Unions call to not pay mortgages

southsiderosie

Godge wrote: »

Agree, but bankrupt should mean bankrupt and everywhere else in the world that includes selling off the family home which is a problem here given the ownership rights of spouses. Why do you think Quinn is trying to give his grandchildren shares in his cement company?

Not necessarily. In some parts of the US (Florida for example) you can keep your primary residence if you declare bankruptcy.

black francis wrote: »

Debt for equity is the only solution which can accomodate these two realities.

Or 21st century bankruptcy and credit maintenance laws.

Is mise le key

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why though, I really don't understand why people think this.

My car loan doesn't go down in value as the car depreciates... why should the value of the loan have anything to do with the value of the house over value of the amount actually borrowed?

Many reasons,

1. The loans in a number of cases were lent irrespective of the numbers not stacking up (peoples wages not enough to cover them)

2. The house prices were artificial, the price of your car, is, for the most part, a fair reflection of its actual worth which in turn justifys the loan.

3. Loans that were given on the basis of wages now need to take into account perhaps the loss of one job in a household & or cuts in pay meaning an inability to pay.

Again it needs to be recognised that the bank will still profit if a mortgage is reduced by 30-40% over the term of the mortgage, just not as much as they would have liked.

To use a phrase the right wiingers in fianna fail & Fine gael have been using during this entire financial crisis,

We are living in extraordinary times which needs extraordinary measures.

The banks can write off the bad debt & still be in profit.

Is mise le key

black francis wrote: »

If you borrowed money to invest in shares you're not entitled to a loan decrease if the shares plummet in value.

.

Thats if you are loooking to resolve the problems facing the country from a capitalist persepective, i am not looking to solve the mortgage crisis within the thinking of a capitalist framework that has the banks best interest at heart, i am proposing that yes the bank do suffer losses & decreased profits, while the people have their financial stresses lessened.

Godge

Is mise le key wrote: »

Thats if you are loooking to resolve the problems facing the country from a capitalist persepective, i am not looking to solve the mortgage crisis within the thinking of a capitalist framework that has the banks best interest at heart, i am proposing that yes the bank do suffer losses & decreased profits, while the people have their financial stresses lessened.

Are you suggesting that Ireland should opt out of the Western European capitalist system?

And then what? Old-style Eastern European communism or modern Cuban communism? Medieval feudal society or new African nation-state anarchy? South American fascism or western Asian paternalism?

And how do we deal with the foreign-owned banks? Does your proposed solution only apply to mortgages taken out with Irish-owned banks that are now state-owned and how do we make the foreign owned banks - Ulster Bank, NIB and the remnants of Bank of Scotland - adhere to your proposal?

Frank Black

Is mise le key wrote: »

i am proposing that yes the bank do suffer losses & decreased profits, while the people have their financial stresses lessened.

When you say 'the banks' what you actually mean are us the taxpayers since we now own or are majority shareholders in most of the banks.

I appreciate you're trying to strike a populist note by talking about decreasing the banks profits, but what you actually mean is that the tax payers of the country i.e.'the people' will take the hit that any debt write down involves.

littlemac1980

The problem with this lessening peoples burdens is that the tax payer ultimately has to pay for that reduction.

I don't have a house, but pay taxes.

The people with the loan burdens have a house. (In some cases many)

It would be really unfair, and I would have to emigrate, if on top of paying all the many taxes we all pay, I would have to pay additional tax, or the tax I pay would be directed to pay for some of someone else's house. I would still have no house but pay for my neighbour's and probably have to rent a room from the same neighbour. It's lunacy, and only appeals, and makes sense to those with mortgages.

hmmm

Is mise le key wrote: »

We are living in extraordinary times which needs extraordinary measures.

I notice your sig is full of ULA links. Are you saying that taxes need to rise and spending should be cut in order to pay off the debts of property owners? That renters should be paying both rent and their landlords mortgage? I never thought I'd see the day when ULA supporters were taking the side of landowners against those who are non landowners.

Or are you proposing some loolah economics that the banks can absorb all this at no cost to the taxpayer?

Godge

hmmm wrote: »

I notice your sig is full of ULA links. Are you saying that taxes need to rise and spending should be cut in order to pay off the debts of property owners? That renters should be paying both rent and their landlords mortgage? I never thought I'd see the day when ULA supporters were taking the side of landowners against those who are non landowners.

Or are you proposing some loolah economics that the banks can absorb all this at no cost to the taxpayer?

