Unions call to not pay mortgages

jackiebaron

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

1) you signed the contract
2) it's not their fault you bought an overvalued house, nor that it has fallen in value
3) you'll be black listed and not be able to get another mortgage
4) they'll probably seize the house
5) people won't view you as a lying cheating scumbag who's word has zero meaning

Seize the fcuking house...call me a scumbag.....blacklist me....boohoo!

The banks trashed the country by betting on a game of poker with derivatives on Wall Street and now want ME to pay taxes for the rest of my life to cover their debts?

FOAD, banks!

baaaa

bluewolf wrote: »

sticking your head in the sand and refusing to pay your debts in some kind of misguided juvenile rebellion is not "responsibility"

Yes,responsibility is to keep paying uneconomic debts while your means is being slowly eroded by your debtors.

sarumite

jackiebaron wrote: »

You seem to have no problem sacrificing your pension, your taxes or the future prospects of your children letting the banks "off the hook".

Strange how people always pay the debts of a scumbag if he wears a shirt and tie and blame the victim if he wears a t-shirt and jeans.

I have a major problem with letting the banks off the hook. Now I am being asked to let the morthgage holder off the hook as well. It's a case of fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

d'Oracle

baaaa wrote: »

Most of this is true except saying that it is foolish and dumb.
What is foolish and dumb is to keep doing the same thing when it clearly doesn't work.
There will be a new reality for us and we can shape it ourselves or let the bankers continue to shape it.

I disagree that "the bankers" are shaping our future.
They aren't.

I also disagree that "we" will shape our own future as a nation.
Our elected representatives will shape our future as they always have done.

Also I don't accept that we are doing the same thing.
Just because certain courses of action which were set in motion by the previous govt are being continued does not mean we are doing "the same thing". Whats more, the mess we are in is due to government policies which were VASTLY different from anything which was don in the last 3 years or so.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes - paying the mortgage on your house so the taxpayer doesn't have to.

amused,
Scofflaw

We wouldn't be in this silly situation now if the government didnt make the decision to put the taxpayer on the hook for all failures instead of allowing failure.

Werent you the one asking in parallel thread the for proof that beuracrats make terrible decisions, and a command economy is a disaster for all. Yes yes you where.

d'Oracle

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that they get a free house. I'm not suggesting that at all. The government and the banks are responsible for this mess yet they are not the ones who are taking any hit for it. I'd walk off the mortgage in a second and recommend anyone else to do so and let the banks piss and moan about a massive inventory of real estate that they can't shift. FCUK 'em. They gambled with mortgage backed securities and passed the debts onto the taxpayer...well the taxpayer gambled with house prices rising forever...pass the debt back to the banks.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or do you just want to find a scapegoat.

Grow a pair FFS!

Are you advocating that passing on responsibility for ones own massive financial errors is acceptable?

Also, I flat refuse to accept from anybody that the government and banks alone are responsible for this and not the people who bought at massively inflated prces.

The government and bankers pay tax also.

Cookie_Monster

jackiebaron wrote: »

Seize the fcuking house...call me a scumbag.....blacklist me....boohoo!

The banks trashed the country by betting on a game of poker with derivatives on Wall Street and now want ME to pay taxes for the rest of my life to cover their debts?

FOAD, banks!

Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't mean you should be able to get away with it too. I don't for a second agree what was done in bailing out he banks but it's been done and is no reason for you not to repay debts.

pillphil

d'Oracle wrote: »

Just because certain courses of action which were set in motion by the previous govt are being continued does not mean we are doing "the same thing".

So you're saying just because the same thing is being done, it doesn't mean we're doing the same thing?

d'Oracle

jackiebaron wrote: »

Seize the fcuking house...call me a scumbag.....blacklist me....boohoo!

The banks trashed the country by betting on a game of poker with derivatives on Wall Street and now want ME to pay taxes for the rest of my life to cover their debts?

FOAD, banks!

No.
The government want you to pay taxes to support the country, for the rest of your life, because that is how the country has always worked.

Why is paying tax suddenly a problem for people?

The banks have no say. Most of them belong to the government so they can still function and we can still have a day to day economy.

Unless of course you keep you money under your bed and barter for things.

baaaa

d'Oracle wrote: »

Are you advocating that passing on responsibility for ones own massive financial errors is acceptable?

"ones own massive financial errors"-Indeed,as a simple shopworker I caused this mess.I should have forseen this once in a century,black swan economic event, what with all my financial training and all.Apparently it is a massive financial error to want a roof over your head now.

d'Oracle

pillphil wrote: »

So you're saying just because the same thing is being done, it doesn't mean we're doing the same thing?

