scrap all housing subsidies

whiteonion

We should scrap all subsidies towards housing. I'm talking about subsidies such as rent relief, rent allowance, mortgage interest relief. I don't see why I as a taxpayer should subsidy other people's housing.

If we scrap all subsidies directed towards housing prices of houses will fall and rents will fall. We need to crash this market, then people like me with savings can buy 2-3 houses.

ei.sdraob

whiteonion wrote: »

then people like me with savings can buy 2-3 houses.

If you have savings in an Irish bank then your plan might backfire... just saying... :P

Tayla

What is wrong with some people in this country, they want people to live in absolute poverty just so we can bail out the banks.

It's disgraceful, It's sickening day in day out to see these comments and suggestions that people have, our so called politicians have done a great job with the country, bringing the population around to their own way of 'screw the people' thinking.

Well, well done for becoming as heartless as Cowen and Lenihan and co.

erictheviking1

Tayla wrote: »

What is wrong with some people in this country, they want people to live in absolute poverty just so we can bail out the banks.

It's disgraceful, It's sickening day in day out to see these comments and suggestions that people have, our so called politicians have done a great job with the country, bringing the population around to their own way of 'screw the people' thinking.

Well, well done for becoming as heartless as Cowen and Lenihan and co.

You're absolutely right! The one thing our government did that was a RESOUNDING SUCCESS was to turn the people against each other. just enough to distract everyone from the dodgy dealings going on in the upper echelons of our wonderful society. Unfortunately you won't be listened to here as the begrudgers are very well trained sheep who are not for turning:)

chucken1

whiteonion wrote: »

We should scrap all subsidies towards housing. I'm talking about subsidies such as rent relief, rent allowance, mortgage interest relief. I don't see why I as a taxpayer should subsidy other people's housing.

If we scrap all subsidies directed towards housing prices of houses will fall and rents will fall. We need to crash this market, then people like me with savings can buy 2-3 houses.

Changed your mind..did you?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70087694

Tayla

erictheviking1 wrote: »

You're absolutely right! The one thing our government did that was a RESOUNDING SUCCESS was to turn the people against each other. just enough to distract everyone from the dodgy dealings going on in the upper echelons of our wonderful society. Unfortunately you won't be listened to here as the begrudgers are very well trained sheep who are not for turning:)

It is just madness, this country might have had a shred of hope if people would stick up for their neighbour or friend and said enough was enough to the government but instead they want the neighbour or friend who is down on their luck punished even more.

How dare these people commit an obscene crime such as having children or buying a family home :rolleyes:

When I hear about people losing their jobs and needing help with their mortgage or rent I actually feel bad for them, there seems to be a hell of a lot of bitter people here who want to treat these people like the dirt on their shoes

whiteonion

chucken1 wrote: »

Changed your mind..did you?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70087694

I'd be happy to buy a place if it was cheap enough.

QuiteInterestin

Well rent relief was abolished in the last budget (only those who were in a rental agreement before 7th Dec 2010 can now claim rent relief) and will be phased out over the next 8 years. Same goes for Mortgage interest relief.

As for rent supplement, definitely needs to be looked at. Different rates for single people/couples with no children living in shared accommodation/on there own is ridiculous. The rate for living in shared accommodation should be applied to those living on their own, and if they still wish to live on their own, its up to them to make up the shortfall of choosing the more expensive option, not social welfare.

Tayla

QuiteInterestin wrote: »

As for rent supplement, definitely needs to be looked at. Different rates for single people/couples with no children living in shared accommodation/on there own is ridiculous. The rate for living in shared accommodation should be applied to those living on their own, and if they still wish to live on their own, its up to them to make up the shortfall of choosing the more expensive option, not social welfare.

I completely agree with this, single people or couples with no children should get rent allowance for a room, instead of a house. There is no reason an 18 year old person should be getting rent allowance on their own for a house with 3/4 bedrooms......technically if they were to implement this scheme they would probably need to garda vet these people for everyones safety.

ilovesleep

Tayla wrote: »

What is wrong with some people in this country, they want people to live in absolute poverty just so we can bail out the banks.

It's disgraceful, It's sickening day in day out to see these comments and suggestions that people have, our so called politicians have done a great job with the country, bringing the population around to their own way of 'screw the people' thinking.

