Is this the start of widespread Mortgage Forgiveness??

sollar

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/confirmed-mortgage-writeoff-gives-hope-2817819.html

I think this may begin to happen a lot more.

How do people feel about this now that it is a reality? I thought i supported debt forgiveness. But the first thing i did was scan the piece to see if they got the 200K written off and still kept the house. I would not have found that acceptable at all.

It can be pretty hard to stomach people getting such large amounts of debt written off. But in this case they had to sell the house and make a final settlement.

Bens

Yes, but you will get this only if you have no savings, assets, job etc.
In other words if you havent got two pennies to rub together and are in debt, you will be forgiven the debt and still not have two pennies to rub together.

Anyone who thinks they can just hand the keys back and lose the debt, but keep everything else the have - sorry, it wont work for you.

ei.sdraob

People should read the article before jumping to conclusions
The couple had to sell the home, find a buyer, and handover the sales money to the bank, before the bank would entertain anything.
In effect this was a firesale. Now the bit in bold is the hard part to do in this day and age.


Anyways on the subject of "debt forgivness" itself what is required and is more important is a more realistic bankruptcy regime, not another taxpayer funded ****up.

murphaph

If this spreads to the "state owned" banks then the taxpayer will be funding this debt forgiveness. Taxpayers who saw the folly of "investing" in Irish property and instead chose to save their money would be paying for the mistakes of others who just wanted to get on the property ladder at almost any cost.

Not sure how I feel about that at all. I accept that the couple outlined in the article are financially ruined and have literally got nothing having (presumably) paid many thousands in mortgage repayments over the last couple of years. I wouldn't want to trade places with them and feel personally sorry for them, but what should be the criteria for debt forgiveness set down by our wonderful state banks?

I believe that as a minimum the mortgage holder should have been unemployed for at least 12 months and have to sell literally everything before being forgiven a debt (effectively by the taxpayer) of this magnitude.

All of this is now really starting to show that the decision to guarantee the banks was the worst decision ever made by an Irish government. We should have set up a new state bank to provide essential banking services like cheque clearance and so on and let AIB and BoI sink along with those foreign banks that lent to them.

Is it fair now for taxpayers struggling wit their own mortgages to keep paying them, whilst paying for debt forgiveness for others, who may well be able to get back in to employment and could potentially buy a property at new low prices while those who paid for their debt forgiveness continue to struggle to pay "old rates". I'm not sure what I feel here.

PhatPiggins

Bens wrote: »

Yes, but you will get this only if you have no savings, assets, job etc.
In other words if you havent got two pennies to rub together and are in debt, you will be forgiven the debt and still not have two pennies to rub together.

Anyone who thinks they can just hand the keys back and lose the debt, but keep everything else the have - sorry, it wont work for you.

What are you talking about, Jack O'Connor says we can all stop paying our mortgages and it'll be grand :pac:

sollar

murphaph wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about that at all. I accept that the couple outlined in the article are financially ruined and have literally got nothing having (presumably) paid many thousands in mortgage repayments over the last couple of years. I wouldn't want to trade places with them and feel personally sorry for them, but what should be the criteria for debt forgiveness set down by our wonderful state banks?

I believe that as a minimum the mortgage holder should have been unemployed for at least 12 months and have to sell literally everything before being forgiven a debt (effectively by the taxpayer) of this magnitude.

Is it fair now for taxpayers struggling wit their own mortgages to keep paying them, whilst paying for debt forgiveness for others, who may well be able to get back in to employment and could potentially buy a property at new low prices while those who paid for their debt forgiveness continue to struggle to pay "old rates". I'm not sure what I feel here.

Even if people are left with nothing after the process they will still be very lucky to have got rid of the debt. So its still a great deal for anyone in serious NE.

Thats a good point about having the chance to buy a new cheaper property while thousands of others are still paying boom time mortgages. Who would lend to them though?? Perhaps something should be done about that. Maybe not allow these people to buy a property for 10 years.

