Debt sharing PR campaign - WTF is that all about?

Monty Burnz

I'm sure the denizens of the After Hours bar can't have helped noticing that since last week's Sunday Independent, we've been bombarded by a load of stuff demanding that the taxpayers share the debts of people in negative equity.

We even had a letter in the paper from one person (who signed the letter, and gave an address) who claimed their daughter was eating cardboard because they were spending all their money on the mortgage. According to an interview with a 'journalist' from the Sindo:

This man is too embarrassed to go to St Vincent de Paul or to go and discuss renegotiating the mortgage with the bank...

But he is willing to write a signed, addressed letter to the Irish Times and (amazingly) meet the journalist to go even more public about it because he hoped it “might facilitate a discussion”. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Any ideas who is behind this media manipulation? Could it be:

1. Fianna Failure, to try to force the government into a huge policy blunder?

2. The law firms that will make (another) killing by 'helping' those who would take advantage of debt sharing?

3. The lizard people? (specifically, the lizard people not covered under the previous two suggestions)

Blazer

I can't wait to see all those protesting against bailing out the banks saying we couldn't afford it now claiming they want a bail out as well.

It's very simple mate....if you can't afford to repay your mortgage then talk to your bank and have them repossess it and apply for social housing/council house.
If you don't then fúck right off, I'm tired of bailing out the scrounging fúckers on the long term dole, I'm tired of bailing out the banks and I'm sure as hell not going to bail out someone who can't afford to repay their mortgage...
That story in the indo is sickening..what a príck that guy is...who would honestly starve their kids to pay their mortgage bar some scumbag who's hoping for yet another bloody handout.

7sr2z3fely84g5

Your still liable for debt even if you hand back the keys to your big 2006 house aren't you?.

Snakeblood

Mackenzie Faint City wrote: »

Your still libel for debt even if you hand back the keys to your big 2006 house aren't you?.

Yeah. Surely that's how it should be.

7sr2z3fely84g5

Snakeblood wrote: »

Yeah. Surely that's how it should be.

Well,one half i agree,there where a lot who took out mortgages that they could not afford,but they are been chased and harassed by the banks which is fair enough.

But its putting a stranglehold on the people putting money into the economy by not spending in shops etc,also think its unfair that the likes of the developers and former bankers who got themselves into debt are walking around free and bailed out by the taxpayer.

i do think there should be some sort of a sudden fire sale of houses on a condition that the person taking ownership of the house will pay for any repairs on the house itself.

Bride2012

Snakeblood wrote: »

Mackenzie Faint City wrote: »

Your still libel for debt even if you hand back the keys to your big 2006 house aren't you?.

Yeah. Surely that's how it should be.

I'm not so sure if it should be if you are totally struggling. Surely losing your deposit and years of mortgage payments and having a black mark over your credit rating for years is enough.

BTW, I'm not one of them, rented coz the prices were mad. Looking at bargains now.

CamperMan

I don't see why the taxpayer should help debtors out, they should pay their own debts

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

Sure lads. Don't worry. This is for the greater good to get the economy working again. Just like NAMA is going to make millions of profit and just like bailing out anglo saved us! What could possibly go wrong bailing out our people. Sure noone in Ireland would ever dream of scamming a mortgage forgiveness scheme. Only people who need it will avail.

Eric Cartman

share the negative equity , so more socialist tactics trying to make the majority pay for the stupidity of a few people who took out mortgages and banks that gave them out.

not a fcking hope , if he wants me to share the negative equity im sharing a part of his house

mikemac

OP, have you a link to that letter?