No, I'm not.
I'm saying that this government (of less than a year) are continuing on with certain courses of action because they have to.

I am saying that in doing that they are not doing the "same thing" as the last government in that the post crash actions of the last government weren't even close to the "same thing" as what caused the mess in the first place.

The last government did a couple of very wrong things in response to the crash. Some of these we are tied to, regardless of what pie in the sky strategies some people come up with. To say that the current government are doing the "same thing" as the last just because they are following this course of action is just disingenuous.

Because this government have not built unnecessary amenities, created vacuous tax supports for property development, failed to supply appropriate financial and construction industry regulation etc.

mikemac

If a person was still working and their house value went up 100k, I'd be hearing,

can't lose with property
Ireland isn't creating any more land
Ireland is different
I'm a canny investor
rent is dead money

It didn't work out, the government arranged a moratorium, hold on while I tell my landlord I need a rent holiday

Still not enough? Hey don't pay the mortgage so, demand a bailout for the little people

Why are people clever when they make a good investment and it's always somebody elses fault if it doesn't work out?

southsiderosie

Uriel. wrote: »

WTF? Where does Personal responsibilty come into this? Should the state provide a free house to every citizen?

Ps contract law is neither naive or exclusively Irish

Uriel. wrote: »

Do you accept that it is in your best interests to adhere to a legal contract that you have signed and failing to do so allows redress from the other aide which includes repossession of a property??

RichardAnd wrote: »

Anyone who took out a mortgage should pay it back. I call that taking responsibility for one's actions and being an adult.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

1) you signed the contract
2) it's not their fault you bought an overvalued house, nor that it has fallen in value
3) you'll be black listed and not be able to get another mortgage
4) they'll probably seize the house
5) people won't view you as a lying cheating scumbag who's word has zero meaning

Haha, the pearl clutching on this thread is hilarious.

Banks rely on exactly this kind of thing in order for people to prioritize paying their mortgage, regardless of their financial situation or the value of the house. But the reality is, if you look at a house as just another investment, then why would you not walk away from it when it loses value?

Banks are not giving out mortgages out of the goodness of their hearts - it is an investment for them. That's why they charge interest. But the consumer is supposed to believe that there is something mystical and magical about buying a mortgage that is different from buying, say, shares in a company for your retirement fund?

The only problem I see with advising people to walk away from a mortgage in Ireland is that the debt laws are draconian as compared to other countries. On the other hand, in the US I know plenty of people who bought a home at the peak of the boom for 350K that today is worth 180K who went out and bought (or rented) essentially the same house for 180K and then walked away from the overvalued one. They are loving the fact that they are not only saving money, but the ones who are renting no longer have to take care of maintenance, etc. Even though they will take a hit on their credit for seven years, the amount of money they are saving on their monthly payments more than makes up for the difference.

People may call this scummy or irresponsible, but from a financial perspective it is actually an incredibly responsible thing for someone to do, especially if they already have credit cards and open credit lines set up before they default on their mortgage.

I understand that for many people, buying a home is more than a financial transaction. But from the perspective of the bank, that is ALL that it is. If more consumers would wise up to this, then banks would adjust their lending practices and homes would be valued accordingly.

d'Oracle

baaaa wrote: »

"ones own massive financial errors"-Indeed,as a simple shopworker I caused this mess.I should have forseen this once in a century,black swan economic event, what with all my financial training and all.Apparently it is a massive financial error to want a roof over your head now.

Your motivations do not remove your own responsibility.

I have no financial training, I have and have had a roof over my head.
I do not have a mortgage for 3-4 times a generous value of said roof.

Now I didn't single out you and its pretty childish to imply so.
But look at it this way, if there are 20,000 simple shop workers in distress making massive mortgages for little houses, then that's the responsibility split 20,000 ways.

DJCR

Ernesto Salmon Lettuce wrote: »

The Unions are like Fianna Fáil, they both love spouting populist bull**** in order to further their own objectives.

Haha, your funny....... Enda and Co. haven't feed us any BS at all have they. SF and the ULA want us to borrrow more money, only this time off of ourselves which leads to the issues of how do we pay it back and where it comes from.

The Unions themselves are bloody half to blame for this. They were with the government in social partnership. They came up with the negotiated wage agreements that led to wages following inflation as opposed to the other way around. They were the ones who pandered to their members who inturn demanded more from the government which inturn led to FG/LAB promising more and I do believe the word to descibe the Finance Minister of the day was "Scrooge".
Of course things got more expensive when people were guarenteed an increase in income.