Cookie_Monster

hopefully it's only a once off and won't lead to a snowball affect.

at lest BOI are having none of it:

while insisting that its customer remain liable for the outstanding balance on their mortgage in all cases.

femur61

Not too sure on my feelings on this. If someone sold their house and gave the sale price to the mortgage lender and had the rest written off, it is totally unfair to people who continue to pay mortgages at from the high end of the boom. Was it really their fault that they were brainwashed into buying instead of saving.

I have to admit I don't agree totally with it, how can it be made fair. surely there are going to be chancers out there who will try to get their mortgage written off so they can get a free house.

Bens

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

hopefully it's only a once off and won't lead to a snowball affect.

at lest BOI are having none of it:

I know of someone who did similar with BOI. They will all do it. But only if there is no way to ever get the money back.

Bens

femur61 wrote: »

Not too sure on my feelings on this. If someone sold their house and gave the sale price to the mortgage lender and had the rest written off, it is totally unfair to people who continue to pay mortgages at from the high end of the boom. Was it really their fault that they were brainwashed into buying instead of saving.

I have to admit I don't agree totally with it, how can it be made fair. surely there are going to be chancers out there who will try to get their mortgage written off so they can get a free house.

It is fair. The person forgiven has NOTHING at the end of it.
They have lost their deposit and anything they have ever paid off the mortgage. Its not for someone who doesnt actually end up totally and utterly penniless.

BrianD3

What happens if the person who is forgiven because they have "nothing" gets a good job in the (near) future?

Also, if they do have nothing at present they're entitled to social welfare, could a nominal amount not be paid from it until they get a job and can pay more.

The other issue I'd have with this is if it becomes widespread there will be people who will attempt to claim they have nothing by transferring/hiding assets, fiddling the books etc. The sort of thing that has gone on with college grant means tests, nursing home subvention applications etc.

I've already seen this being openly discussed on an Irish internet forum - as in someone saying that if their house value drops too low they'll stop paying their mortgage (even though they can afford it), hand back the keys and tell the bank to f*ck off. Probably keyboard warrior bullsh1t but it shows the sort of mentality that's out there.

murphaph

Bens wrote: »

It is fair. The person forgiven has NOTHING at the end of it.

€0 is a lot better than -€150,000 however and that €150,000 is coming from other citizens, many of whom will have been smarter than to get caught up in the hype of Irish property in the last few years.

€0 and the possibility of starting from scratch while others (who pay for this €150,000) continue to pay the remainder of their own €300,000 debt on their own house that will never be worth €300,000 in their lifetime.

I would say it is far from fair on those people.

Im Only 71Kg

i assume people who hand the keys back,refuse to pay their debt's will never get a loan again?

..i have a number of friends..who bought houses 5-6 years ago,paid through the nose for bricks and mortar,were happy to take on the massive debt..and are now happily sitting on their arses collecting welfare and mortgage relief..no intention of getting a job..because the tax payer's footing the bill..they are now waiting hoping the gov/banks will bail them out. its disgraceful. they signed up to this debt..they should live with this debt.

li had the same opportunity and decided not to take the banks money..

Sand

@Im Only 71Kg

..i have a number of friends..who bought houses 5-6 years ago,paid through the nose for bricks and mortar,were happy to take on the massive debt..and are now happily sitting on their arses collecting welfare and mortgage relief..no intention of getting a job..because the tax payer's footing the bill..they are now waiting hoping the gov/banks will bail them out. its disgraceful. they signed up to this debt..they should live with this debt.

Are you sure friends is the right term to describe your feelings towards them?

@BrianD3

What happens if the person who is forgiven because they have "nothing" gets a good job in the (near) future?

In such a scenario theyd be contributing to the greater good via taxes and spending that will employ someone else.

Imprisoning them in a dungeon until they pay might be gratifying but its not a sensible way to get the best out of someone capable of getting a good job.

€0 and the possibility of starting from scratch while others (who pay for this €150,000) continue to pay the remainder of their own €300,000 debt on their own house that will never be worth €300,000 in their lifetime.

I would say it is far from fair on those people.

Id agree.