Well, well done for becoming as heartless as Cowen and Lenihan and co.

+ 1
Its shocking what i read on boards how people are much happier to save the banks and as for people who have fallen on hard times, kick them further down.

RichardAnd

erictheviking1 wrote: »

You're absolutely right! The one thing our government did that was a RESOUNDING SUCCESS was to turn the people against each other. just enough to distract everyone from the dodgy dealings going on in the upper echelons of our wonderful society. Unfortunately you won't be listened to here as the begrudgers are very well trained sheep who are not for turning:)

Yes, the level of bitterness, dissension and begrudgery in Ireland is something else. Sadly, I don't think the government had anything to do with it, rather I think it's just a darker quality to our society.

This is one of the reasons that I believe was responsible for the almost total lack of protest or real objection to bank bail outs and the like. The impression being harboured was that the Irish "took it on the chin" whilst in reality, I believe it was nothing to do with meekness but rather Paddy was too concerned eyeing Micky's new car with icy needles from his eyes.

not yet

whiteonion wrote: »

We should scrap all subsidies towards housing. I'm talking about subsidies such as rent relief, rent allowance, mortgage interest relief. I don't see why I as a taxpayer should subsidy other people's housing.

If we scrap all subsidies directed towards housing prices of houses will fall and rents will fall. We need to crash this market, then people like me with savings can buy 2-3 houses.

Yeah good for you...........

Oh_Noes

ilovesleep wrote: »

+ 1
Its shocking what i read on boards how people are much happier to save the banks and as for people who have fallen on hard times, kick them further down.

+2

Pushing people further into poverty when it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the economy in comparison to the bank bailouts is disgusting.

strandroad

Oh_Noes wrote: »

+2

Pushing people further into poverty when it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the economy in comparison to the bank bailouts is disgusting.

Well it does make a difference to our payslips. Bailing out the banks is wrong but two wrongs don't make a right.

Oh_Noes

mhge wrote: »

Well it does make a difference to our payslips. Bailing out the banks is wrong but two wrongs don't make a right.

No it doesn't. The USC wasn't introduced to deal with a €100 billion debt caused by rent allowance. We might save a few cent in our payslips if rent allowance is abolished at the cost of living in a much more impoverished society.

erictheviking1

mhge wrote: »

Well it does make a difference to our payslips. Bailing out the banks is wrong but two wrongs don't make a right.

A lot of people seem to think if we take a cut of peoples dole or child benefit or cut the public sector workers pay or cut someones rent or mortgage relief it will be handed back to the taxpayer. Will it f***!!!
Anyone who thinks this will happen are deluded beyond belief!
Making the general public responsible for a private debt is disgusting!
Its unbelievable to think their are posters who gloat at other peoples misfortune:(
One word for them. Karma!

RichardAnd

erictheviking1 wrote: »

A lot of people seem to think if we take a cut of peoples dole or child benefit or cut the public sector workers pay or cut someones rent or mortgage relief it will be handed back to the taxpayer. Will it f***!!!
Anyone who thinks this will happen are deluded beyond belief!
Making the general public responsible for a private debt is disgusting!
Its unbelievable to think their are posters who gloat at other peoples misfortune:(
One word for them. Karma!

This I agree with. If 10 billion was saved tomorrow through cuts, I don't think taxes would come down one red cent. For the next few years, taxes are only going one way and I don't think any amount of PS, dole and infrastructure cuts will reverse that.

swampgas

RichardAnd wrote: »

This I agree with. If 10 billion was saved tomorrow through cuts, I don't think taxes would come down one red cent. For the next few years, taxes are only going one way and I don't think any amount of PS, dole and infrastructure cuts will reverse that.

All the same, even if taxes were not reduced immediately, any money saved (especially if it was 10 billion as you suggest) would reduce the number of years that high taxes would be required.

*Edit - I realise the 10 billion figure isn't a serious one :-)

Sleepy

Or might reduce the need to raise taxes further.

Finnbar01

RichardAnd wrote: »

This I agree with. If 10 billion was saved tomorrow through cuts, I don't think taxes would come down one red cent. For the next few years, taxes are only going one way and I don't think any amount of PS, dole and infrastructure cuts will reverse that.

It would save us €10 billion in borrowings which would otherwise have to be paid back with interest which in turn will have to be paid back by us and future generations.

