Chance to see boardsies opinion of debt forgiveness

veryangryman

Just looking for a straight poll that says simple as

"Would you be in favour of the debt forigiveness scheme (ie paying the mortgage of those in serious negative equity who have little realistic chance of paying due to redundancy/serious drop in income)"

The papers are saying one thing (aye) and most ive talked to have said another (nay)

Just would be interesting to see. Me im in favour of it - the money will be wasted anyway on the black hole that is our debts. If it gets the negative neddie people spending again (paying tax again) i think it can only be a good thing.

Sky King

According to the Ray D'Arcy show today most people are in favour.

Snakeblood

Sky King wrote: »

According to the Ray D'Arcy show today most people are in favour.

Based on people who listen to Ray D'Arcy or based on people in Ireland?

orourkeda

Just pay your f*cking bills

Chuck Stone

Debt forgiveness for who?

For first time buyers who panicked and bought in the latter years of the boom and only have one house and are up to their necks in debt with small children then perhaps yes.

Everyone else?

GTFO.


Edit: Also there could be a debt freeze for those type of folk until things improve.

veryangryman

Times like this i wish we had direct democracy where such huge decisions could be voted on by the people

Sky King

Snakeblood wrote: »

Based on people who listen to Ray D'Arcy or based on people in Ireland?

He read it out of a paper. Sindo maybe?

squod

veryangryman wrote: »

- the money will be wasted anyway on the black hole that is our debts.

I'm still banking on those politicians and civil servants responsible spending time in jail for their crimes. This attempt to make the citizen complicit is stomach turning.

It's a PR campaign for those who want to save their bacon . Convictions first, restructuring later.

Saila

veryangryman wrote: »

Just looking for a straight poll that says simple as

"Would you be in favour of the debt forigiveness scheme (ie paying the mortgage of those in serious negative equity who have little realistic chance of paying due to redundancy/serious drop in income)"

The papers are saying one thing (aye) and most ive talked to have said another (nay)

Just would be interesting to see. Me im in favour of it - the money will be wasted anyway on the black hole that is our debts. If it gets the negative neddie people spending again (paying tax again) i think it can only be a good thing.

I was going to say no until I read that I think, yeah might as well now for the reason underneath the bolded bit

Gilldog

The poll doesn't cover as many options as it should, what about people who believe some sort of help should be given to those that genuinely need it, but not a blanket forgiveness for all those that want it...

I voted No because I don't think debt forgiveness for all would 'end this sh!t'.

I do believe that there should be a plan formulated by the government to help out those poor unfortunate few who really need it, for example a long term moratoriam on their mortgage until their situation improves (perhaps erasing some of the accruing interest or something) but I don't believe that wiping out debt for thousands of people is a good message to send to all those who are also struggling but managing to pay their mortgage.

Also, where would all the money required come from, we're already scraping the barrell to pay the IMF.

DrumSteve

It's fairly simple.

I'm not responsible for your **** up. Don't see why I should pay for it. I don't get anything out of it.

ScumLord

I'm not against debt forgiveness because I don't really know who they owe money to.

I'd rather see a family homed than a banker get a commision, all this money is being invented for the purpose of enslaving people to bank debt so fuck them banks if their plans don't work out.

The banking system doesn't serve the majority of people it only tries to control them for the benefit of a few. I don't care what nonsense they have to make up to keep a roof over peoples heads because it's not like the house is worth anything to anyone else anyway.

TheZohanS

Why stop at mortgages? Why not cancel all debt, all loans, car loans, credit card debt the lot.

It would be like the London looting but without the destruction of property.

Hank_Jones

I'm honestly baffled by this.
If I played the stock market and lost, I doubt people would be queueing up to reimburse me.

I'd rather the money went into making jobs and infrastructure,
it's not my fault that someone made a bad investment.

Snakeblood

Sky King wrote: »

He read it out of a paper. Sindo maybe?

Yeah. I'm not sure about that poll. I'd like to see what the questions were.