I can't find it
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/

7sr2z3fely84g5

Was in the main article in the paper-
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/charity-begs-desperate-letter-writer-to-call-them-2859891.html

A VOLUNTEER with the St Vincent de Paul Society has been carrying two mobile phones this weekend.
One is his personal phone and the other is the handset for the emergency number that's given to people to contact the society looking for help. He's waiting on a call from someone who desperately needs his help but so far has not been in touch.
And the volunteer has not been able to get a contact number for him, even though he has appealed to a newspaper that printed a letter from the distressed man on Friday.
MP MacDomhnaill -- not thought to be his real name -- put pen to paper in desperation on Wednesday night and told of the plight of his family. He said he wished for sleep, his only release from the anxiety and pain the economic recession was wreaking on him and his family.
He told how he and his wife and their two young children were coping with a new torment -- hunger.
Mr MacDomhnaill revealed that on the day he wrote the letter all he had to give his children to eat was cereal and bread. The sole breadwinner in the family, he lost his part-time job in June and since then they have been supplementing their social welfare payment with savings that have now run dry.
He spoke of the pressure to maintain his mortgage payments, which took most of his income and left only the paltry sum of €252 per month. This had to stretch to everything else, including feeding a family of four and the utility bills. Mr MacDomhnaill gave his address as Caherslee in Tralee, a mature part of the town but one that attracted a lot of new families to the area during the height of the building boom when three new estates were built.
Caherslee is a good address and Mr MacDomhnaill's plight has shocked local residents, many of whom find it hard to believe that people are living in such distressed circumstances in their midst.
President of the St Vincent de Paul Society in Tralee, Christy Lynch, said he was "disturbed" by the contents of the letter and had been desperately trying to make contact with the man to ease his strain. "We're getting a share of people coming to us since Friday saying, 'Why don't you help this man?' We can't help him when we can't contact him," Mr Lynch told the Sunday Independent.
"I don't want it to go out there and for people to think that the St Vincent de Paul heard of a hard case and are doing nothing about it when that's not the case."
Like every other town, Tralee has taken its fair share of a hit in the current recession. There are 7,000 people unemployed from a total population of 25,000.
Some of its biggest employers include the Kerry Group, Institute of Technology Tralee, Kerry Local Authorities and Beru, one of the only factories left in the town.
The closure of Goblin Ireland and Amann Industries in recent years was a big blow to the town.
Locally, the letter in the newspaper has shocked and saddened people and there is a huge amount of genuine goodwill towards him in a town that still hasn't lost its heart.
"It's very upsetting that there's someone in our community who's in such a bad state and living in third world conditions," said Tralee mayor Grace O'Donnell.
"I was shocked to hear the circumstances of this man but I'd appeal to him to ask for help. We're able and very willing to help him."

RichieC

we should only bail out millionaires... this isn't no lefty country.

squod

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sure the denizens of the After Hours bar can't have helped noticing that since last week's Sunday Independent, we've been bombarded by a load of stuff demanding that the taxpayers share the debts of people in negative equity.

Read the Sunday Indo? Fuhk no.

goose2005

Seems ironic that there are radio ads everywhere warning us that false/exaggerated insurance claims "take money out of your pocket" - this is going to be 100 times worse.

galwayrush

CamperMan wrote: »

I don't see why the taxpayer should help debtors out, they should pay their own debts

I don't see why we should have bailed out the banker **** as well.

Sergeant

The Sindo was a mouthpiece for the worst type of property speculation and crassness during "da Celtic Tiger".
Now it has discovered its soft socialist side. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I wouldn't put it past them to support this madness just because some of their journalists are up to their neck in negative equity.
You couple this with a Quantum Research poll (random phone calls to people) and you get a new angle for their special blend of utter hypocrisy.

Bride2012

Not to belittle people who are struggling but seriously if someone is feeding their young kids bread so they can pay a mortgage shouldn't social services by brought in?

HalloweenJack

Sergeant wrote: »

Now it has discovered its soft socialist side. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I wouldn't put it past them to support this madness just because some of their journalists are up to their neck in negative equity.

Don't forget they're big FF fans and, sure, wasn't Bertie assuring us that he was a socialist at one point?