We can't live today by robbing from tomorrow.

dan_d

Sleepy wrote: »

Or might reduce the need to raise taxes further.

A fair point, but we wouldn't know that for another year or 2.

Godge

Tayla wrote: »

What is wrong with some people in this country, they want people to live in absolute poverty just so we can bail out the banks.

It's disgraceful, It's sickening day in day out to see these comments and suggestions that people have, our so called politicians have done a great job with the country, bringing the population around to their own way of 'screw the people' thinking.

Well, well done for becoming as heartless as Cowen and Lenihan and co.

Tayla wrote: »

I completely agree with this, single people or couples with no children should get rent allowance for a room, instead of a house. There is no reason an 18 year old person should be getting rent allowance on their own for a house with 3/4 bedrooms......technically if they were to implement this scheme they would probably need to garda vet these people for everyones safety.

Does anyone else see the irony????

Bail out people who own property (albeit with a mortgage) and come down heavy on those who could never put the money together for a deposit let alone get approval for a mortgage because they are in a low-paying job in retail???

Tayla

Godge wrote: »

Does anyone else see the irony????

Bail out people who own property (albeit with a mortgage) and come down heavy on those who could never put the money together for a deposit let alone get approval for a mortgage because they are in a low-paying job in retail???

Yes of course mortgage payers should be 'bailed out' as you put it, they bought a home intending to support themselves, they lost their jobs and now cannot afford it but they may get a good job again in a year or two.

If they do not get help now then their home could be repossesed and they might not be able to buy a home again and could remain on housing benefit for the rest of their lives, which is going to be cheaper in the long run?

My old neighbours for example had a low mortgage but with a sub prime lender, they could not afford repayments which were I think approx €600 a month, I don't really know why they weren't entitled to help from the government but they were not from what I gathered.

Their home got repossessed and the couple split up due to the stress of losing their home, what happened then.......well the state of course decided to rent them a home each in the same area. It is ridiculous.

Coming down heavy on people on rent allowance, not at all, that is not what I said but yes I think a couple with no children on rent allowance should be entitled to only a 1 or 2 bedroom home on their own or else a room in another house.

That's not discriminating against people who couldn't get mortgages but it's common sense, if they have children while availing of rent allowance and need to move to a bigger house then of course they should be entitled to do so but bear in mind that if someone who is getting help with a mortgage was living in a house which was too small for their family then they are not put into a home which is big enough to suit their needs so the point you are trying to make doesn't really make sense as the 2 things are not the same and in many cases people on rent allowance are treated better than someone who might be receiving help with their mortgage.

There are smaller homes available if the couple on rent allowance wants to live on their own, they don't need a house with extra bedrooms

In Ireland social welfare must think that every Irish mammy kicks their child out of their house at 18 because in my area nearly half of all people who have just finished school are on rent allowance, most have a few in each house but there are some 4 bedroom homes here where there are only 2 people living in them.

I have a lot of sympathy for people stuck on rent allowance who want to own their own home and i'm just trying to point out here that I think this safety net is definitely needed but there could be definite improvements, after all when we bought our home we would have loved a house with 4 bedrooms but went for 3 because that is what we could afford.


My partner bought in 2005 (not at 2005 prices though thank god) on a second year apprentice wage.

It was tough going but we managed and we were too young to reap any benefits of the boom to be honest with you but lucky in a way because we were too broke to take on any extra debt with car loans or credit cards etc.

We haven't needed any help with our mortgage (although as someone will probably point out we do get TRS) but I can't even imagine how horrific it would be if at some stage something were to happen and we were unable to pay and unable to receive any help at all to get us through the months or years or whatever it may be, to lose your home because nobody is willing to help you for maybe 2 or 3 years out of a 25-30 year period like some (heartless) people want is disgusting.

ei.sdraob

If anyone was ever in doubt that this country will endup defaulting one way or another, then read this thread.

gurramok

Tayla wrote: »

Coming down heavy on people on rent allowance, not at all, that is not what I said but yes I think a couple with no children on rent allowance should be entitled to only a 1 or 2 bedroom home on their own or else a room in another house.

Nevermind discriminating against couples who cannot have children, single parents with one kid should only be entitled to a bedroom by your logic. As you have great knowledge on the system you would know that Rent supplement is based solely on the amount of humans claiming, not the type of accommodation sought.