Not the first mad thing that the ULA have done. Go right back to how Joe Higgins came to prominence opposing bin charges. Bin charges were being promulgated as part of a green agenda that the polluter pays and if implemented would see the bigger houses and bigger wasters pay more. Joe the Socialist opposed these bin charges as a populist measure but the people he was trying to help the most were rich polluters in big houses. Ironic for a so-called socialist and we will see him take the same anti-socialist position when water charges and property taxes are introduced. Will someone tell him that poor people who are supposed to he helped by socialism don't own houses and therefore don't pay these charges.

Is mise le key

Godge wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Ireland should opt out of the Western European capitalist system?

And then what? Old-style Eastern European communism or modern Cuban communism? Medieval feudal society or new African nation-state anarchy? South American fascism or western Asian paternalism?

And how do we deal with the foreign-owned banks? Does your proposed solution only apply to mortgages taken out with Irish-owned banks that are now state-owned and how do we make the foreign owned banks - Ulster Bank, NIB and the remnants of Bank of Scotland - adhere to your proposal?

Democratic Socialism out of the €uro & EU, trading with other non EU members (the EU is on its death bed & they all know it), complete control over our own affairs decided by our government (which we currently do not have), Complete control of our energy production in accordance with our constitution,

"All natural resources, including the air & all forms of potential energy, within the jurisdiction of the parliament & government established by this constitution, and all royalties & franchises within that jurisdiction belong to the state"

Removal of guarantee by state over the private debts withing the current state owned banks & retention of the institutions as is as state bank free from international debt obligations capitalised by the money earned from our natural resourses (Gas & Oil currently benefitting Shell/Norway)

The way to do this is to tax all gas coming from the shell projest at 90% for the state.

It obviously needs more than what i have highlighted but dont be foolish to belive the media frenzy that the Socialist alternative has no real concrete strategies, the people who will lose more of their profits in order to make life better for the most vulnerable are the ones who are controlling the media & trying their damdest to quench any support for Socialism.

The balance is shifting in the world, if you cannmot see this then the media is being very effective with it aim of disinformation & propaganda.

sarumite

Is mise le key wrote: »

The way to do this is to tax all gas coming from the shell projest at 90% for the state.

Ah, the usual populist 'tax the rich to pay for the poor' I expect from the far left.

Is mise le key

hmmm wrote: »

Or are you proposing some loolah economics that the banks can absorb all this at no cost to the taxpayer?

exactly, the taxpayers are nothing to do with private banks, i have no relationship with anglo whatsoever, never have, why should i or you have to cover anything of theirs?

Godge wrote: »

Not the first mad thing that the ULA have done. Go right back to how Joe Higgins came to prominence opposing bin charges. Bin charges were being promulgated as part of a green agenda that the polluter pays and if implemented would see the bigger houses and bigger wasters pay more. Joe the Socialist opposed these bin charges as a populist measure but the people he was trying to help the most were rich polluters in big houses. Ironic for a so-called socialist and we will see him take the same anti-socialist position when water charges and property taxes are introduced. Will someone tell him that poor people who are supposed to he helped by socialism don't own houses and therefore don't pay these charges.

You really missed the enntire point of the charges & the opposition to them if you are a Socialist.

They are stealth taxes, meaning, that,

Person A earns €1 Million a year

Peron B earns €20,000 a year

They will most likeley eat & use roughly the same amount of water & food as each other yet they pay the same charge for the services.

In a socialist society, those who have the most should pay more,

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability"

They are non progressive taxes that simply accumulate vast amounts of money off the people who can least afford it just because there are far more in society unfortunatley like that.

The rich it does not affect one bit.

that is the reason it is unfair & opposed on Socialist grounds.

Frank Black

Is mise le key wrote: »

Democratic Socialism out of the €uro & EU, trading with other non EU members (the EU is on its death bed & they all know it), complete control over our own affairs decided by our government (which we currently do not have), Complete control of our energy production in accordance with our constitution,

"All natural resources, including the air & all forms of potential energy, within the jurisdiction of the parliament & government established by this constitution, and all royalties & franchises within that jurisdiction belong to the state"

Removal of guarantee by state over the private debts withing the current state owned banks & retention of the institutions as is as state bank free from international debt obligations capitalised by the money earned from our natural resourses (Gas & Oil currently benefitting Shell/Norway)

The way to do this is to tax all gas coming from the shell projest at 90% for the state.

It obviously needs more than what i have highlighted but dont be foolish to belive the media frenzy that the Socialist alternative has no real concrete strategies, the people who will lose more of their profits in order to make life better for the most vulnerable are the ones who are controlling the media & trying their damdest to quench any support for Socialism.

The balance is shifting in the world, if you cannmot see this then the media is being very effective with it aim of disinformation & propaganda.