But we are talking about resolving the situation of people who are not able to pay their mortgage anyway, so are going to be a drain on their neighbours whatever way you look at it.

At least this way the neighbour knows the wayward debtor has lost their house/home and has been cast out onto the street. The losses have been sorted out and crystallised. And indeed, the banks have been recapitlised precisely so they can absorp losses on their loans to wayward debtors. Given the money has already been pledged, this is just it finding its purpose.

Meanwhile the wayward debtor is able to rebuild their lives, missing a house and with a dodgy credit record over the short to medium term, but with lesson learned hopefully.

Having penal bankruptcy laws wont prevent bankruptcy, it just makes it incredibly difficult for people to become a productive part of the economy again - increasing costs for everyone.

The absolute basic minimum requirement of justice has to be the house/home being taken however. Given the Irish attachment to home and hearth, that should deal with the moral hazard aspect.

Im Only 71Kg

Sand wrote: »

@Im Only 71Kg


Are you sure friends is the right term to describe your feelings towards them?

yes friends..just because we're friends it doesn't mean im responsible for their debt. it's not my concern. i still see these friends in the pub,spending welfare money on drink,smoking cigarettes at €7 a go. driving cars..all when they cant afford to pay their mortgage. give me a break..

Sand

It just seems youve got a lot to get off your chest with these friends. I imagine if you were to to get it off your chest, you and they wouldnt be friends anymore. They might be unaware of this, but you arent so its puzzling why you describe people you have so much anger (justified I'm sure) against as friends.

Im Only 71Kg

thanks Dr.Phil. but to be honest...i've an issue with this debt forgivness nonsense. people thinking they can just walk away from their houses because they're in negative equity...it's a disgrace. anyone in negative equity should have to just suck it up..there's nothing stopping them moving abroad to find work,they'd simply rather play the poor mouth..it's not that my friends and i haven't discussed this..we have and they just dont give a fu*k..they're gona ride this out as long as it lasts..and by that i mean the hand outs from the welfare..one guy i know has 2 houses,one of which is leased out on a 10 year contract to the housing list(no worries there)...he's living it the other house at present with his miss's and kid..he works as a taxi driver at present but he's pissed off with the job,so a few weeks back he decided to go the local GP claiming he's depressed..then headed off to social welfare where he made a claim for sick benefit..which he got following an interview with the socal welfare officer. this is going on all over the country.

RichardAnd

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

he works as a taxi driver at present but he's pissed off with the job,so a few weeks back he decided to go the local GP claiming he's depressed..then headed off to social welfare where he made a claim for sick benefit..which he got following an interview with the socal welfare officer. this is going on all over the country.

I don't know if you made that up or not but I will tell you that depression is a very serious and frightening mental condition. I've seen it turn vibrant and happy people into utter wrecks and I seriously doubt that getting "sick benefit" is a simple case of walking into a GP with a sob story as you seem to be implying.

femur61

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

he decided to go the local GP claiming he's depressed..then headed off to social welfare where he made a claim for sick benefit..which he got following an interview with the socal welfare officer. this is going on all over the country.

Depression I know is very serious but I have to agree with you there are people who are claiming and def shouldn't be and this will result in wrong people getting debt forgiveness.

Taxi Drivers

As has been pointed out the couple did not benefit from mortgage debt forgiveness.

They had to sell their home and repay the mortgage will the full proceeds of the sale. The remaining balance would have been an unsecured loan and this was written down. This is debt resolution.

The couple lost their house. There will be no mortgage forgiveness where people are allowed to stay in the house.

Although, this couple have had a huge mountain of debt lifted from their shoulders there are costs to this route. It is unlikely they will be forwarded any meaningful credit for at least the next five years, maybe longer.

They have to find alternative accomodation. It is likely they were living "rent free" so the speak in the mortgaged house as no repayments would have been made. They now have to pay for rented accommodation, though rent supplement would be a significant help here.

I hope the net outcome for this couple is positive and that they can rebuild their lives. Debt resolution like this is something that will happen in a number of cases and this could be up to 10,000. A general mortgage forgiveness scheme for 100,000+ is a non-runner.