Godge

Tayla wrote: »

Yes of course mortgage payers should be 'bailed out' as you put it, they bought a home intending to support themselves, they lost their jobs and now cannot afford it but they may get a good job again in a year or two.

If they do not get help now then their home could be repossesed and they might not be able to buy a home again and could remain on housing benefit for the rest of their lives, which is going to be cheaper in the long run?

My old neighbours for example had a low mortgage but with a sub prime lender, they could not afford repayments which were I think approx €600 a month, I don't really know why they weren't entitled to help from the government but they were not from what I gathered.

Their home got repossessed and the couple split up due to the stress of losing their home, what happened then.......well the state of course decided to rent them a home each in the same area. It is ridiculous.

Coming down heavy on people on rent allowance, not at all, that is not what I said but yes I think a couple with no children on rent allowance should be entitled to only a 1 or 2 bedroom home on their own or else a room in another house.

That's not discriminating against people who couldn't get mortgages but it's common sense, if they have children while availing of rent allowance and need to move to a bigger house then of course they should be entitled to do so but bear in mind that if someone who is getting help with a mortgage was living in a house which was too small for their family then they are not put into a home which is big enough to suit their needs so the point you are trying to make doesn't really make sense as the 2 things are not the same and in many cases people on rent allowance are treated better than someone who might be receiving help with their mortgage.

There are smaller homes available if the couple on rent allowance wants to live on their own, they don't need a house with extra bedrooms

In Ireland social welfare must think that every Irish mammy kicks their child out of their house at 18 because in my area nearly half of all people who have just finished school are on rent allowance, most have a few in each house but there are some 4 bedroom homes here where there are only 2 people living in them.

I have a lot of sympathy for people stuck on rent allowance who want to own their own home and i'm just trying to point out here that I think this safety net is definitely needed but there could be definite improvements, after all when we bought our home we would have loved a house with 4 bedrooms but went for 3 because that is what we could afford.


My partner bought in 2005 (not at 2005 prices though thank god) on a second year apprentice wage.

It was tough going but we managed and we were too young to reap any benefits of the boom to be honest with you but lucky in a way because we were too broke to take on any extra debt with car loans or credit cards etc.

We haven't needed any help with our mortgage (although as someone will probably point out we do get TRS) but I can't even imagine how horrific it would be if at some stage something were to happen and we were unable to pay and unable to receive any help at all to get us through the months or years or whatever it may be, to lose your home because nobody is willing to help you for maybe 2 or 3 years out of a 25-30 year period like some (heartless) people want is disgusting.

You are still missing the point.

Bailing out mortgage holders is a form of social welfare coming from the tax paid by others, yet you favour coming down hard on people with rent allowance.

Apply the same logic to your own situation. You may have kids, you may not but I am sure there are couples in a similar situation to yours who don't have kids so they are a couple with no children in a three bedroom house. Why should I, as a taxpayer and as you suggest, help that couple keep their three bedroom house (if they are struggling) by paying their €1500 a month mortgage when you are also suggesting that a similar couple looking for rent allowance should be restricted to a bedroom in a shared house at a much lower level of rent allowance.

What if the mortgage-holder in trouble is a single person with a two-bedroom apartment in central Dublin? Should their mortgage be paid while they live away from Mammy and on their own? Why are they different to the single person on rent allowance that you want to force to share a four bedroom house with three others? Is one mortgage-holder to be treated better than another?

Finally, in all cases, the person who is getting help with their mortgage is being treated better than someone getting rent allowance. Why? Because they end up owning the house in the long run while the person on rent allowance doesn't. How you can suggest the opposite is mind-boggling.

It is not heartless to suggest that when the state is in such financial trouble that we only help those at the bottom of the pile, namely, those who have never been able to climb onto the property ladder.

Tayla

Godge wrote: »

You are still missing the point.

Bailing out mortgage holders is a form of social welfare coming from the tax paid by others, yet you favour coming down hard on people with rent allowance.

I am not coming down hard on them, you seem to think that not allowing people to have spare bedrooms is coming down hard on them, i'm sorry but that is mind boggling.