Thank you for the calm, rational and well-reasoned post. If only the country had more clear thinkers like yourself we'd soon be out of this mess.

Is mise le key

sarumite wrote: »

Ah, the usual populist 'tax the rich to pay for the poor' I expect from the far left.

thats pretty much the essence oof Socialism alright, again as marx said,

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability"

wolfpawnat

I believe there should be some sort of help for those paying mortgages. More reasonable interest rates or the like, but how is it fair for my neighbour to get away with not paying a mortgage and getting an essentially free house, when I took the decision not to buy for fear of not being able to pay, and I get no free house.

Sorry but it is madness to expect others to fork out for your decision, and I would be first to tear at the throats of anyone who feels that the banks should get bailouts too.

Cookie_Monster

Is mise le key wrote: »

Many reasons,

1. The loans in a number of cases were lent irrespective of the numbers not stacking up (peoples wages not enough to cover them)

so, whose fault is that. People still accepted the loans despite knowing (or being stupid enough not to realise) that the amounts were too high for their actual repayment ability.

2. The house prices were artificial, the price of your car, is, for the most part, a fair reflection of its actual worth which in turn justifys the loan.

the car is only worth what someone will pay for it, just like ahouse. I drove a large petrol car that had 1,000s wiped off its value just cos it was petrol and people now only want diesel. is that a true or artificial change?

3. Loans that were given on the basis of wages now need to take into account perhaps the loss of one job in a household & or cuts in pay meaning an inability to pay.

no, they don't. just because you've lost income doesn't mean the value of the loan is affected, only (maybe) your ability to pay it

Again it needs to be recognised that the bank will still profit if a mortgage is reduced by 30-40% over the term of the mortgage, just not as much as they would have liked.

while true they're hardly going to write it down just cos you'd like them too cos you think you owe them too much...

The banks can write off the bad debt & still be in profit.

only to a point, a point which has long passed, hence the enormous bailouts required...

Godge

Is mise le key wrote: »

Democratic Socialism out of the €uro & EU, trading with other non EU members (the EU is on its death bed & they all know it), complete control over our own affairs decided by our government (which we currently do not have), Complete control of our energy production in accordance with our constitution,

"All natural resources, including the air & all forms of potential energy, within the jurisdiction of the parliament & government established by this constitution, and all royalties & franchises within that jurisdiction belong to the state"

Removal of guarantee by state over the private debts withing the current state owned banks & retention of the institutions as is as state bank free from international debt obligations capitalised by the money earned from our natural resourses (Gas & Oil currently benefitting Shell/Norway)

The way to do this is to tax all gas coming from the shell projest at 90% for the state.

It obviously needs more than what i have highlighted but dont be foolish to belive the media frenzy that the Socialist alternative has no real concrete strategies, the people who will lose more of their profits in order to make life better for the most vulnerable are the ones who are controlling the media & trying their damdest to quench any support for Socialism.

The balance is shifting in the world, if you cannmot see this then the media is being very effective with it aim of disinformation & propaganda.

Ok, we unilaterally drop out of the euro (breaking international agreements), we unilaterally withdraw from the EU (breaking international agreements), we print our own money (who will take it?), renege on our foreign debts (breaking international agreements), we take control of our own airspace (breaking international agreements), our own sea area (breaking international agreements), tax all gas and oil from Shell at 90% (apart from the fact it is not ready to bring ashore, they would pack up and leave and we would have no international currency to pay anyone else to extract it) in effect, we become a rogue state, closest example internationally would be North Korea. Nobody and I mean nobody would trade or exchange currency with us. We would be stuck with our natural resources - grass - so beef, lamb, milk and a few potatoes for us all to eat brought to the market by donkey and cart. Did someone forget to tell you that we actually don't have any oil yet so no more transport. Hope you have built enough wind and hydro power to keep the country going.

Excuse me before I am last out of the country or would you stop freedom of movement as well?

Is mise le key

Godge wrote: »

Excuse me before I am last out of the country or would you stop freedom of movement as well?

What media outlet did you say you work for?

Doomsdaily?

sarumite

Is mise le key wrote: »

thats pretty much the essence oof Socialism alright, again as marx said,

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability"

That is the essence of marx. Although even Sweden (which is one of the best example of a functioning socialist society) recognises that people need to be rewarded and not punished for their hard work.

Godge

Is mise le key wrote: »

exactly, the taxpayers are nothing to do with private banks, i have no relationship with anglo whatsoever, never have, why should i or you have to cover anything of theirs?



You really missed the enntire point of the charges & the opposition to them if you are a Socialist.

