Repossessions

Zamboni

pawnacide wrote: »

Yeah maybe we could supply them with horse and cart to carry their belonging to the nearest warm ditch while we pelt them with rotting fruit.

Maybe we should close all the public hospitals too, I mean seriously if you can't afford health insurance should you really be allowed to live and continue to be a drain on the financially prudent.

Education , why would the masses need education ? they won't be willing to work for peanuts if we educate them. We could start by withdrawing services for the ones who need the most help .. Oh wait they already tried that.

ALERT smugness levels around the country are on the rise.

Are you trying to debate the repossession moratorium or are you simply ranting incoherently?
There is no smugness here. Please don't attribute your imagined emotions to my posts.

pawnacide

Zamboni wrote: »

Are you trying to debate the repossession moratorium or are you simply ranting incoherently?
There is no smugness here. Please don't attribute your imagined emotions to my posts.

No emotion involved, your proposal to end the moratorium is short sighted and ill informed. It would be a final nail in the coffin of a lost generartion and be the ultimate confirmation that the public interest is of little or no concern to either government or business. I cannot see the difference between your proposal and the mass evictions of teh 1800's. The levels of debt of western nations and financial institutions is through the roof and in the case of many nations, including our own, is probably unsustainable in the medium term and yet these debts are being continously re financed and managed because the alternative is unthinkable. I am contending that the same logic should be applied to private debt because for those involved the alternative is likewise horrific.

I have little doubt that you would draw the same conclusion but you seem to think that it's not your problem and therefore resent that is should impact on you. I believe that kind of thinking selfish,shorsighted and of little use in solving the problem and dread to think what kind of society we would have if it was applied to all our financial and social issues.

A basic tenant of western civilisation is that justice must not just be done but must also be seen to be done. I cannot see that bailing out business and financial interests while leaving individuals swinging in the wind meets that fundamental requirement.

As regards the debate as to how a solution can be practically implemented I will leave that to the accountants, economists and those better informed than I because while the numbers change the principles of an enlightened and caring society should not.

Zamboni

So, in a nutshell, you believe people should retain ownership of assets that they have not paid for and cannot afford?
And that the Irish Taxpayer should subsidise this?
You don't see any problem with unemployed people of little or no means, apart fom welfare payments, living in accomodation of a higher level than other welfare recipients in council housing & tax paying private renters?
You don't see how this could create a divide in Irish citizens?

pawnacide

Zamboni wrote: »

So, in a nutshell, you believe people should retain ownership of assets that they have not paid for and cannot afford?
And that the Irish Taxpayer should subsidise this?
You don't see any problem with unemployed people of little or no means, apart fom welfare payments, living in accomodation of a higher level than other welfare recipients in council housing & tax paying private renters?
You don't see how this could create a divide in Irish citizens?

If that's all you understood from my previous post (which i think I edited before ur last post btw) .. I give up. I would guess that the majority of homeowners in arrears are not on social welfare and certainly were not when they bought their houses. It is therefore doubtfull that they will be on social welfare for ever.

I cann see how it creates a divide in ur mind but the social effect of mass repossesion would be far more destructive to our democracy than I think you realise.

I fail to see how the banks taking ownership of thousands of unsellable houses will improve the situation. If you're propsoing the banks take possesion and sell the properties at current market value why not just re-finance the mortgages to the market value and let the current owners stay in them. the only argument against this that I can see is the sour grapes argument. Why do they get a house at todays value when they bought at the peak.

diceyreilly1

This article explains how if a borrower receives a writedown on borrowings it is treated as income and taxed accordingly. Should the Government explore this option and possibly increase its tax take also. This would have the borrower contribute back to the state for mistakes made.

http://rismedia.com/2012-03-11/what-you-need-to-know-about-cancellation-of-mortgage-debt/

Spiritofthekop

pawnacide wrote: »

If that's all you understood from my previous post (which i think I edited before ur last post btw) .. I give up. I would guess that the majority of homeowners in arrears are not on social welfare and certainly were not when they bought their houses. It is therefore doubtfull that they will be on social welfare for ever.

I cann see how it creates a divide in ur mind but the social effect of mass repossesion would be far more destructive to our democracy than I think you realise.