Godge wrote: »

Apply the same logic to your own situation. You may have kids, you may not but I am sure there are couples in a similar situation to yours who don't have kids so they are a couple with no children in a three bedroom house. Why should I, as a taxpayer and as you suggest, help that couple keep their three bedroom house (if they are struggling) by paying their €1500 a month mortgage when you are also suggesting that a similar couple looking for rent allowance should be restricted to a bedroom in a shared house at a much lower level of rent allowance.

For the simple reason that that couple can not scale down their house, if they try to sell then more than likely they will not be able to do so, the government wouldn't help them to find somewhere smaller and sell their home so they have no option but to stay put there. I don't know how much of a €1500 mortgage the government would pay but I thought it was the interest portion only whereas rent allowance in urban areas can be sky high.

Godge wrote: »

What if the mortgage-holder in trouble is a single person with a two-bedroom apartment in central Dublin? Should their mortgage be paid while they live away from Mammy and on their own? Why are they different to the single person on rent allowance that you want to force to share a four bedroom house with three others? Is one mortgage-holder to be treated better than another?

They chose to get a mortgage when they did, they could obviously pay it back at the time, that person, if they are jobless will more than likely have to rent a room out to cover the part of their mortgage which isn't paid for by the government so they will be sharing their home with someone aswell.

Godge wrote: »

Finally, in all cases, the person who is getting help with their mortgage is being treated better than someone getting rent allowance. Why? Because they end up owning the house in the long run while the person on rent allowance doesn't. How you can suggest the opposite is mind-boggling.

That is not true, someone on rent allowance has a landlord to call on to fix all problems that occur, they will not have to pay for new washing machines etc, they can also move whenever they like to wherever they like whereas the person with the mortgage might want to move or downscale but they cannot. A jobless person on rent allowance could move anywhere in the country to get work, someone with a mortgage is stuck where they are.

You say they will own their own home, yes that's true but I would love to see some figures on how many households are getting help with their mortgage for 5 years and more because I would presume it doesn't even compare to the amount who are on rent allowance for the same amount of time. These people will more than likely try to get back to paying their own way as soon as they can.

Godge wrote: »

It is not heartless to suggest that when the state is in such financial trouble that we only help those at the bottom of the pile, namely, those who have never been able to climb onto the property ladder.

But then we are creating someone below the bottom of the pile........the people who got mortgages, couldn't pay.....got their homes repossesed and probably have zero chance of owning ever again....do you not see this?

dave1982

whiteonion wrote: »

We should scrap all subsidies towards housing. I'm talking about subsidies such as rent relief, rent allowance, mortgage interest relief. I don't see why I as a taxpayer should subsidy other people's housing.

If we scrap all subsidies directed towards housing prices of houses will fall and rents will fall. We need to crash this market, then people like me with savings can buy 2-3 houses.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you don't need any of the things you want scrapped?

You're one the few who still has a job and don't need help.

However thanks for your tax thats helps the people who need.

Maybe someday you may need help i think you will have a different view then

Tayla

gurramok wrote: »

Nevermind discriminating against couples who cannot have children, single parents with one kid should only be entitled to a bedroom by your logic. As you have great knowledge on the system you would know that Rent supplement is based solely on the amount of humans claiming, not the type of accommodation sought.

I think people should be entitled to rent allowance but I don't think people should be entitled to a (more expensive) home with extra bedrooms that they don't need, that is common sense, I have kids myself so I would be biased there and think children should never have to share with other people, a single parent with one child should be entitled to 2 bedrooms.

If a single person or a couple or a couple with 1 child wanted a 3 or 4 bedroom home when there are perfectly good homes with less bedrooms do you actually think that that is ok and that it makes sense to pay for the larger homes?

Someone that buys can only buy somewhere they can afford so someone on rent allowance should only get what the state can afford depending on the size of their family.

You seem to have me all wrong here as I always stick up for people on rent allowance or any other benefits, I just think there needs to be a new system which will make more sense.:)

gurramok

Tayla wrote: »

I think people should be entitled to rent allowance but I don't think people should be entitled to a (more expensive) home with extra bedrooms that they don't need, that is common sense, I have kids myself so I would be biased there and think children should never have to share with other people, a single parent with one child should be entitled to 2 bedrooms.

If a single person or a couple or a couple with 1 child wanted a 3 or 4 bedroom home when there are perfectly good homes with less bedrooms do you actually think that that is ok and that it makes sense to pay for the larger homes?