Monty Burnz

Mackenzie Faint City wrote: »

But its putting a stranglehold on the people putting money into the economy by not spending in shops etc,also think its unfair that the likes of the developers and former bankers who got themselves into debt are walking around free and bailed out by the taxpayer.

If that's your concern, then money should be handed out to those with a high propensity to spend (e.g. students, for beer, food and whatever) not indebted people who will only use money to pay back the banks (so that it will never go to any businesses anyway).

What really annoys me about this is that the people behind debt sharing (or debt forgiveness as they call it, as if debt is some sort of irrational grudge) are counting on the Irish public being too stupid to understand that it would have to be paid for by increased taxes, increased national debt, or cuts to public services like schools and hospitals.

And sadly, I think the Irish public actually may be that stupid.

Sky King

Embracing capitalism with both arms during the boom and switch to socialism as soon as you can't pay for the nice big house.

Works for me!

7sr2z3fely84g5

Monty Burnz wrote: »

not indebted people who will only use money to pay back the banks (so that it will never go to any businesses anyway).

wouldn't that be the same for those who using their dole/child benefit to pay off the mortgage interest?

Monty Burnz

mikemac wrote: »

OP, have you a link to that letter?

I can't find it
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/

The letter was in the Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224303002054

("A new torment - hunger")

The fact that this campaign is suddenly being played out over several national newspapers as well as the national radio stations is what has me convinced that it's a major PR drive being coordinated by...someone. But who?

Dyr

Bride2012 wrote: »

Not to belittle people who are struggling but seriously if someone is feeding their young kids bread so they can pay a mortgage shouldn't social services by brought in?

And what would they be spending the childrens allowance on?

Fremen

Mackenzie Faint City wrote: »

Your still liable for debt even if you hand back the keys to your big 2006 house aren't you?.

Snakeblood wrote: »

Yeah. Surely that's how it should be.

I'm not so sure that's how it should be. It means banks face less risk when they lend to some who wants to buy a house. In turn, that means they don't have to be as careful or selective about who then lend to - so more people get loans, which drives up the price of housing.

IMO, people who are really struggling at the moment shouldn't have been granted loans in the first place.

Monty Burnz

Mackenzie Faint City wrote: »

wouldn't that be the same for those who using their dole/child benefit to pay off the mortgage interest?

Yup. The idea that bailing out an indebted group at the expense of people who made better economic decisions would somehow benefit the economy flies in the face of all logic.

Monty Burnz

Bambi wrote: »

And what would they be spending the childrens allowance on?

On the child. Not the mortgage.

mikemac

Fremen wrote: »

IMO, people who are really struggling at the moment shouldn't have been granted loans in the first place.

It was the done thing for many people to get the mortgage from the bank and tell them the deposit was from savings

But borrow the deposit from the credit union and I believe the credit unions are not linked to same systems and so it isn't seen in a search? I don't know how it works exactly

Are taxpayers realy going to share the debt with these people. That's lying on an application so maybe the bank staff should have been more thorough but the house buyer still committed fraud

Example from well known askaboutmoney
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=118312

Hi guys do you know if the credit union will lend if they know it's for a house deposit.

From a lenders pespective, the house deposit must be from an unborrowed source e.g savings or gift.

I know but I won't be telling the lender I've a credit union loan. I checked the icb list and my credit union isn't on it.

Guy:Incognito

Do we right off or share debt every 20-25 years or so when theres a recession now then?

Mike 1972

Mackenzie Faint City wrote: »

Your still liable for debt even if you hand back the keys to your big 2006 house aren't you?.

Yes and rightly so given that you signed up under those conditions and wouldnt expect to have shared the profits had you been able to sell at a higher price and clear the mortgage as many people were expecting to. You can declare yourself bankrupt and IIRC the slate gets wiped clean after 12 years. Youll probably never get another mortgage but thats pretty much a moot point. Moving abroad permanently is another possible option.

