal.

    Re-possess the homes. The repossesions will start soon enough and hopefully, prices will no longer be kept at an artificial ceiling. People who have families and no jobs living in the houses? Yes, it will be tough but you´re gonna have to go live with your parents until you are able to earn money and rent a house. Its hard but deal with it life is not always easy.

    When the foreclosures hit the market in huge tranches, the prices of houses should drop substantially and in 5-7 years time when jobs are (hopefully) being created and bankruptcy legislation is changed, you can go in for another mortgage at a reasonable price.


  • Options
    #198
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,354 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    No - I think I do.

    Nobody else should benefit your from your tax in a time of need.

    It is the expectation of every citizen of this country to see into the future and plan accordingly.

    Never own a home unless you have a contract that states that you will be in guaranteed employment until the expiration date of your mortgage.
    You don't seem to understand what an Asset is.
    Job Seekers Allowance, Rent Supplement are not Assets.
    You want taxpayer assistance to help you own an Asset.
    That is wrong.

    What's preventing you from selling the house for whatever you can get, renting a small apt somewhere and paying the remainder of the debt off to the bank over time?


  • Options
    #199
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    No - I think I do.

    Nobody else should benefit your from your tax in a time of need.

    It is the expectation of every citizen of this country to see into the future and plan accordingly.

    Never own a home unless you have a contract that states that you will be in guaranteed employment until the expiration date of your mortgage.
    :facepalm:

    Sure people will benefit - but they won't own the houses that they can't pay for. Understand now?


  • Options
    #200
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Fine, the state should get a piece of that asset in return for me paying off their mortgage for them.

    I aggree with that...I am not for one second abdicating that the person stays in their house and pays nothing..I am saying they need choices and ideas to do this.

    3 ideas off the top of my head

    is firstly the gov pay 10% of the mortgage they now own 10% of the gaff and when the property sells the gov get their money first.

    secondly allow a tax payer who has a mortgage pay less tax and pay off the mortgage

    thirdly we now own the banks so force the bank to offer a reasonable fixed interest rate over the course of the mortgage

    All 3 of these will not impact on tax payers


  • Options
    #201
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,354 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    fliball123 wrote: »
    No I was argueing that the socail welfare/childs allowence is a line of income? read the post and as I say any balance sheet an asset or line of credit /income is on the credit side.
    Can you please provide some clarity to your post?
    I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't know what an Asset is, what counts as Income or what Credit is.

    Infact i'm not confident of your making educated financial decisions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    Sure people will benefit - but they won't own the houses that they can't pay for. Understand now?

    Yeah.. but if you were made redundant tomorrow I don't want my tax money going to you so that you can buy anything that has a value that could be classed as an asset e.g. clothes for your kids, a school bag for your kids, bikes for your kids for Christmas.

    BTW: If for some reason you did want to purchase a property tomorrow how exactly would you go about it given your 'see into the future' philosophy?


  • Options
    #203
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    So? Two wrongs now make a right?


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).

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

    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.

    I have floated 3 ideas that does not impact on the tax payer and you forget that alot of these people have lost jobs income.

    As for the comparison of an income vs an asset..both are supposed to be on the credit side of a balance sheet..You ask any business in any country which would you rather a depreciating asset - house in neg equity or a steady income - childs allowence/social welfare...they will take the later in a heartbeat...so how is this an invalid argument that we are paying for this aswell.???


  • Options
    #204
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    fliball123 wrote: »
    3 ideas off the top of my head

    is firstly the gov pay 10% of the mortgage they now own 10% of the gaff and when the property sells the gov get their money first.

    secondly allow a tax payer who has a mortgage pay less tax and pay off the mortgage

    thirdly we now own the banks so force the bank to offer a reasonable fixed interest rate over the course of the mortgage

    All 3 of these will not impact on tax payers
    They all do impact the tax payer.