Someone that buys can only buy somewhere they can afford so someone on rent allowance should only get what the state can afford depending on the size of their family.

You seem to have me all wrong here as I always stick up for people on rent allowance or any other benefits, I just think there needs to be a new system which will make more sense.:)

The system is not set up that way. Its set up based on the amount of humans claiming. In DCC area, that is 930 quid for a single parent with one child, that 930 can get them a 1bed, a 2bed or a 3 bed house for that money depending on what area in DCC they want\live in whether its Finglas or Ballsbridge(market prices). http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/SupplementaryWelfareAllowance/Pages/RentSupplement.aspx

A couple should be entitled to 2 bedrooms just like that single parent with one kid, Irish one bedroom apts are not designed for couples. They are tiny.

Your beef should be with the system and the disparity in rental prices mainly based on location which does not discriminate in the number of bedrooms allocated.

Thing is, a single person can buy a 6 bedroom home if they can afford it, however they will be entitled to just a single room sharing if they lost their job and claimed RS. If that single person had a kid, they would get nearly double the entitlement to an apt\house on their own which encourages a claimant culture, where do we draw the line?

Tayla

gurramok wrote: »

The system is not set up that way. Its set up based on the amount of humans claiming.

I know that, that is why I said the whole system needs change. It shouldn't be based on what you can get for the money...witht the state controlling 50% of the rental market it is crazy how high rental prices had gotten.

gurramok wrote: »

Your beef should be with the system and the disparity in rental prices mainly based on location which does not discriminate in the number of bedrooms allocated.

I don't have any beef with rent allowance , I just think it needs to change in some ways, I mentioned rent allowance earlier in this thread and some people somehow got the impression that i'm anti rent allowance, not the case at all.

gurramok wrote: »

Thing is, a single person can buy a 6 bedroom home if they can afford it, however they will be entitled to just a single room sharing if they lost their job and claimed RS. If that single person had a kid, they would get nearly double the entitlement to an apt\house on their own which encourages a claimant culture, where do we draw the line?

But the single person with a child is not getting double the space for just themselves, they would be claiming for 2 people. I personally don't think it encourages a claimant culture as in this country people get nearly as much on the dole as single parents so I don't think many people are going to go out and get pregnant just for a bigger home.

gurramok

Tayla wrote: »

But the single person with a child is not getting double the space for just themselves, they would be claiming for 2 people. I personally don't think it encourages a claimant culture as in this country people get nearly as much on the dole as single parents so I don't think many people are going to go out and get pregnant just for a bigger home.

No, it's an incentive to have kids. The market prices are not based on the amount of humans seeking accommodation, its based purely on how much dosh you have in your pocket unlike the RS system as we know is based on the amount of humans claiming. The vast majority of 1 bed/2bed apts range from the cheapest at 800 quid(if its liveable) to 1000 quid and upwards for the poshest places in Dublin. If 1bed apts were priced at 500-600quid, there would be no issue at all but they are not at that price. And yes, RS has encouraged these prices to be high.

The biggest 3 costs in a family's life are accommodation and childcare with medical costs in a close 3rd.

The first is paid off via RS if that single person has a child. If they do not have a child, they will be forced to share with strangers for a roof over their head due to the distorted market prices. The other way out is to find a working partner willing to 'carry' that person in a household OR to find an unemployed/welfare dependent partner to get 800 quid in DCC area for a 1 bed apt per market rates so the state pays.

Together with the outrageous cost of childcare, that person who has the kid is prevented from taking an averaged paid job to pay for both. The incentive is there not to work due to the exhorbant costs of accommodation and childcare, I believe they call this the 'poverty trap' as RS claimants are not allowed to work full time.

Tayla

gurramok wrote: »

I believe they call this the 'poverty trap' as RS claimants are not allowed to work full time.

I agree it is a poverty trap but it applies just as much to people without children, this is one we'll have to disagree on as I don't think (many) people would have children just for more money from social welfare.

There are examples here on boards every day proving how people can be worse off going back to work to a low paid job rather than staying on rent allowance.
These people more than likely will refuse the job and the really sad thing is that many of them would probably love to take it and it is not out of laziness that they don't, they might genuinely not be able to manage on the 20 or 30 euro less that their wages might bring in.