Now they sprout this rubbish. I would say to everyone to leave the unions and let them die.

If your going to go protest, go protest against the government BS we have been fed. Or are they still not accountable for their actions because the last Fianna Fail Government made them lie (FG/Lab knew how bad the fiscal situation was, I don't believe for one minute that they didn't)?

jackiebaron

COYW wrote: »

Do you apply that logic to all purchases or just houses? The car I bought 3 years ago was worth €25,000 then but due to usage and natural depreciation it's value is a good bit less now. Should I turn to the credit union and tell them that I am not willing to pay the full amount anymore?

You're missing the point. If the credit union advised you that the car was a collectible and that you should most definitely buy it (dodgy financial advice which is unethical at best and illegal at worst) and then they gamble with your money and everyone else's on the derivatives markets....lose, and then pass on the debts to you then most certainly you shouldn't bother paying for the car. Crash it into their offices and say "hello John, gotta new motor?" and toddle off.

blarney_boy

Why is it that people are only interested in "shared responsability" when they want to weasel out of their debts? Had the property bubble continued to inflate indefinitely (come back Bertie all is forgiven) these property owners wouldn't be out on the streets protesting that the government/banks take some of their "positive equity" for the public good.

I came back to Ireland in 2002, saw the price of houses and said no thanks, now that house prices have started to return to planet reality, might purchase a home I can afford, why should I who was responsible bail out those that were reckless? This buyers regret "no body told us houses were overpriced" is BS, lots of economists warned about the property bubble, but there's not so blind as those that refuse to see (or deaf as those who refuse to hear).

Yours Sincerely, A Renter

southsiderosie

mikemac wrote: »

Even with being laid off in droves, the majority of union members in Ireland still work in the private sector

No they don't. Irish trade unions are wholly reliant on the public sector for their membership; I think it's over 60% public sector.

According to the CSO, overall density in 2009 was around 34%, but density in Public Administration and Defense was 81%.

roy rodgers

Defaulting is the olny way our country will get a better rate on the bailout or maybe it could be our get out of jail card from europe.

Can people not see that the goverments (europe) are getting more and more control on us with a new levy for this, an new tax for that, we have to tighten our belts!
Where does this leave the people of Ireland?? A frightened, depressed, suicidal, scared nation in which we will pass on to our children and set us back about 50 years.

If we pay all of our mortages back the only winners are going to be are the banks, the same feckers that put us into this trouble.
I know some of you will say that no-one put a gun to your head to take out a mortage for 300000 but people didn't have a choice, they weren't getting value for money.
The banks gave out the ridiculous amount of money to the delvelopers for these sites knowing that the delvelopment would have a quick return in 3-4 years with more borrowed money. So the more money they borrowed out the bigger their profits looked which would prop up their share prices that many ploughed their savings into for it to only end tears for many..

I'm sorry but the banks and their financial advisors in cheap suits where reckless to society and that should be a crime. Either way we the taxpayer are going to pay for this but let us do it fighting, drive them to the walls take to the streets and not let our children suffer.
They will never take back 600000 houses they would be scared of the people it would finish europe as we know it and then it would sprend throughout the union.
Power to the people, Default.

jackiebaron

Nody wrote: »

Why do you think it is ok for someone to gamble that house prices would continue going up for ever and when losing the gamble get to not only keep their house, not pay of even the current value and have all debt written off when those who decided not to gamble gets nothing?

They took a chance, they signed the paper and yes, they may have made a mistake, that does not somehow mean they should get a free house out of the deal.

And when did I suggest they should get a free house?

The buyer gambled that the price would rise. The bank gambled that the buyer would pay. Yet the bank also gambled the country's money on the derivatives market and lost yet passed the bill onto the taxpayer.

If the bank can gamble and lose and not only NOT honour it's side of the agreement but actually receive a "get out of jail card" then why can't the mortgage payer (who also happens to be a taxpayer, paying for the banks gambling debts) just welsh on his side of the bargain too?

Throw the keys into the bank's lobby and say "have fun, guys. There's another 50,000 sets of key behind me."

COYW

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that they get a free house. I'm not suggesting that at all. The government, the banks and those who played the property game are responsible for this mess.

Fixed that for you. You were missing an important part of the equation there.

The banks can only provide the cash and the government the incentive, if the people has said that the prices were ridiculous and didn't buy the houses or apartments, i.e. play the property game, the market would never would have gone the way it did. Those who played the game are equally as culpable.