Fremen wrote: »

people who are really struggling at the moment shouldn't have been granted taken out loans in the first place.

FYP

Sc@recrow wrote: »

It's very simple mate....if you can't afford to repay your mortgage then talk to your bank and have them repossess it and apply for social housing/council house.

Or if you can afford it rent privately.

rubadub

Monty Burnz wrote: »

We even had a letter in the paper from one person (who signed the letter, and gave an address) who claimed their daughter was eating cardboard because they were spending all their money on the mortgage.

Probably has plenty of cardboard though, ever see the size of those 50" plasma TV boxes.

That guy could have got a couple of tins of beans or a sliced pan for his cardboard eating daughter, instead of the stamp for his letter. Own brand foods cost very little these days, I think it would be an very small minority who could not get the money for food -if they were to sell stuff, work a job they might not like or accept that if they are hungry they might have to eat porridge instead of fillet steak. Or they could rent a room in their big house they now want others to pay for.

I have read a few bullsh!t tales of people "starving", one guy in a local paper was mentioning how expensive taxis were for him, and then how he went without food for days :rolleyes: , there was a photo in his house and sure enough, fat lad with a dirty big tv in the background.

Monty Burnz

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do we right off or share debt every 20-25 years or so when theres a recession now then?

If there's a write off, I'm damned sure I'm going to gamble everything next time there's a similar situation. Lie on your application and buy the most expensive place you can, screw everybody else who is concerned about the risk. Best case scenario, it rises in value and you make a killing. Worst case scenario, the government takes money from you fellow citizens to pay your debts, and you break even. It's a free bet!

I wonder how long Paddy Power would stay in business operating like that? I also wonder how long a (semi) sovereign state can stay in business like that?

PseudoFamous

I don't want some ostentatious arsehole's debt whether they be a middle-class homebuyer, or a multimillionaire scamster. My parents worked hard for the last ten years to get their mortgage down to four digits, and I don't want to work hard to benefit someone else who took out hundreds of thousands of euro of debt, fully knowing what they were getting themselves into. If they can't pay it back, they're not trying hard enough, but they should have to pay their own money back, just like everyone else had to.

I refuse to take someone else's debt.

Tayla

Sc@recrow wrote: »

It's very simple mate....if you can't afford to repay your mortgage then talk to your bank and have them repossess it and apply for social housing/council house.
If you don't then fúck right off, I'm tired of bailing out the scrounging fúckers on the long term dole, I'm tired of bailing out the banks and I'm sure as hell not going to bail out someone who can't afford to repay their mortgage...

You clearly haven't thought this through, if someone's home gets repossessed and they and their family end up in social housing then they will probably stay there forever and never own their own home again......look at the poverty trap that social housing creates, an awful lot of those people will end up stuck on the dole long term, the very people who you said you're tired of bailing out.

At least if people got help with their mortgage then more of them will be self sufficent.

Another thing is if a house in negative equity is repossessed and the bank make a massive loss on it then who will pay for that....that's right...THE TAXPAYER....either way the taxpayer is going to pay....I know I would rather help a family to stay in their home and bail them out rather than throw the family into social housing (probably forever) and then bail the bank out instead for the same house!


At least if something is done about it now then some decent Irish people are the winners............if there is no help for them then in a few years it will be the banks who will be the winners again when the taxpayers have to pay back all the money lost on these repossessed homes. Wake up for Gods sake people.

mikemac

Many times I've been a lodger, renting a room in a landlord's house

If we pump hundreds of millions into this is the houseowner in the large house going to start giving free rooms to rent to taxpayers?

Nah, don't think so

Mike 1972

Tayla wrote: »

.look at the poverty trap that social housing creates!

Lots of millionaires came from social housing (no not just footballers/drug barons) the poverty traps are caused largely by irrational stigma not social housing per se.

Tayla wrote: »

At least if people got help with their mortgage then more of them will be self sufficent!

Does not compute !