Godge

Tayla wrote: »

But then we are creating someone below the bottom of the pile........the people who got mortgages, couldn't pay.....got their homes repossesed and probably have zero chance of owning ever again....do you not see this?

That is an argument for reform of the bankruptcy laws to allow them to start again and be at the same level as other welfare claimants rather than an argument to do something to help pay their mortgage so they can acquire wealth.

A big difference.

Tayla

Godge wrote: »

That is an argument for reform of the bankruptcy laws to allow them to start again and be at the same level as other welfare claimants rather than an argument to do something to help pay their mortgage so they can acquire wealth.

A big difference.

But what you want is discrimination against mortgage holders,

no help at all for them whereas if they had never bought they could get as much help as possible. Come on that does not make sense and you know it doesn't.

Godge

Tayla wrote: »

But what you want is discrimination against mortgage holders,

no help at all for them whereas if they had never bought they could get as much help as possible. Come on that does not make sense and you know it doesn't.

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is modernise the bankruptcy laws to bring them into line with countries like the UK, the rest of Europe and the US.

In that situation, when a person in negative equity is unable to pay their mortgage because they have lost their job, they can declare bankruptcy. They lose their mortgage, they lose their house but then they are in exactly the same position as everyone else - no house and no job - and they get the same assistance as everyone else in similar trouble. They don't get the luxury of keeping their house. Like it or not, buying a house is a business transaction and business transactions go bad.

Tayla

Godge wrote: »

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is modernise the bankruptcy laws to bring them into line with countries like the UK, the rest of Europe and the US.

In that situation, when a person in negative equity is unable to pay their mortgage because they have lost their job, they can declare bankruptcy. They lose their mortgage, they lose their house but then they are in exactly the same position as everyone else - no house and no job - and they get the same assistance as everyone else in similar trouble. They don't get the luxury of keeping their house. Like it or not, buying a house is a business transaction and business transactions go bad.

But that is absolutely ridicuous, in that case someone with a mortgage who is working should not have to pay prsi because if they lose their job they will not be entitled to the equivalent of what someone who paid prsi but is renting would be entitled to. I know prsi isn't supposed to cover that but in reality it is their taxes that pay for all housing benefits.

If someone with a mortgage loses their job and they don't have any savings are they supposed to say right now that's it i'm off to declare myself bankrupt?? It's weird that you don't seem to realise that most people who got mortgages want to be self sufficent and that a lot of them will only receive emergency short term help rather than being in receipt of long term social housing or RA for many many years.

jimmycrackcorm

ilovesleep wrote: »

+ 1
Its shocking what i read on boards how people are much happier to save the banks and as for people who have fallen on hard times, kick them further down.

I don't know anyone who actually wants to save the banks; But many understand that we don't actually have a choice.

Godge

Tayla wrote: »

But that is absolutely ridicuous, in that case someone with a mortgage who is working should not have to pay prsi because if they lose their job they will not be entitled to the equivalent of what someone who paid prsi but is renting would be entitled to. I know prsi isn't supposed to cover that but in reality it is their taxes that pay for all housing benefits.

If someone with a mortgage loses their job and they don't have any savings are they supposed to say right now that's it i'm off to declare myself bankrupt?? It's weird that you don't seem to realise that most people who got mortgages want to be self sufficent and that a lot of them will only receive emergency short term help rather than being in receipt of long term social housing or RA for many many years.

What guarantee is there that a lot of them (I see you don't say most) will only receive emergency short term help? That was what the banks told Brian Cowen, Brian Lenihan, the Department of Finance and the Central Bank on the 30th September 2008 and look where we are now. Two wrongs don't make a right. It is wrong to bail out people who made bad business decisions in the banks and it is wrong to bail out people who made other bad business decisions.

Fact is, anyone who can't pay their mortgage is better off selling now before the costs go up further and the house prices go down further. At least, they will have capped their liability.

Tayla

Godge wrote: »

Fact is, anyone who can't pay their mortgage is better off selling now before the costs go up further and the house prices go down further. At least, they will have capped their liability.

What if someone is not and is not likely to be in negative equity, should they sell? If it were to become the norm then the taxpayer would still be picking up the bill after these people were to go bankrupt so the taxpayer would have to pay for both the mortgage and rent allowance.