Frank Black

southsiderosie wrote: »

. On the other hand, in the US I know plenty of people who bought a home at the peak of the boom for 350K that today is worth 180K who went out and bought (or rented) essentially the same house for 180K and then walked away from the overvalued one. They are loving the fact that they are not only saving money, but the ones who are renting no longer have to take care of maintenance, etc.

How were they able to finance the purchase of a 180K house if they were already in negative equity on thier first home to the tune of 150K.

ei.sdraob

black francis wrote: »

How were they able to finance the purchase of a 180K house if they were already in negative equity on thier first home to the tune of 150K.

Bankruptcy laws are very different, people hand back keys, the world moves on.

dvpower

jackiebaron wrote: »

Throw the keys into the bank's lobby and say "have fun, guys. There's another 50,000 sets of key behind me."

I don't get it - wouldn't you be better off just not paying the mortgage and staying in the house - if there are 50,000 others doing this, the banks would have great difficulty repossessing (even if they wanted to).

What do you think would happen if 50,000 people gave their keys back? - the state couldn't possibly house them all. Many of them would end up living in tents.

I don't think you've thought this through.

But if you really can't afford to make the repayments, wouldn't you at least be better off going to the bank and trying to renegotiate, or failing this, continuing to make whatever repayments you can to mitigate the chance of repossession.

jackiebaron

sarumite wrote: »

I have a major problem with letting the banks off the hook. Now I am being asked to let the morthgage holder off the hook as well. It's a case of fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I'm not suggesting you pay the mortgages of those who can't afford it anymore. Not in the slightest. Why are you even contemplating that? If people refuse to pay their mortgages then it's the banks' problem...not yours. Let the banks suffer. What are they going to do? Start breaking peoples' legs?

And don't come back to me with the spineless "Oh, no wonder the country is fcuked" crap. Where's your sense of independence? Where are your balls?
When the French government try to fcuk with students' fees or pensioners' taxes, they trash the country or blockade ports or take bosses hostage and dowse them in petrol and threaten to torch them and the government relents. That's called DEMOCRACY, i.e. the government works FOR, and FEARS, the people.....not the other way round. Yet in Ireland..the government and their buddies in the banks just rip off Paddy and Mary (and have a good laugh about it) and when anyone suggests that Paddy and Mary fight back you sneer at them.

Keep fumbling in the greasy till and adding prayer to shivering prayer, buddy.

jackiebaron

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't mean you should be able to get away with it too. I don't for a second agree what was done in bailing out he banks but it's been done and is no reason for you not to repay debts.

So why aren't banks repaying their debts?

southsiderosie

black francis wrote: »

How were they able to finance the purchase of a 180K house if they were already in negative equity on thier first home to the tune of 150K.

Well in a two-income household, it isn't that hard to save for a down payment - these were people who could afford the mortgages on their overpriced homes. It's even easier to save when you stop making mortgage payments for a few months but don't move out - there were so many mortgage transfers and so much title selling in the boom years, the credit bureaus and collection agencies are not keeping up with non-payments and defaults as quickly as they would otherwise. Plus if there is a two-income household, and the mortgage is only in one person's name, by not paying for a few months until they have to move out (which takes 5-6 months or more, depending on the area), they can quickly save up a new down payment and then buy in the other person's name (who still has good credit).

And as I noted, other people just went out and rented the same house, except the rent was based on the house costing 180K, not 350K.

Raskolnikov

You have to love the Irish mentality on this. Bail out Irish banks - no one cares. Bail out an individual property owner who is being crushed under the weight of rising interest rates and negative equity - you draw out the rabble, foaming at the mouth that anyone could possibly catch a break in their lives.

nino1

[/QUOTE]
"ones own massive financial errors"-Indeed,as a simple shopworker I caused this mess.I should have forseen this once in a century,black swan economic event, what with all my financial training and all.Apparently it is a massive financial error to want a roof over your head now.[/Quote]

You don't need to be an economic genius to realise that every boom is eventually followed by a bust or that all property bubbles eventually burst.
There were plenty of warnings out there that this would happen but you were obviously one of those who chose to ignore those warnings.
So stop crying and man up to the decision you made.
You didn't need to buy a house to have a roof over your head.
Ever heard of renting?

Flex

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'm not suggesting you pay the mortgages of those who can't afford it anymore. Not in the slightest. Why are you even contemplating that? If people refuse to pay their mortgages then it's the banks' problem...not yours. Let the banks suffer. What are they going to do? Start breaking peoples' legs?

Ok............. When the banks are suddenly out of pocket for all these debts that are no longer being repaid theyll ask the government for money to make up the difference. The government gets its money from taxpayers, not arboretums.