7sr2z3fely84g5

after christmas surely more people with their big houses will be driven into poverty with the welfare cuts on the way?.

Tayla

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Lots of millionaires came from social housing (no not just footballers/drug barons) the poverty traps are caused largely by irrational stigma not social housing per se.

I don't have a problem with social housing whatsoever, however I do have a problem with people thinking that the best thing for people who cannot pay their mortgage is to give up their house and move to social housing.

These people who got mortgages would have always planned to be self sufficent, we need people like that.

If someone who is let's say 30 years old has their home repossessed then how long will it take them to decide to buy or rent again, it's going to be pretty much impossible and most won't even bother.

You are thinking short term but you need to think of the long term implications of something like this.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Does not compute !

I meant that they would be self sufficent in the long run.

My name is URL

I don't agree with the idea of debt forgiveness, but due to the fact that lenders have already being recapitalised by the tax-payer then I don't see what choice there is but to introduce some form of debt-forgiveness. If people simply cannot pay their mortgages (and the rate at which people are falling to arrears is increasing by 20,000 per year atm) then the money already injected by us into the banks will be lost completely.

Whichever way it goes, the burden has already been unfairly placed on us.

Mike 1972

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't agree with the idea of debt forgiveness, but due to the fact that lenders have already being recapitalised by the tax-payer then I don't see what choice there is but to introduce some form of debt-forgiveness. .

From talking to people back home the phrase "they day this comes in is the day I stop paying tax" comes up a lot.

Tayla wrote: »

I don't have a problem with social housing whatsoever, however I do have a problem with people thinking that the best thing for people who cannot pay their mortgage is to give up their house and move to social housing.

Social housing is not necessarily the sole alternative in such cases.

Tayla

The way I see it is that it is inevitable the taxpayer will have to pay for this.............now either it's written off these families mortgages now or in a few years the banks will get it as another bailout from the taxpayer.

Yes there will be people who benefit from it prehaps wrongly but is that not better than noone benefiting except the banks?

If the debt is written off now then that's it...it's written off.

If it's a bailout for the banks in a few years after all these homes get repossessed then it's the same thing...........except they will be paying for tens of thousands of more families social housing. It doesn't make sense.

Tayla

Mike 1972 wrote: »

From talking to people back home the phrase "they day this comes in is the day I stop paying tax" comes up a lot.

Amazing that out of all the stuff our government has thrown at us that this is the one that people want to draw the line at......anyway I would take that with a pinch of salt because nobody in this country has any backbone anymore.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Social housing is not necessarily the sole alternative in such cases.

Well what else is there? it's either get the debt written off and let them continue to pay the mortgage themselves or give them further help with the mortgage which they are going to need badly as interest rates continue to rise and a lot of people can't even do with the amount of help they're getting now or social housing.

The Scientician

Yeah that letter struck me as bullshít. Dude claims to have a postgrad and not smart enough to feed the kids first?

mikemac

Tayla wrote: »

Amazing that out of all the stuff our government has thrown at us that this is the one that people want to draw the line at

Random numbers mean very little to people.
Eighty billion is just a number, hard to visualize

My neighbour got fifty thousand written off their mortgage yet bought a new car last year??? :mad:
Now that is something you can easily understand and relate to your own situation

Mike 1972

Tayla wrote: »

If it's a bailout for the banks in a few years after all these homes get repossessed then it's the same thing...........except they will be paying for tens of thousands of more families social housing. It doesn't make sense.

However messy the route by which its achieved an increase in the ratio of publically owned housing to privately owned housing might not be entirely devoid of advantages in the long term.

Tayla wrote: »

Amazing that out of all the stuff our government has thrown at us that this is the one that people want to draw the line at......anyway I would take that with a pinch of salt because nobody in this country has any backbone anymore.

The government are proposing a raft of new taxes. Some of them potentially quite difficult to collect were enough people to have the balls to put up a fight.