There's a big difference between:

Would you like debt forgiveness for families who cannot pay excessive mortgages?

and

Would you like debt forgiveness for families who cannot pay excessive mortgage at the expense of education, healthcare and higher taxes?

Snakeblood

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not against debt forgiveness because I don't really know who they owe money to.

I'd rather see a family homed than a banker get a commision, all this money is being invented for the purpose of enslaving people to bank debt so fuck them banks if their plans don't work out.

The banking system doesn't serve the majority of people it only tries to control them for the benefit of a few. I don't care what nonsense they have to make up to keep a roof over peoples heads because it's not like the house is worth anything to anyone else anyway.

They owe money to the banks, who owe money to the taxpayer.

ScumLord

Snakeblood wrote: »

They owe money to the banks, who owe money to the taxpayer.

And they're the taxpayer so they owe themselves the money.

PseudoFamous

If a couple who moved to Dublin from the sticks with no qualifications get €800K written off as bad debt, I want €400K to be given straight to me, as I have no debt or house.

Bipolar Joe

ScumLord wrote: »

And they're the taxpayer so they owe themselves the money.

This logic is so astounding I just found a whole load of money in my wallet.

Biggins

Pay me back the money ya owe me - I'll forgive ya - wots the problem!

mawk

Very leading poll.
Might as will read:

"Yes! Boobs are awesome!
no! I hate jews and black people!"

Snakeblood

mawk wrote: »

Very leading poll.
Might as will read:

"Yes! Boobs are awesome!
no! I hate jews and black people!"

Voted no.:mad:

<Sits back and waits for the next banking crisis to unfold and destroy the value of the Euro. Uses beer money to repay mortgage.>

mawk

Snakeblood wrote: »

Voted no.:mad:

Racist

Gilldog

Snakeblood wrote: »

Voted no.:mad:

So did I. Does that mean im a secret racialist??? I feel so dirty.

pow wow

Not in favour of people genuinely suffering but not in favour of giving them a free pass either. There are much more creative ways to approach the problem that serve everyones interest in the long-term.

Snakeblood

Gilldog wrote: »

So did I. Does that mean im a secret racialist??? I feel so dirty.

Not secret any more.... friend.

Bipolar Joe

pow wow wrote: »

Not in favour of people genuinely suffering but not in favour of giving them a free pass either. There are much more creative ways to approach the problem that serve everyones interest in the long-term.

Like? Actual interest, here.

Morlar

Probably one of the most loaded set of poll questions I have ever seen.

I'd knock a good 20 % of the yes votes off on that basis alone and then you have your answer.

Zulu

It's an awful shame the money given to the banks as a bail out couldn't have been calculated per capita & given as a loan to be refunded to the tax payer as either tax credits or mortgage write off, depending on the persons circumstances.

Naturally this would be impossible to do with our inept & bureaucratically suffocating public services.

red menace

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/getting-some-perspective-on-the-problem-of-mortgage-arears-2859346.html