Im Only 71Kg

RichardAnd wrote: »

I don't know if you made that up or not but I will tell you that depression is a very serious and frightening mental condition. I've seen it turn vibrant and happy people into utter wrecks and I seriously doubt that getting "sick benefit" is a simple case of walking into a GP with a sob story as you seem to be implying.

no i havn't made this up. and i understand depression is a serious condition..but you shouldn't be so naive to think this doesn't happen. it is that simple. im afraid. because it has been done..the problem is you cannot prove they are suffering from depression..there's no way of proving you suffer from headaches either..so if you go to the doctor saying you feel terrible,that you're depressed whats he/she going to do? they're going to prescribe antidepressants (that doesn't mean you have to take them of course). and then you toddle off to the welfare stating you;re not fit for work. once they see a medical cert (which they cannot argue with a doctors word is final) from your gp stating your so called problem you're in the system. it's hard to believe..i know but it's true. sure i know a guy who's claiming illness benefit because he has type 1 diabetes!! unreal...can you imagine that.

beeftotheheels

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

no i havn't made this up. and i understand depression is a serious condition..but you shouldn't be so naive to think this doesn't happen. it is that simple. im afraid. because it has been done..the problem is you cannot prove they are suffering from depression..there's no way of proving you suffer from headaches either..so if you go to the doctor saying you feel terrible,that you're depressed whats he/she going to do? they're going to prescribe antidepressants (that doesn't mean you have to take them of course). and then you toddle off to the welfare stating you;re not fit for work. once they see a medical cert (which they cannot argue with a doctors word is final) from your gp stating your so called problem you're in the system. it's hard to believe..i know but it's true. sure i know a guy who's claiming illness benefit because he has type 1 diabetes!! unreal...can you imagine that.

Last time I checked depression had a lot more symptoms than just feeling down and they weren't all replicated in all cases.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Depression/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

I would think that most GPs should be able to differentiate between those faking and those who really are depressed, not least because in most cases to diagnose the kind of moderate to severe depression rendering one incapable of working, tests on memory, concentration and reaction times will also be done.

Have you ever thought that maybe your mate is actually depressed but is hiding it from you?

murphaph

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

As has been pointed out the couple did not benefit from mortgage debt forgiveness.

Of course they did. They owed ca. 300k and paid back ca. half of it. They benefited to the tune of ca. 150k. I am not saying this is like someone handing you a cheque for 150k out of the blue but financially it's exactly the same.

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

They had to sell their home and repay the mortgage will the full proceeds of the sale. The remaining balance would have been an unsecured loan and this was written down.

This is not correct. They would not have been able to discharge the mortgage without clearing the entire outstanding amount. They never "repaid the mortgage". The bank accepted 150k as full and final settlement. The bank let them off the debt, in plain English.

This sort of thing needs to be very carefully monitored. The banks will just come cap in hand again to the taxpayer and keep letting people off debts they can actually afford to repay if this thing isn't watched very carefully.

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

Of course they did. They owed ca. 300k and paid back ca. half of it. They benefited to the tune of ca. 150k. I am not saying this is like someone handing you a cheque for 150k out of the blue but financially it's exactly the same.


This is not correct. They would not have been able to discharge the mortgage without clearing the entire outstanding amount. They never "repaid the mortgage". The bank accepted 150k as full and final settlement. The bank let them off the debt, in plain English.

This sort of thing needs to be very carefully monitored. The banks will just come cap in hand again to the taxpayer and keep letting people off debts they can actually afford to repay if this thing isn't watched very carefully.

And it is the bank manager's friends who will be the first to benefit (maybe second, after the bank's own staff) and it won't be restricted just to one house.

sollar

Anyone found to have lied or attempted to pull the wool over the banks eyes to get their debt written off should have it all put back on for life with a fine on top.

jackbetal

murphaph wrote: »

If this spreads to the "state owned" banks then the taxpayer will be funding this debt forgiveness. Taxpayers who saw the folly of "investing" in Irish property and instead chose to save their money would be paying for the mistakes of others who just wanted to get on the property ladder at almost any cost.