They are stealth taxes, meaning, that,

Person A earns €1 Million a year

Peron B earns €20,000 a year

They will most likeley eat & use roughly the same amount of water & food as each other yet they pay the same charge for the services.

In a socialist society, those who have the most should pay more,

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability"

They are non progressive taxes that simply accumulate vast amounts of money off the people who can least afford it just because there are far more in society unfortunatley like that.

The rich it does not affect one bit.

that is the reason it is unfair & opposed on Socialist grounds.

Not true, they do not pay the same charge.

Bin charges (like ESB and gas) have a standing charge and thereafter you pay in accordance with the number of times you put out your bin. Therefore the bigger polluter pays more.

Ditto with the proposed system of water charges once meters are in. The bigger wasters of water pay more. In the short term, that won't be possible.

And the proposed local authority charge will be based on something around value/size of house so the rich will pay more.

Socialist parties all across Europe support such taxes. Only populist small-minded Irish socialist parties do not.

OMD

Is mise le key wrote: »

Properties that have slid into negative equity against their loans rightly need to have the loans reduced to the current value of the property.

Imagine if you will that the economy had gone the other way and continued to grow. Your house price continued to rise so you had a lot of equity in it and your wages continued to rise so it became easier to repay the mortgage.

Now the bank turns around to you and says they are going to increase your mortgage to the current house value and use the extra money to give better deals to those who still hadn't bought. How would you feel?

Is mise le key

sarumite wrote: »

That is the essence of marx. Although even Sweden (which is one of the best example of a functioning socialist society) recognises that people need to be rewarded and not punished for their hard work.

How is it punishment? You are being asked to contribute more to society because you earn more.

Godge

Godge wrote: »

Ok, we unilaterally drop out of the euro (breaking international agreements), we unilaterally withdraw from the EU (breaking international agreements), we print our own money (who will take it?), renege on our foreign debts (breaking international agreements), we take control of our own airspace (breaking international agreements), our own sea area (breaking international agreements), tax all gas and oil from Shell at 90% (apart from the fact it is not ready to bring ashore, they would pack up and leave and we would have no international currency to pay anyone else to extract it) in effect, we become a rogue state, closest example internationally would be North Korea. Nobody and I mean nobody would trade or exchange currency with us. We would be stuck with our natural resources - grass - so beef, lamb, milk and a few potatoes for us all to eat brought to the market by donkey and cart. Did someone forget to tell you that we actually don't have any oil yet so no more transport. Hope you have built enough wind and hydro power to keep the country going.

Excuse me before I am last out of the country or would you stop freedom of movement as well?

Bravo, sir!

Godge

Is mise le key wrote: »

What media outlet did you say you work for?

Doomsdaily?

Don't work in the media. Just have some common sense. The rest of my post still stands unchallenged so I take it you agree with the analysis therein.

OMD

Is mise le key wrote: »

How is it punishment? You are being asked to contribute more to society because you earn more.

Socialists for the most part are just poor capitalists. Everyone is just looking after their own self interests.

Is mise le key

OMD wrote: »

Imagine if you will that the economy had gone the other way and continued to grow. Your house price continued to rise so you had a lot of equity in it and your wages continued to rise so it became easier to repay the mortgage.

Now the bank turns around to you and says they are going to increase your mortgage to the current house value and use the extra money to give better deals to those who still hadn't bought. How would you feel?

Now you see this is where we come to discuss how we structure society, i bbeleive in property prices being fixed depending on their size/location & not open to fluctuation & speculation, the prices they rose to were not their true value & therefore the laons should be lowered.

Then once we have established a fair price & there is no negaitive equity issues prices are fixed.

Is mise le key

OMD wrote: »

Everyone is just looking after their own self interests.

I think you will find that is not the case.

fred252

Is mise le key wrote: »

How is it punishment? You are being asked to contribute more to society because you earn more.

you do understand that, for example, 40 % of €1 million is a lot more than 40 % of €100,000?

OMD

Is mise le key wrote: »

I think you will find that is not the case.

In most cases it is.

Is mise le key

fred252 wrote: »

you do understand that, for example, 40 % of €1 million is a lot more than 40 % of €100,000?

Your not taking into account interest on the remainder though over the term of the mortgage.

OMD

Is mise le key wrote: »

Now you see this is where we come to discuss how we structure society, i bbeleive in property prices being fixed depending on their size/location & not open to fluctuation & speculation, the prices they rose to were not their true value & therefore the laons should be lowered.

Then once we have established a fair price & there is no negaitive equity issues prices are fixed.

That is just daft.