I fail to see how the banks taking ownership of thousands of unsellable houses will improve the situation. If you're propsoing the banks take possesion and sell the properties at current market value why not just re-finance the mortgages to the market value and let the current owners stay in them. the only argument against this that I can see is the sour grapes argument. Why do they get a house at todays value when they bought at the peak.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/renters-future-owners-left-in-the-dark-187762.html


Renters, future owners left in the dark
Wednesday, March 21, 2012


There are so many voices advocating for the interests of property owners that another even more sizeable group in our society is completely ignored.

We are the renters and future home buyers. No one ever appears in the media to speak for us. We don’t have the Irish Property Owners Association, Irish Mortgage Brokers, New Beginnings or any of the vested interest economists to advocate on our behalf. And what are our interests? We wish to see house prices continue to fall and for the banks to finally begin repossessions.

Here’s why. We will reach the bottom faster and become a more competitive society, more of our people will be able to buy their own homes without being inordinately indebted, and those people who are overburdened will bite the bullet and finally move on with their lives.

This may sound callous, but is it any more callous than dragging out a house crash in slow motion over a decade and encumbering future generations with unsustainable debts to prop up a fantasy that there are no consequences for poor decisions?

Is it any more callous than asking people who rent to subsidise those who cannot pay their mortgage, making it impossible for them to ever aspire to home ownership?

Please bear us in mind. We are out here and there are many more of us than there are property owners.


Malahide
Co Dublin


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/renters-future-owners-left-in-the-dark-187762.html#ixzz1pqeERIZO

pawnacide

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/renters-future-owners-left-in-the-dark-187762.html


Renters, future owners left in the dark
Wednesday, March 21, 2012


There are so many voices advocating for the interests of property owners that another even more sizeable group in our society is completely ignored.

We are the renters and future home buyers. No one ever appears in the media to speak for us. We don’t have the Irish Property Owners Association, Irish Mortgage Brokers, New Beginnings or any of the vested interest economists to advocate on our behalf. And what are our interests? We wish to see house prices continue to fall and for the banks to finally begin repossessions.

Here’s why. We will reach the bottom faster and become a more competitive society, more of our people will be able to buy their own homes without being inordinately indebted, and those people who are overburdened will bite the bullet and finally move on with their lives.

This may sound callous, but is it any more callous than dragging out a house crash in slow motion over a decade and encumbering future generations with unsustainable debts to prop up a fantasy that there are no consequences for poor decisions?

Is it any more callous than asking people who rent to subsidise those who cannot pay their mortgage, making it impossible for them to ever aspire to home ownership?

Please bear us in mind. We are out here and there are many more of us than there are property owners.


Malahide
Co Dublin


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/renters-future-owners-left-in-the-dark-187762.html#ixzz1pqeERIZO

Well thats's a lot of nonsense, firstly we are already indebted for generations to come. I'm not aware of any plans to subsidize mortgage arrears. Secondly it is a generally accepted principle that a society should be judged on how it treats it's weakest members (although this may be changing as greed is becoming the new religion). I for one have no wish to add to the torment of thousands of families so the next generation can buy a cheaper house. Thirdly if these masses referred to aren't home owners surely they are renting, mortgage repayments are already close to if not at rental payments on similar properties so really it's just all about economic gain. God bless the good ship 'Greed' and all who sail in her.

Spiritofthekop

pawnacide wrote: »

Well thats's a lot of nonsense, firstly we are already indebted for generations to come. I'm not aware of any plans to subsidize mortgage arrears. Secondly it is a generally accepted principle that a society should be judged on how it treats it's weakest members (although this may be changing as greed is becoming the new religion). I for one have no wish to add to the torment of thousands of families so the next generation can buy a cheaper house. Thirdly if these masses referred to aren't home owners surely they are renting, mortgage repayments are already close to if not at rental payments on similar properties so really it's just all about economic gain. God bless the good ship 'Greed' and all who sail in her.

Your an property investor are you not?

pawnacide

Nope .. not yet anyway.

Spiritofthekop

pawnacide wrote: »

Nope .. not yet anyway.

Your a property auctioneer then...your involved in property.. its your job right!

pawnacide

In a very round about sort of way. But i have no vested interest in either rising or falling prices if thats what you're getting at.