  • Options
    #205
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,354 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    fliball123 wrote: »
    3 ideas off the top of my head

    is firstly the gov pay 10% of the mortgage they now own 10% of the gaff and when the property sells the gov get their money first.
    No thank you. I'll have 10% of the value of the loan, not 10% the price you get for it. As proposed, this is a bad deal for taxpayers
    fliball123 wrote: »
    secondly allow a tax payer who has a mortgage pay less tax and pay off the mortgage
    Unfair, you're penalising people that don't have mortages. Why?
    fliball123 wrote: »
    thirdly we now own the banks so force the bank to offer a reasonable fixed interest rate over the course of the mortgage
    Sounds nice but i think it's a little more complex than that.
    fliball123 wrote: »
    All 3 of these will not impact on tax payers
    False!


  • Options
    #206
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    So how many ordinary people have an absolute 100% guaranteed income for the duration of their mortgage?

    No one is but isnt this the fault of the bank and regulators for letting such people get such big mortgages


  • Options
    #207
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    Yeah.. but if you were made redundant tomorrow I don't want my tax money going to you so that you can buy anything that has a value that could be classed as an asset e.g. clothes for your kids, a school bag for your kids, bikes for your kids for Christmas.
    Wow, you do sound bitter. If I am made redundant tomorrow, I will be entitled to exactly the same as anyone else. That's the system I paid into. But if I had - say - a 100k loan to pay for my Porsche (I don't, I paid cash for it) then I think it would be unfair to expect the Irish taxpayer to keep paying that loan for me. I should sell the car.
    jpb1974 wrote: »
    BTW: If for some reason you did want to purchase a property tomorrow how exactly would you go about it given your 'see into the future' philosophy?
    I don't want to purchase a property tomorrow because I think it will fall in value every year for at least the next five years. When I do buy, I will be well aware that property can both fall or rise in value, regardless of what vested interests are telling me.


  • Options
    #208
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    What? Why would you rent a house for 1k and pay the mortgage on a house you aren't living in? :confused:

    Maybe I picked it up wrong but wasnt the person saying they owed 2k for a mortgage and after paying bills food etc they are left with 1k...you floated they should rent for 1k but they still need to pay there mortgage..Unless you think the bank will let them walk away...


  • Options
    #209
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    Einhard wrote: »
    Oh, you mean those people whom the banks forced at gun point to take out huge mortgages on property that was clearly overvalued?!

    I'll vote for anyone who proposes to wipe out my Credit Card debt incurred on foreign holidays through no fault of my own...

    (30) thanks from:
    Blowfish, bluewolf, Bottle_of_Smoke, chahop, chicken fingers, CiaranC, Cookie_Monster, Dionysus, Enduro, EricPraline, goose2005, Iago, Inquitus, JohnK, johnnyskeleton, L'prof, Monty Burnz, ninja900, ongarite, Padraig Mor, ronkmonster, sarumite, síofra, smellslikeshoes, techdiver, testicle, Unrealistic, Victor, who what when, yekahS

    1st response in & I see the above sewing circle are in full attendance as usual.
    The guy asked for assistance not a lecture.
    When you see a thread titled "I require flagellation for my imprudent financial decisions" then pile in with your smug hindsight.
    I cannot utter how little regard I have for you all.
    Now, carry on to your next internet policing duty, I'm finished with you.


  • Options
    #210
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Maybe I picked it up wrong but wasnt the person saying they owed 2k for a mortgage and after paying bills food etc they are left with 1k...you floated they should rent for 1k but they still need to pay there mortgage..Unless you think the bank will let them walk away...
    In the example I gave, I was suggesting that if they only had 1k at the end of the month and a 2k mortgage, and had spent a year trying to fix their finances, they should default on the loan and rent instead. There would still be a hit to the taxpayer of course because the house would be sold at a fraction of the value of the loan - but it would be sold at a new, low, more realistic level.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    You don't seem to understand what an Asset is.
    Job Seekers Allowance, Rent Supplement are not Assets.
    You want taxpayer assistance to help you own an Asset.
    That is wrong.

    What's preventing you from selling the house for whatever you can get, renting a small apt somewhere and paying the remainder of the debt off to the bank over time?

    Negative equity - Some people will not be able to afford the rent and the neg equity..Also the housing market is completely dead. Also people have a 2 year mometorium..why would they sell when they have a 2 year holiday before they get their gaff repossessed and at that there needs to be a legal action so on average it will be 3 years


Advertisement