Not sure how I feel about that at all. I accept that the couple outlined in the article are financially ruined and have literally got nothing having (presumably) paid many thousands in mortgage repayments over the last couple of years. I wouldn't want to trade places with them and feel personally sorry for them, but what should be the criteria for debt forgiveness set down by our wonderful state banks?

I believe that as a minimum the mortgage holder should have been unemployed for at least 12 months and have to sell literally everything before being forgiven a debt (effectively by the taxpayer) of this magnitude.

All of this is now really starting to show that the decision to guarantee the banks was the worst decision ever made by an Irish government. We should have set up a new state bank to provide essential banking services like cheque clearance and so on and let AIB and BoI sink along with those foreign banks that lent to them.

Is it fair now for taxpayers struggling wit their own mortgages to keep paying them, whilst paying for debt forgiveness for others, who may well be able to get back in to employment and could potentially buy a property at new low prices while those who paid for their debt forgiveness continue to struggle to pay "old rates". I'm not sure what I feel here.

The people who are now in negative equity are also paying back for Linehan guaranteeing the banks. In fact it is due to this that many people are in difficulty with their mortgages. The funding of the banks has destroyed the economy more so than the property bubble. It is all the extra taxes and charges which is killing the economy.

jimmycrackcorm

jackbetal wrote: »

The people who are now in negative equity are also paying back for Linehan guaranteeing the banks. In fact it is due to this that many people are in difficulty with their mortgages. The funding of the banks has destroyed the economy more so than the property bubble. It is all the extra taxes and charges which is killing the economy.

Even without the banking crisis we would still have a huge deficit to cover and why we have more taxes and charges. The people who are in difficulty with their mortgages have also played a significant part in the economic meltdown with their incessant demand to get on the property ladder at any cost.

Sorry - I forgot, the banks coerced them.

jackbetal

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Even without the banking crisis we would still have a huge deficit to cover and why we have more taxes and charges. The people who are in difficulty with their mortgages have also played a significant part in the economic meltdown with their incessant demand to get on the property ladder at any cost.

Sorry - I forgot, the banks coerced them.

No not only the banks. But the government primarily.

It was not then and should not be ever up to the ordinary to macro manage the economy to the degree that people like you expected them to. That is a governments job. The majority of these people now caught are only ordinary people who wanted to make a life for themselves. Did you see the impeding doom caused by our government or were you one of the lucky ones??

carm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Even without the banking crisis we would still have a huge deficit to cover and why we have more taxes and charges. The people who are in difficulty with their mortgages have also played a significant part in the economic meltdown with their incessant demand to get on the property ladder at any cost.

Sorry - I forgot, the banks coerced them.

crack, not everyone who is in difficulty with their mortgage bought into property during the so-called boom years. Fond of the great sweeping generalisation? That's not to say there aren't the most greedy hand-rubbing type of "investors" who bought into buy to let properties galore offered to them on a plate with huge incentives from the previous shysters in government, namely the Charlie McCreevys, Bertie Aherns and the now dead Brian Lenihan and the "look at me in my five bed D4 detached" buyers.

There is a bigger picture.

As jack mentioned, many of the people who did buy during the boom are ordinary working people who wanted to start families, not buying a home for personal gain or ego.

supermonkey

Move to Derry and go bankrupt.
Move to Derry and go bankrupt.
Move to Derry and go bankrupt.
Move to Derry and go bankrupt.
Move to Derry and go bankrupt.

supermonkey

carm wrote: »

crack, not everyone who is in difficulty with their mortgage bought into property during the so-called boom years.

If you bought your property before 2007 it is still worth more than the amount remaining on your mortgage.

Sell it.

carm

supermonkey wrote: »

If you bought your property before 2007 it is still worth more than the amount remaining on your mortgage.

Sell it.