We have a serious mortgage arrears problem. But gross exaggeration of the problem won't help to solve the problem.
Back in November, Morgan Kelly frightened us all when he told us: "If you thought that the bank bailout was bad, wait until mortgage defaults hit home". Around that time, Constantin Gurdgiev, Brian Lucey and nine others wrote an article calling for "a debt forgiveness mechanism ... with an expected total cost to the entire system of circa €37bn to €49bn".
So how bad really is the mortgage problem?
Of the 780,000 people who have mortgages -- around 50,000 are in arrears over 90 days. A further 40,000 have extended their mortgage term or moved to interest only.
But this means that 85pc of borrowers are making their mortgage repayment in full and on time every month. So "only" around one borrower in 15 is in arrears. Why is this figure so low? There are three reasons.
Firstly, 15pc unemployment means that 85pc of people are still in jobs. And generally speaking, when someone has a job, they are able to pay most or all of their mortgage.
Secondly, interest rates have been very low for the past few years. Those who bought at the peak of the market were able to afford repayments based on ECB rates of 3pc to 4pc compared with 1.5pc now. When they took out their loan, they were stress-tested to handle rates of up to 5pc. So they are well able to afford repayments based on ECB rates of 1.5pc, despite salary cuts and tax increases.
Thirdly, around 50pc of all borrowers have cheap tracker mortgages. And cheap trackers were most popular between 2005 and 2007, when prices were at their peak, so those we would expect to be in most difficulty have that difficulty ameliorated by their cheap trackers.
So how bad might the arrears figure get? The main driver of mortgage arrears is unemployment. If unemployment rises, then the arrears figure will rise accordingly. An austere Budget will have some effect as well. But overall, the rate will probably not rise above 10pc.
What about negative equity? No one knows for sure how many borrowers are in negative equity. My own estimate, and it is only an estimate, is that there are around 300,000 borrowers with average negative equity of €80,000 each.
Negative equity is a problem for people who bought a starter home and expected to trade up after a few years. They will have to wait. Negative equity is a problem for people who live in an apartment who want to start a family. They will have to wait a while longer or start their family in the apartment.
Negative equity is a messy problem for couples who split up who can't afford to live separately but who can't afford to take the loss on the sale. But for most people, while negative equity makes them feel poorer, it has no other impact on their cash flow or lifestyle.
Of the 50,000 people in arrears, most will get back on track in time. But around 10,000 to 20,000 borrowers have no hope of ever paying their mortgage. The banks and the borrowers need to face up to this unpleasant reality. They need to agree to the sale of their home and the banks need to agree to formally write off any shortfall between the sales proceeds and the mortgage. The Government should focus on these borrowers rather than worrying about widespread debt forgiveness or negative equity.
The banks have already lost the money on these mortgages. They should write off around €100,000 each on 20,000 mortgages or €2bn in total. A big loss indeed, but only a fraction of the €49bn suggested for a widespread debt forgiveness programme.
Brendan Burgess was a member of the Government's Expert Group on Mortgage Arrears and Personal Debt

Yes I know rabble rabble independent rag etc
But I do read a lot of Brendan Burgess' stuff and I belive it is worth getting perspective
No debt forgiveness for people in negative equity who are not planning on selling.
Buty for couple who need to upsize because of growing families etc should be helped

marcsignal

orourkeda wrote: »

Just pay your f*cking bills

+1

If I bet my house on some horse in the Grand National, and the fckn thing breaks a leg at the first fence, well that's just tough shit, isn't it ?

The Celtic Tiger was a crap-game. If you're a betting man/woman, surely you do so, safe in the knowledge that you could just as easily lose everything, if it all goes tits up.

Baling people out at every turn, whenever they screw up, is bad for their personal development.

tonycascarino

Some people want it all. They want others to bail them out for their own stupidity while they keep their big house and continue to live the high life. No pity for them whatsoever.

Morlar

red menace wrote: »

No debt forgiveness for people in negative equity who are not planning on selling.
Buty for couple who need to upsize because of growing families etc should be helped

If the govt (through taxpayers) paid all mortgage debts of people who have a kid and want a bigger house ... hmmm.....

People with 460k mortgages on a house worth 200k, can have the slate cleaned and sell their property to buy a new property at a seriously knock down price ?

I really think that would engineer a baby boom.

Those currently ok with a 2 bed and 2 kids will suddenly need a new bedroom for their spare kid and there would be an exodus of people looking to get on the new gravy train. 200k a pop ? AND freeing capital to get a newer bigger property ? I can see where you are coming from but I think that is a dangerous prospect.

Snakeblood

red menace wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/getting-some-perspective-on-the-problem-of-mortgage-arears-2859346.html



Yes I know rabble rabble independent rag etc
But I do read a lot of Brendan Burgess' stuff and I belive it is worth getting perspective
No debt forgiveness for people in negative equity who are not planning on selling.
Buty for couple who need to upsize because of growing families etc should be helped

Why should they be helped? Why aren't you helping me, I find it difficult to rent a 3 bed in a decent area for my family, on my salary? I'd find it easier if I wasn't paying someone's ****ing mortgage, I imagine, so they have an asset in 25 years.

