Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Repossessions
Options
Comments
-
the bank they owe money to pays interest on the money they lent out.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.
if the house owner does not pay their mortgage the taxpayer will have to.
you say to work with the families... What exactly do you mean by that?0 -
You missed the point there, Pawnicide specified current build cost.shangri la wrote: »
yes, that is what I want.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?
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.
If you are looking to buy below current build cost, good luck. Labour is good value now, materials very costly.
If you find something below current build cost, it's a bargain.0 -
Thats an interesting point. To put it in context what would it cost to build a house today that you have knowledge of?0
-
Thats an interesting point. To put it in context what would it cost to build a house today that you have knowledge of excluding the cost of the site?0
-
The general figure seems to be €100 per sq ft. Of course it could be more, could be less depending on level of finish required.shangri la wrote: »Thats an interesting point. To put it in context what would it cost to build a house today that you have knowledge of excluding the cost of the site?0 -
Advertisement
-
smccarrick wrote: »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........
There's a lot of assumptions here, firstly that Paul or Jack or whoever lives in a salubrious mansion and not a bog standard 1000 sq ft 3 bed semi. I have never seen a breakdown of mortgage arrears based on house prices but if anyone has I would love to have a look. Secondly that your responsible couple are in fact prudent and not just lucky that they didn't want a house 5/6 years ago. Nobody talking about a get of jail free card, least of all me, but Banks need to work with people .. just as likely that the majority will eventually repay their mortgage as Irish banks will repay their loans without further bailouts. I find it kinda sad and probably a sign of the rise of the new Irish capitalist tiger cub mentality that you can so easily dismiss the notion that Government should do something to help individuals as well as the larger financial interests. Yeats was right .. we truly have become a nation of 'shopkeepers' 'Fumbling in the greasy till, adding the halfpence to the pence'. Best O'Luck with that.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30613
Not so. We have brought forward personal bankruptcy legislation (that should have been implemented years ago) to allow people walk away from unreasonable debts that they have no hope of ever repaying. Matthew Elderfield's piece at the weekend- where he suggests the time to allow the new legislation bed down- is more a sign of where we are at.
The fact of the matter is- brick layers were earning considerably more than cardiac surgeons. Boys (in particular) were leaving school in their droves to enter the building trade- many at 16- without a leaving cert. This is why the current unemployment problem is far disproportionately affecting men rather than women.
More emphasis needs to be put on offering these now unemployed people a meaningful education and/or training that offers them a realistic chance of employment in a sustainable industry going forward- than platitudes about giving those who over borrowed a dig out. Does this make me the shopkeeper with his hand in the greasy till that you're quoting? I don't think so. We can become a nanny state- and embrace all that entails- but to be honest- we've been down that road many times in our history- but for the safety valve of emigration- god only knows what would have happened.
A breakdown on borrowings- alongside possible repayment capacities- for the various categories of borrowers- would be very telling- however I very much doubt we'll ever be given that information.
We now have legislation in place to offer people a realistic alternative- which in the current climate- is as good as it is going to get. How many people decide to throw in the towel and declare themselves bankrupt? I don't know. Its not as onerous a position to put ones self in, as it was up until very recently.0 -
I just find it strange and a bit sad that solutions are forthcoming for financial institutions and those with a vested interest in them while individuals are left swinging in the wind. Even Governments, including our own, are re-negotiating the terms of their debt and still so many voices are against banks engaging with clients in arrears. I for one am glad the 'shopkeepers' aren't in control ..yet. Although Enda Kenny does have a corner shop look about him.0
-
Pawn, you still haven't explained what you mean by working with mortgage holders.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 30613
Just in case they're unaware- there are 3 separate processes outlined in the bill- whereby borrowers have different mechanisms for dealing with their loans (the third option being the reformed personal bankruptcy procedures- however the first two envisage people sitting down with their borrowers and having their loans restructured, and in some cases, portions of them written off etc. It is not obligatory on the part of lenders to accede to a Part 1 or Part 2 restructuring proposal- they have no say whatsoever in bankruptcy proceedings however.0 -
Advertisement
-
shangri la wrote: »Pawn, you still haven't explained what you mean by working with mortgage holders.