CiaranC

pawnacide wrote: »

Well thats's a lot of nonsense, firstly we are already indebted for generations to come. I'm not aware of any plans to subsidize mortgage arrears. Secondly it is a generally accepted principle that a society should be judged on how it treats it's weakest members

Funny that, I didnt think societies weakest members normally held a property portfolio

pawnacide

CiaranC wrote: »

Funny that, I didnt think societies weakest members normally held a property portfolio

We could all pick pieces from any given post to get a point across but don't. Nobody's talking about people with portfolios .. those properties wont be resold anyway .. a DNG reciever has been appointed to TSB's repossessed buy to let properties, for example and these will be disseminated to DNG agents around the country who will manage them on behalf of the bank .. why would they sell em ?

CiaranC

pawnacide wrote: »

We could all pick pieces from any given post to get a point across but don't. Nobody's talking about people with portfolios .. those properties wont be resold anyway .. a DNG reciever has been appointed to TSB's repossessed buy to let properties, for example and these will be disseminated to DNG agents around the country who will manage them on behalf of the bank .. why would they sell em ?

So who are you talking about, people who had half a million to drop on a house a couple of years ago? Come off it.

pawnacide

Yes, depending on location .. what u want to happen?

Kick the current owner out so somebody else can buy it at todays price? What does that solve?

It puts a family out of their home and gives them a level of indebtedness that ensures they will never be able to buy again. There's plenty of houses out there for todays buyers .. why not just buy one of them or wait till they drop further and then buy one. I dont really care which.

But kicking people out of houses just to ensure the next generation can buy below cost houses is not really the answer .. it's opportunism.

Spiritofthekop

pawnacide wrote: »

Yes, depending on location .. what u want to happen?

Kick the current owner out so somebody else can buy it at todays price? What does that solve?

It puts a family out of their home and gives them a level of indebtedness that ensures they will never be able to buy again. There's plenty of houses out there for todays buyers .. why not just buy one of them or wait till they drop further and then buy one. I dont really care which.

But kicking people out of houses just to ensure the next generation can buy below cost houses is not really the answer .. it's opportunism.

Repossessions happen in every other single country...

Its preventing the market hit a natural bottom. Which can then start a slow process of buying and selling at value for money prices.

Look nobody agrees with kicking people onto the street. And as you say though "there are plenty of place to buy rent"

Lots of people saw what was happening and decided to keep and save until the day come along when they can buy property at value for money which there is still not enough off out there.

If you think a country can run on a theory of people keeping assets for free and not paying for the contract and amount they signed for then your living in cloud cockoo land mate. Its a dog eat dog world just like it was in the bubble when people were buying any bit of crap property that came along & not giving a s-it about the people behind them.

If we let people get away with free money & assets they will continue to make bad decisions for the rest for there lives knowing that there is always a help out from someone & will never learn a single thing & this country will always be a complete mess.

pawnacide

Every facet of your life is managed, wake up and look around you. There's no such thing as a free market. Are you suggesting we stop EU farm payments, the US and Europe lift all trade barriers? or is it just the parts that suit you we should deal with ?

There's a guy starting a Ron Paul cult in another thread .. maybe you should join.

pawnacide

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

Repossessions happen in every other single country...

It preventing the market hit a natural bottom. Which can then start a slow process of buying and selling at value for money prices.

We're already at a value for money point. What you seem to want is below cost (and I mean current cost) .. am I wrong?

Spiritofthekop

pawnacide wrote: »

We're already at a value for money point. What you seem to want is below cost (and I mean current cost) .. am I wrong?

In your "property investor" "auctioneer" opinion that is. It suits your lively hood to have booming property market at the end of the day.

pawnacide wrote: »

Kinda brave of me to come on and admit to being an auctioneer, only since 2006 though, good timing dont ya think. You're right, well in part anyway, prices are still falling but not on all property. A lot of the developments I deal with are in limbo .. receivers have moved in but haven't made a decision on prices yet. It's a frustratingly slow process like most things in this country. Some developments are ahead of the game and are being sold at a loss. The trick is to find one you like. Just as the bubble couldn't last so too below cost selling wont last forever.

Anyway..

I'm off now to join the Ron Paul cult!??