That all sounds great super, but where do you propose people in that situation move to with the little they may have in equity? If they're in that situation, the money they've made on the house may run out renting, they then look to the state for rent allowance. I hate to sound like the pessimist but it's not looking good for everyone getting a regular and secure job over the course of the next five years.

More to the point, who's going to buy?? I've been watching houses for sale on websites sitting there for sale since January 2010 and the houses to sell keep (excuse pun) building up and not selling.

Personally, if we sold, we'd be paying more in rent by the month than are in our monthly mortgage repayment (unless we moved to the middle of nowhere). Not *really* a great idea for all but I do understand why it seems logical.

jackbetal

The reality of it all is that there should be a hit for the taxpayer to help get people out of this mess. Debts should be written down.

We live in a democracy and the people voted the government in who ruined the country. It is entirely the governments fault for people now being trapped in negative equity to the extent they are. The government created the property bubble. They had everything geared towards buying property and people did as people do and tried to nmake better lifes for themselves. Of course there were vwaryign degrees of this. Most just wanted a family home or an extra property or two for their pension, Tha is not greed. that is survival just like anyone else in any other walk of ife trying to better themselves.

But getting back to this thing where we the taxpayer have to pay for it. Of course we do. I am not one bit happy about it. I never in my life voted for FF or FF lite (FG) but I believe in democracy so I have to pay. It is as simple as when our elected officials f*ck up then we the taxpayer have to pay so in future people in this small little kleptocracy of ours we might learn to use our vote wiser.

Armin_Tamzarian

murphaph wrote: »

Of course they did. They owed ca. 300k and paid back ca. half of it. They benefited to the tune of ca. 150k. I am not saying this is like someone handing you a cheque for 150k out of the blue but financially it's exactly the same.

Exactly.
I mean, theoretically couldn't they buy a house on the same street in a year's time.
Then they'd be living in basically the same house except that now they would owe over 150k less that they had originally borrowed.

If you take out a loan you should either pay it back or be declared bankrupt.
I don't agree with this notion off letting people of scott free so to speak.

jackbetal

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Exactly.
I mean, theoretically couldn't they buy a house on the same street in a year's time.
Then they'd be living in basically the same house except that now they would owe over 150k less that they had originally borrowed.

If you take out a loan you should either pay it back or be declared bankrupt.
I don't agree with this notion off letting people of scott free so to speak.

I agree that people sshouldn't be let off scot free either. But who are those responsible for this mess??

RichardAnd

jackbetal wrote: »

I agree that people sshouldn't be let off scot free either. But who are those responsible for this mess??

IF someone took out a massive loan that was/is multiples of their anual salary then they, and they alone, are responcible for it and their own slice of this very large mud pit we find ourselves in.

jackbetal

RichardAnd wrote: »

IF someone took out a massive loan that was/is multiples of their anual salary then they, and they alone, are responcible for it and their own slice of this very large mud pit we find ourselves in.

Even if through the governments complete and utter incompetence and corruption the playing field has been completely altered to such a degree that it not only hinders but makes it impossible for people to honour their side of the contract should they still be the ones responsible??

Surely you cannot or do not expect the ordinary person on the street to have factored in what happened??

RichardAnd

jackbetal wrote: »

Surely you cannot or do not expect the ordinary person on the street to have factored in what happened??

I don't expect the average person to understand that global finance is a something akin to a poker game with a dodgey deck, even though history has the lessons to verify this. However, I do expect any reasonable adult to know that a 40 year loan of 500 thousand euros is an dreadfully dangerous agreement to enter into.

Behaving in a responcible and cautious manner is what makes an adult and adult.

jackbetal

RichardAnd wrote: »

I don't expect the average person to understand that global finance is a something akin to a poker game with a dodgey deck, even though history has the lessons to verify this. However, I do expect any reasonable adult to know that a 40 year loan of 500 thousand euros is an dreadfully dangerous agreement to enter into.

Behaving in a responcible and cautious manner is what makes an adult and adult.

And what about a couple in their thirties with a young family who paid €275k for a very average semi-d which is now worth €140 and they are struggling to pay their mortgage due to a combination of things caused by the downturn??