I'm quite content with the current procedures and line being taken by Government and the Irish banks, It's the dissenters here that I'm arguing with. Those who insist that free market principles be applied and any stay in that process is causing a false property market to the detriment of whatever it is they call society.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30613
Market economics- and the betterment of society- are seldom walking hand-in-hand. The betterment of society- while a laudable aim, if taken as the predominant force in devising policies for dealing with situations (in this instance- the property market and the lack of lending)- is a moniker for a socialist utopian dream. Market economics are not just financial in nature- there are other costs and benefits accruing. Recapitalisation of the Irish banking sector was intended to inject liquidity into the system- alongside providing a cushion against realised and future loses. We had net outflows of approaching 60 billion before the recapitalisation programme was sold (to the markets). Why would an international investor leave their money in Ireland- if there is no indication that the government is willing to put its hand where its mouth is? We have an over-reliance on international investors in Ireland- alongside a lack of innovation and entrepreneurial endeavour. This is a road we designed for ourselves- and one with many benefits- but also with unintended consequences.
We now are in a situation of incredibly limited resources and have to focus on where to apply these limited resources. My argument is that programmes specifically targetting those who left school early to enter the building trade- and equipping them with skills and qualifications that give them a sustainable future- are more important than bailing out those who over-extended themselves. If resources were not limited (and they are)- I still think there should be some measure of self responsibility to recognise the risks that people took on when they overborrowed- however, I do agree that the banks, the media, the government- and society in general- all acted as encouragement to people to borrow as much as possible. That people didn't have the intelligence to sit down and work out what effects a shock in the system would have on their finances- is the shortcoming of that person though..........
We have a mess. We do not have the means to bailout borrowers. That is the stark assessment.0 -
smccarrick wrote: »Market economics- and the betterment of society- are seldom walking hand-in-hand. The betterment of society- while a laudable aim, if taken as the predominant force in devising policies for dealing with situations (in this instance- the property market and the lack of lending)- is a moniker for a socialist utopian dream. Market economics are not just financial in nature- there are other costs and benefits accruing. Recapitalisation of the Irish banking sector was intended to inject liquidity into the system- alongside providing a cushion against realised and future loses. We had net outflows of approaching 60 billion before the recapitalisation programme was sold (to the markets). Why would an international investor leave their money in Ireland- if there is no indication that the government is willing to put its hand where its mouth is? We have an over-reliance on international investors in Ireland- alongside a lack of innovation and entrepreneurial endeavour. This is a road we designed for ourselves- and one with many benefits- but also with unintended consequences.
We now are in a situation of incredibly limited resources and have to focus on where to apply these limited resources. My argument is that programmes specifically targetting those who left school early to enter the building trade- and equipping them with skills and qualifications that give them a sustainable future- are more important than bailing out those who over-extended themselves. If resources were not limited (and they are)- I still think there should be some measure of self responsibility to recognise the risks that people took on when they overborrowed- however, I do agree that the banks, the media, the government- and society in general- all acted as encouragement to people to borrow as much as possible. That people didn't have the intelligence to sit down and work out what effects a shock in the system would have on their finances- is the shortcoming of that person though..........
We have a mess. We do not have the means to bailout borrowers. That is the stark assessment.
Market economics are what we and our public representitives say they are. There seems to be this notion floating around that we are powerless in the face of this unseen onslaught from the 'markets'. It is deregulation of these markets that lead us and the world down this path and yet regulation is fought tooth and nail. I would hardly call the imposition of regulations on the financial markets a socialist utopian dream. However I would call the international sale of derivatives, knowingly, largely made up of subprime lending criminal .