See yeah!

pawnacide

You really need to read the previous posts .. I'm neither.

jmayo

pawnacide wrote: »

We're already at a value for money point. What you seem to want is below cost (and I mean current cost) .. am I wrong?

What is wrong with buying below cost ?
Do you ever go grocery shopping btw ?
Did you ever think that those potatoes or that milk may be below cost selling ?

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

In your "property investor" "auctioneer" opinion that is. It suits your lively hood to have booming property market at the end of the day.

pawnacide wrote: »

Kinda brave of me to come on and admit to being an auctioneer, only since 2006 though, good timing dont ya think. You're right, well in part anyway, prices are still falling but not on all property. A lot of the developments I deal with are in limbo .. receivers have moved in but haven't made a decision on prices yet. It's a frustratingly slow process like most things in this country. Some developments are ahead of the game and are being sold at a loss. The trick is to find one you like. Just as the bubble couldn't last so too below cost selling wont last forever.

Ahh the power of the interweb ... where past comments come back to bite you in the ar**.
Don't ya love it.

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

Anyway..

I'm off now to join the Ron Paul cult!??

See yeah!

Ehh the Ron Paul cult is probably the effort to start a Libertarian party over on Politics forum.
You know the type of party full of rich people who like small government because they want to pay less taxes and probably avail of bailouts all the same. :rolleyes:

pawnacide wrote: »

You really need to read the previous posts .. I'm neither.

So are you indulging in some bertiesque type thing where you are an auctioneer one day but not the next ?
Did you do a bertie in the above statement or are you doing a bertie now ?

Zamboni

pawnacide wrote: »

Yes, depending on location .. what u want to happen?

Kick the current owner out so somebody else can buy it at todays price? What does that solve?

It puts a family out of their home and gives them a level of indebtedness that ensures they will never be able to buy again. There's plenty of houses out there for todays buyers .. why not just buy one of them or wait till they drop further and then buy one. I dont really care which.

But kicking people out of houses just to ensure the next generation can buy below cost houses is not really the answer .. it's opportunism.

No. That is not the reason to kick them out. That is a mere consequence.
The reason to kick them out is because they DO NOT OWN the house and do not appear to have the means to service their mortgage.

oflahero

Long-time renter here. I'm pretty worn down at this stage. Starting to think you're only better off in this country if you buy a bloody gaff, no matter how insane the purchase price. Rent pre-bubble? Ha ha, you can't stay young forever you know, you responsibility-dodging student type, come join us on the path to riches. It's not 'greed', it's 'prosperity'. Rent post-bubble? Smuggy mc smug-smug, you miserable penny-pinching renting bastids, gloating at everyone else, with your 'greedy' attitude wanting families booted out on the street so you can take over their house at a below-cost price that in no way reflects the real value of the place.

Here's some reality. If I don't pay my rent, I will get dumped on the street sharpish, and nobody will be arguing my case that the apartment I rent is just as much of a 'family home' to me as some overpriced McMansion that the current occupants no more own than I do.

Taking out a mortgage in this country seems to imply an instant soft-focus God-given right to decide how, when and if your debts should be paid, while retaining the asset. And don't come over all 'But de bankers did dis, dis an dis, so why should de hard-pressed family' etc etc. I would also love to see Richie Boucher hung by his heels, Mussolini-style.

pawnacide

Zamboni wrote: »

No. That is not the reason to kick them out. That is a mere consequence.
The reason to kick them out is because they DO NOT OWN the house and do not appear to have the means to service their mortgage.

So why not work with them till than can afford it, I cant imagine all the people who bought houses and subsequently lost jobs etc are gonna remain in that position for ever. The only argument I can see really for mass evictions is to bring down house prices. I don't think the benefits to you and others of low house prices outweigh the social and economic consequences of indebting an entire generation. Remember these people cant just walk away from their houses and start again they will be effectively ruined for the rest of their lives with massive debts and rent to pay.

pawnacide

jmayo wrote: »

So are you indulging in some bertiesque type thing where you are an auctioneer one day but not the next ?
Did you do a bertie in the above statement or are you doing a bertie now ?

1999 - 2006 Chef
2006 - 2010 Auctioneer
2011 - 2012 General Dogsbody

Anything else ya wanna know just ask. House prices are completely irrelevant to what I do now. Up/Down makes no odds. In fact probably marginally better if they go down. But that doesn't mean I wanna see people thrown out of houses.