Should they just uproot their family and be "adult" about it??

carm

RichardAnd wrote: »

IF someone took out a massive loan that was/is multiples of their anual salary then they, and they alone, are responcible for it and their own slice of this very large mud pit we find ourselves in.

Quick everyone, move your house into someone else's name, anyones will do!

If that "someone" was Sean Fitzpatrick, Fingers Fingleton, David Drumm, etc are they being held responsible for taking out massive loans? Fck no, they're living it up in their "wife's" Co Wicklow and USA mansions.

Let's get over this responSible versus irresponsible bullsht unless it's across the board. Then we can all talk rationally.

RichardAnd

jackbetal wrote: »

And what about a couple in their thirties with a young family who paid €275k for a very average semi-d which is now worth €140 and they are struggling to pay their mortgage due to a combination of things caused by the downturn??

Should they just uproot their family and be "adult" about it??

If they can not afford to pay their mortgage then they will loose their house. This has been the case since consumer credit first came into being, if one can not afford to meet the payments upon the said loan, then one will loose their assets.

In the case of the example family here, they would loose the house and would have to live in rented accommodation which might be better for them in the long run. Do I want to see families made homeless? No, of course I don't but will I hide under a rock and pretend it won't happen? No.

What exactly would you propose for the family you mentioned?

carm wrote: »

Quick everyone, move your house into someone else's name, anyones will do!

If that "someone" was Sean Fitzpatrick, Fingers Fingleton, David Drumm, etc are they being held responsible for taking out massive loans? Fck no, they're living it up in their "wife's" Co Wicklow and USA mansions.

Let's get over this responSible versus irresponsible bullsht unless it's across the board. Then we can all talk rationally.

Populist nonsense. I've heard this remarkably cynical opinion on matters many times over the past few years and ever time, I have to shake my head. What you are saying is that because the charlatans you mentioned did not suffer the proper consequences of their ill-deeds, those who squandered less should be vindicated? To put that in colloquial terms; "Ara shure they got away with it, we all should!"

Those men you mentioned should have ever cent they own confiscated before being hanged however, simply because that will not happen does not mean "ordinary people" should not take responsibility for their mistakes.

jased10s

What everyone fails to understand is that we did budget for an increase in repayments but the following has happened:

either 1 person in the household losing a job or both

either 1 person getting a wage cut or both

both persons getting hammered for USC

banks upping their interest rates to cover trakkers cause they got it wrong.

Out of all the above the worker gets hammered but people say u should have known when signing.

I brought a home to live in and not off the plans to sell on at a profit which a lot did but im still hammered.

Between myself and my good partner and no kids we are 15k worse off a year ,after all said and done and are struggling.

We are surviving but only just . I fear for people that have kids because i dont know how they feel or do it.

our USC is 400 a month and i presume it's to pay for the bail out that i never asked for. That would go a long way to pay our morgage.

And u quote u singed so you pay card. Wheres the bankers singed and pay card ?

jackbetal

RichardAnd wrote: »

If they can not afford to pay their mortgage then they will loose their house. This has been the case since consumer credit first came into being, if one can not afford to meet the payments upon the said loan, then one will loose their assets.

In the case of the example family here, they would loose the house and would have to live in rented accommodation which might be better for them in the long run. Do I want to see families made homeless? No, of course I don't but will I hide under a rock and pretend it won't happen? No.

What exactly would you propose for the family you mentioned?

I propose debt forgiveness. These people made decisions on the premise that we were living in a country with certain standards, rules and regulations. All of these were broken by our politicians, regulators and bankers and that has hindered everyone elses ability to pay. Ordinary people should not be now paying for the sins of those at the top. Should they?

RichardAnd wrote: »

Populist nonsense. I've heard this remarkably cynical opinion on matters many times over the past few years and ever time, I have to shake my head. What you are saying is that because the charlatans you mentioned did not suffer the proper consequences of their ill-deeds, those who squandered less should be vindicated? To put that in colloquial terms; "Ara shure they got away with it, we all should!"