Tayla wrote: »

Well what else is there? .

Private rented sector (do pay attention)

saywhatyousee

I do not get the shouting about the whole "negative equity" situation.Negative equity only effects you if you plan on selling a home.If you bought a home with the intentions of flipping it a few years later for profit you deserve what you get.Its the same as buying shares,precious metals,or any sort of gambling.To bad you lose......

Tayla

mikemac wrote: »

Random numbers mean very little to people.
Eighty billion is just a number, hard to visualize

I know, tell me about it, I find it mind boggling that people think that the bailout has any chance of ever being paid back when you look at the amount and the small amount of taxpayers we have in this country.

mikemac wrote: »

My neighbour got fifty thousand written off their mortgage yet bought a new car last year??? :mad:
Now that is something you can easily understand and relate to your own situation

Yes I agree but I can't see it ending anywhere other than the banks getting a cash injection for this in a few years and when people realise that then surely your neighbour buying a new car would be better than the bankers getting their crazy bonuses and buying their new mercedes. Unfortunately people cannot open their eyes and see this.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

An increase in the ratio of publically owned housing to privately owned housing might not be entirely devoid of advantages in the long term.

Yes I completely agree with that and I have as part of a group approached the government in relation to a proposal I have about that matter.

Mike 1972

saywhatyousee wrote: »

I do not get the shouting about the whole "negative equity" situation..

Largely true but it does affect some other groups in fairness.

Those needing to move home (job reasons/couples split up/etc)
Those looking to change mortgage (e.g fixed rate term up/better deals elsewhere/etc)

Im sick of listening to people who confuse the following three concepts
1) Negative Equity
2) Inability to cover mortgage payments
3) Homelessness.

Just as bad as the ones who use cliches like "families" and " young couples" to garner sympathy for their position. The rest of us need someplace to live too you know.

Bride2012

I agree with forgetting about negative equity. You're about 4k in negative equity on a standard new car once you put the key in the ignition. You pay for its use, not make huge profits in 5 years time, people need to think about houses like this.

Capt'n Midnight

Sergeant wrote: »

The Sindo was a mouthpiece for the worst type of property speculation and crassness during "da Celtic Tiger".
Now it has discovered its soft socialist side. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I wouldn't put it past them to support this madness just because some of their journalists are up to their neck in negative equity.

qft

they have a history of doing issues that affects journalists in preference to those that affect normal people

Mike 1972

Bride2012 wrote: »

You're about 4k in negative equity on a standard new car once you put the key in the ignition. .

Unless you pay cash (or a hefty deposit) of course

But then saving up for big purchases is soooo 1950's

Tayla

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Largely true but it does affect some other groups in fairness.

Those needing to move home (job reasons/couples split up/etc)
Those looking to change mortgage (e.g fixed rate term up/better deals elsewhere/etc)

Im sick of listening to people who confuse the following three concepts
1) Negative Equity
2) Inability to cover mortgage payments
3) Homelessness.

Just as bad as the ones who use cliches like "families" and " young couples" to garner sympathy for their position. The rest of us need someplace to live too you know.

I use the term families because most people I know with mortgages are indeed families, families need stability for their kids going to school etc, and it would be a very hard decision for them to move abroad to get work etc.
A lot of people who bought during the boom were people starting families are with young kids who bought at the time because they were told "house prices are only going to go up and up and up.

I didn't realise familes were a cliche.



I agree that many people are very confused with negative equity and inability to pay. Negative equity is not really a massive issue but inability to pay coupled with negative equity is just like being in a prison.

Obviously you're putting me in that category above about people getting confused between negative equity, inability to pay and homelessness.

Believe me I am not confused, in fact I mentioned social housing and homelessness in response to a poster who said that those who shouldn't pay should have their homes repossessed and move to social housing.

The current situation will indeed leave to homelessness though if left with no solution and people burying their head in the sand will not do anyone any good.