Any auctioneer i know and i know a lot of em wants to see house prices reach bottom .. btw.

howamidifferent

Zamboni wrote: »

No. That is not the reason to kick them out. That is a mere consequence.
The reason to kick them out is because they DO NOT OWN the house and do not appear to have the means to service their mortgage.

According to Phil Hogan, if you have a mortgage you do own your home. Its not the bank that is liable for the household charge....

Zamboni

pawnacide wrote: »

So why not work with them till than can afford it, I cant imagine all the people who bought houses and subsequently lost jobs etc are gonna remain in that position for ever. The only argument I can see really for mass evictions is to bring down house prices. I don't think the benefits to you and others of low house prices outweigh the social and economic consequences of indebting an entire generation. Remember these people cant just walk away from their houses and start again they will be effectively ruined for the rest of their lives with massive debts and rent to pay.

Again. This is not about some people getting cheap property.
We would not be indebting an entire generation, they managed to do a superb job of that by themselves.
They must bear the consequences of the contractual agreements which they entered into. That is how the world as we know it functions.
Socialising poor private investments which resulted in losses, is a massive sway from capitialsim towards socialism. It makes a mockery of prudence and logic under the name of compassion.

pawnacide

pawnacide wrote: »

Yes, depending on location .. what u want to happen?

Kick the current owner out so somebody else can buy it at todays price? What does that solve?

It puts a family out of their home and gives them a level of indebtedness that ensures they will never be able to buy again. There's plenty of houses out there for todays buyers .. why not just buy one of them or wait till they drop further and then buy one. I dont really care which.

But kicking people out of houses just to ensure the next generation can buy below cost houses is not really the answer .. it's opportunism.

What you want is a fix.

Why cant we all have houses and not have to pay the mortgage. I and thousands of others would come back to Ireland if we could all have houses and not pay for them.

The_Conductor

What kicking a family who bought beyond their means out of their home and rehousing them in a more modest dwelling would do- is it would free up the more salubrious property for a family who were prudent during the boom times- and did not overextend themselves- but now find their accommodation unsuitable to their now needs. E.g. a couple may be living in a 2 bed apartment but choose not to move as their income couldn't justify potential shocks at the time- but now have a child (or multiple children) living in the apartment- in unsuitable accommodation- while you have Jack and Jill who bought a mansion on the basis of Jack's income as a brickie........

We accept that market mechanisms are the way we are going to go- or we default on our debts (and someone has to pay) and go the socialist route (which I assure you would also mean Jack and Jill get evicted)..........

Its all well and good dressing up solutions as being the 'socially conscious' way of addressing people who find themselves in levels of debt that they simply cannot support- what people have to accept though- is if we Peter a handout as he's lost his job- then Paul has to accept cuts and higher taxation to pay for the dig out that we gave Peter.

There is no such thing as free money- at the end of the day someone somewhere has to pay. Using the spurious argument- that as we bailed out the banks we should do similar for the little people- is naive gobbledegook. The banks may eventually repay their loans- I use the terms eventually- however Jack is never again going to earn twice as much as a cardiac surgeon in his job as a brickie.........

We need a serious dose of realism here.

The refinements of the personal bankruptcy laws- are overdue and welcome- however its not a get out of jail free card- and you may not be able to borrow in the future- thats life. Yes, its hard, yes, it'll hurt people- but even the most prudent of people are being hurt badly by the profligate habits of their neighbours. The old expression that there is no victimless crime comes to mind- I'm not suggesting that those who borrowed made criminal choices- rather that the prudent person who lived within their means is going to have to pick up the can- regardless of what we do. To rub salt into the wound by simply handing over the keys to a borrower who borrowed beyond their means- is all the more galling- when the prudent person whose needs have changed- is forced to bailout their irresponsible neighbours........

shangri la

pawnacide wrote: »

We're already at a value for money point. What you seem to want is below cost (and I mean current cost) .. am I wrong?

yes, that is what I want.

The cost of building them was overpriced in the first place. Modern builds are largely of a poorer quality than they were 20 years ago and builders were charging inflated price work rates so imo the true value of these houses is below what it cost to build them.