It is beyond contempt to say that ordinary people who bought homes for themselves and their families "squandered".

Boskowski

And who is going to pay for this 'debt forgiveness'? Just in case you're not aware let me remind you the country is broke as it stands, racks up 20bill of more debt every year just to keep the lights on and the banks are as fragile as a house built from matchsticks. So where is the debt 'forgiveness' going to come from please?

RichardAnd

jackbetal wrote: »

I propose debt forgiveness. These people made decisions on the premise that we were living in a country with certain standards, rules and regulations. All of these were broken by our politicians, regulators and bankers and that has hindered everyone elses ability to pay. Ordinary people should not be now paying for the sins of those at the top. Should they?

No, they shouldn't be liable for the debts of others, you're quite correct. However, what you are proposing is just that.

Debt forgiveness is a misnomer as the debt is not forgiven at all but simply shifted onto the shoulders of another person. In this case, the taxpayer would be picking up the tab.

It is beyond contempt to say that ordinary people who bought homes for themselves and their families "squandered".

That was a generalisation that I shouldn't have made, I apologise. I was not referring to people who just wanted a home for their families but to reckless borrowers who took out huge loans for hoggish reasons.

carm

RichardAnd wrote: »

Populist nonsense. I've heard this remarkably cynical opinion on matters many times over the past few years and ever time, I have to shake my head. What you are saying is that because the charlatans you mentioned did not suffer the proper consequences of their ill-deeds, those who squandered less should be vindicated? To put that in colloquial terms; "Ara shure they got away with it, we all should!"

Those men you mentioned should have ever cent they own confiscated before being hanged however, simply because that will not happen does not mean "ordinary people" should not take responsibility for their mistakes.

That was a generalisation that I shouldn't have made, I apologise. I was not referring to people who just wanted a home for their families but to reckless borrowers who took out huge loans for hoggish reasons.

Not at all, I never mentioned debt forgiveness for anyone so you're talking to wrong poster and taking what I said incorrectly. I don't believe these ex-bankers and developers should get a break, I believe there should be fairness. If you're going to suck the "ordinary man" dry to his death and leave him with a giant debt hanging over him, do it in from the top aswell and make it illegal to transfer the family home into a spouse's name and put these greedy speculators out of their homes.

Boskowski wrote: »

And who is going to pay for this 'debt forgiveness'? Just in case you're not aware let me remind you the country is broke as it stands, racks up 20bill of more debt every year just to keep the lights on and the banks are as fragile as a house built from matchsticks. So where is the debt 'forgiveness' going to come from please?

Bos, the taxpayer. But then the alternative is not much better. The home owner's house gets repossessed, goes into rented accommodation, courtesy of guess who? The tax payer. Do you know how much you can get paid off your rent these days? It's a GIANT sum and many are doing quite nicely off it. Think forward.

waster81

Boskowski wrote: »

And who is going to pay for this 'debt forgiveness'? Just in case you're not aware let me remind you the country is broke as it stands, racks up 20bill of more debt every year just to keep the lights on and the banks are as fragile as a house built from matchsticks. So where is the debt 'forgiveness' going to come from please?

who paid the banks debt forgiveness, who paid for the property developers debt forgiveness

Boskowski

There is no bank forgiveness, we now own them. The is no developer forgiveness, they still owe as much as they owed then.
Also the till is empty. Actually it's less than empty, like I said we borrow 20b every year just to keep the lights on.

One of my biggest problems with debt forgiveness is the cutewhorism and chancerism in this country. No doubt all sorts of fraudsters would jump on this like they do with welfare, disability and everywhere else free money can be had. The moment this becomes institutionalised of sorts it'll turn into yet another black whole and being a taxpayer myself I've got enough of it.

waster81

The billions pumped into Anglo, nationwide is gone never getting it back

And your naive if you think property developers debt isnt been written off

Boskowski

So your argument is let's throw more billions at all the other chancers then? What's good for the goose...kind of?

waster81

no im just picking holes in your argument, not that hard really