My point is, consequences. At a certain point people took a risk in the hope that they'd be able to sell their house\rent it, at a profit and get something else with the proceeds. They rolled the dice. Why should I have to pick up after them? Why don't we force them to sell the house, realise what it's worth and move some place they can afford? Why should I suffer because I didn't try to make money off property?

marcsignal

tonycascarino wrote: »

Some people want it all.

Couldn't agree more, you've nailed it in 5 words. There seem to be a group of people out there who just refuse to accept that the party is over.

Part of me seriously thinks the crash was a good thing for Ireland and the Irish.
At least 'Please', and 'Thank You' are coming back into vogue, and not before time.

red menace

Morlar wrote: »

If the govt (through taxpayers) paid all mortgage debts of people who have a kid and want a bigger house ... hmmm.....

People with 460k mortgages on a house worth 200k, can have the slate cleaned and sell their property to buy a new property at a seriously knock down price ?

I really think that would engineer a baby boom.

Those currently ok with a 2 bed and 2 kids will suddenly need a new bedroom for their spare kid and there would be an exodus of people looking to get on the new gravy train. 200k a pop ? AND freeing capital to get a newer bigger property ? I can see where you are coming from but I think that is a dangerous prospect.

Yes it is the more I think about it the more unworkable it is.
I still thank my lucky stars that we pulled out of buying a house in 2009, I have been watching the value of it and others on the same estate drop and drop.
We would have been thinking to hold on to it for a few years and trade up but there is at least 100K knocked off the value of the house. We are happy enough to pay other people's mortgages for a bit longer

FetchTheGin

On one hand you have the Alison O'Riordan or Fake D4 types, with high hopes of emulating their Manhattan heroes of sex and the city by buying a cramped overpriced apartment to get on the property ladder and fulfill a dream of lording it over "the common people".

On the other you have families that are genuinely in trouble with their family homes and need serious help.

The latter I have no problem with getting the necessary help.
The former can **** right off.

Snakeblood

FetchTheGin wrote: »

On one hand you have the Alison O'Riordan or Fake D4 types, with high hopes of emulating their Manhattan heroes of sex and the city by buying a cramped overpriced apartment to get on the property ladder and fulfill a dream of lording it over "the common people".

On the other you have families that are genuinely in trouble with their family homes and need serious help.

The latter I have no problem with getting the necessary help.
The former can **** right off.

Their 'family' home doesn't matter. Their family does. Move somewhere they can afford to live with their family.

smash

Yes - Lets end this sh1t once and for all
No - Lets continue this sh1t

You honestly think debt forgiveness will end the issues this country is going through? They're talking about a government bailout of over 6bn so people who are "struggling" can walk away from their mortgages.

Who do you think is going to pay back that €6bn?

Snakeblood

Snakeblood wrote: »

Their 'family' home doesn't matter. Their family does. Move somewhere they can afford to live with their family.

That's the issue, they can't afford to move because the bank won't let them take the negative equity with them!

Donal Og O Baelach

On a list of financial priorities, for me anyway, paying back the bank [that now squeezes us for every cent with ridiculous charges] will come a long way down the list. I would let the mortgage slide long before my kids would go hungry - then wait and see exactly what the bank is going to do about it. As far as I am aware it will take several YEARS before they can kick people out of their house.

ScumLord

marcsignal wrote: »

The Celtic Tiger was a crap-game. If you're a betting man/woman, surely you do so, safe in the knowledge that you could just as easily lose everything, if it all goes tits up.

I assume you mean craps the dice game, and why do people think having an economy that's based on chance and luck to be a good thing worth defending?

I don't think the majority of people enjoyed or intended to gamble their lifes away to own a house. They were lead into the house buying con by banks and the media and yes they have to accept a certain amount of responsibility for falling for the hype but there are young families that only wanted a home for their children to grow up in included in this.

First step would be to separate the few gamblers from the people that got trapped in the great housing swindle.

Our economy should be set up to help and protect our citizens not as some big craps game.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

fedor.2.

orourkeda wrote: »

Just pay your f*cking bills

Nah, id rather you pay them for me, thank you very much

Android 666

marcsignal wrote: »

Part of me seriously thinks the crash was a good thing for Ireland and the Irish.
At least 'Please', and 'Thank You' are coming back into vogue, and not before time.

About ruddy time too. I don't mind the sudden rises in suicide, taxes and unemployment and families being crippled about personal debt as long as I get to hear some occasional pleasantries from strangers.

And this 'ah sure we lost the run of ourselves and I mean now that we're poor again we're an awful lot nicer' shtick is getting a bit wearisome…

marcsignal

ScumLord wrote: »

First step would be to separate the few gamblers from the people that got trapped in the great housing swindle. .

In an ideal world, I agree with this. On the other hand, how many people did you know in the 80s or 90s, in an average job, that had 2 houses and a foreign apartment ?

Android 666 wrote: »

About ruddy time too. I don't mind the sudden rises in suicide, taxes and unemployment and families being crippled about personal debt as long as I get to hear some occasional pleasantries from strangers.

Ireland has always had a high suicide rate. Just that back then, it was called ‘death through misadventure’. In fact, we had a higher rate of suicide in 1998 than we did up to 2010. We can adjust to higher rates of unemployment and taxes, we have done it before. In 1990 I was in an average job and paying 48% tax on my earnings. I survived.

Android 666 wrote: »

And this 'ah sure we lost the run of ourselves and I mean now that we're poor again we're an awful lot nicer' shtick is getting a bit wearisome…

The Celtic Tiger bred the worst kind of arrogance and self-inflated sense of importance in many Irish people. Anything we are going through now, that leads to the extinction of that kind of attitude, imo, is a good thing.

I hope these people enjoy their helping of humble pie, they better stfu whinging and just get used to it.

ScumLord

marcsignal wrote: »

In an ideal world, I agree with this. On the other hand, how many people did you know in the 80s or 90s, in an average job, that had 2 houses and a foreign apartment ?

In the 80s or 90s? Nobody. Your in the wrong decade lad, nobody had nothing in the 80s.

But even in the 00s it wasn't stupid to buy a house for development, everyday on TV we saw people making their fortunes on home improvement shows. The papers told everyone what to buy and where, the government promoted it and all the numbers worked out from the lay persons point of view.

Minstrel27

Under no circumstances should people be bailed out on their stupidity.

Morlar

ScumLord wrote: »

But even in the 00s it wasn't stupid to buy a house for development, everyday on TV we saw people making their fortunes on home improvement shows. The papers told everyone what to buy and where, the government promoted it and all the numbers worked out from the lay persons point of view.

This is reminding me of all those arguments at that time (which not everyone bought into). In real life and vs the 'experts' on boards where people were soberly, in an articulate manner making the case that 'of course prices can keep on rising exponentially, indefinitely' 'Of course pricing average industrial wage-earners waaaaaaaaaaaay out of the housing market is sustainable'.

Not everyone fell for this at that time. I think the media in general do have a portion of the blame, (particularly those that made a good living from property supplements & advertising) Also for their total lack of anything resembling a watchdog or 'sceptical of govt press releases' kind of capability. However I still think that personal responsibility should not be avoided.

marcsignal

ScumLord wrote: »

In the 80s or 90s? Nobody. Your in the wrong decade lad, nobody had nothing in the 80s.

So who twisted anyones arm in the early 00s to pay over 100K for an average house ? Was I the only one in the country who could see back then, that this was not good value for money?

ScumLord wrote: »

But even in the 00s it wasn't stupid to buy a house for development.

There is always risk associated with buying anything on borrowed money. It's just a question of degree.

ScumLord wrote: »

everyday on TV we saw people making their fortunes on home improvement shows.

therin lies the problem, if you don't mind me saying so.

ScumLord wrote: »

The papers told everyone what to buy and where, the government promoted it and all the numbers worked out from the lay persons point of view.

Exactly, the Government of the day promoted it........and we voted them in again and again, so we (or rather those that voted for them, because I certainly didn't) are complicit in their fuck up.