In relation to our national debts, our bonds and banks debts were most likely sold and re-sold again and again by their holders between the start of this mess and final payment day. I'll bet the final holders of these bonds and bank debt couldn't believe their luck the night the morons guaranteed them. I can see the virtue of paying the national debt but bank debt in full without even trying to negotiate some write down ? ..oh please.
I completely agree that we concentrate our resources where they will do the most good in the medium and long term and it is short term thinking that got us in the mess that we're in today .. but I have yet to hear how mass house repossessions will be of any use whatsoever.
Bank repossesses house bought for 500k and sells it for 250k .. how does that help anyone, including the bank .. If you were to be completely pragmatic about it, it would actually make more sense to actually reduce the mortgage to 250k assuming the owners can meet those new repayments.0 -
Bank repossesses house bought for 500k and sells it for 250k .. how does that help anyone, including the bank .. If you were to be completely pragmatic about it, it would actually make more sense to actually reduce the mortgage to 250k assuming the owners can meet those new repayments.
I went to Cheltenham last week with 500k in borrowings.
I lost 250k. In your fantastic world will the bank reduce the amount I owe them too? I can meet repayments on 250k.0 -
I went to Cheltenham last week with 500k in borrowings.
I lost 250k. In your fantastic world will the bank reduce the amount I owe them too? I can meet repayments on 250k.
I didn't say that this will or should happen but we are at our core a consumer society, as a former exec at RTE once said to a friend while pointing at the main RTE building "All this is about selling soap powder" and that was in the 70's. Forget about socialist utopian dreams, as a consumer society we must have the power to consume and the transfer of that power from one individual to another is of no benefit to society as a whole.
And btw this is exactly what they did in relation to the bank debt so maybe the utopian ideal isn't that out of the question.0 -
I didn't say that this will or should happen but we are at our core a consumer society, as a former exec at RTE once said to a friend while pointing at the main RTE building "All this is about selling soap powder" and that was in the 70's. Forget about socialist utopian dreams, as a consumer society we must have the power to consume and the transfer of that power from one individual to another is of no benefit to society as a whole.
And btw this is exactly what they did in relation to the bank debt so maybe the utopian ideal isn't that out of the question.
You talk in a lot of meaningless hyperbole. A lot.0 -
Market economics are what we and our public representitives say they are. There seems to be this notion floating around that we are powerless in the face of this unseen onslaught from the 'markets'. It is deregulation of these markets that lead us and the world down this path and yet regulation is fought tooth and nail. I would hardly call the imposition of regulations on the financial markets a socialist utopian dream. However I would call the international sale of derivatives, knowingly, largely made up of subprime lending criminal .
In relation to our national debts, our bonds and banks debts were most likely sold and re-sold again and again by their holders between the start of this mess and final payment day. I'll bet the final holders of these bonds and bank debt couldn't believe their luck the night the morons guaranteed them. I can see the virtue of paying the national debt but bank debt in full without even trying to negotiate some write down ? ..oh please.
I completely agree that we concentrate our resources where they will do the most good in the medium and long term and it is short term thinking that got us in the mess that we're in today .. but I have yet to hear how mass house repossessions will be of any use whatsoever.
Bank repossesses house bought for 500k and sells it for 250k .. how does that help anyone, including the bank .. If you were to be completely pragmatic about it, it would actually make more sense to actually reduce the mortgage to 250k assuming the owners can meet those new repayments.
:rolleyes:
Holy Jaysus!...Of course you would say that.
How about this...
I consider my Lexus Jeep I bought a few years ago my pride and joy, I treat it like a house. It cost me 70,000 I got a huge loan for it as its all I ever wanted. Nobody told me that a recession would hit us and the banks never warned me, its a 4 liter and my road tax has gone up & insurance has gone up too, the value of the car is now under 20,000 ive lost upwards of 50,000. I really think the bank should just write this off as no one warned me the car market would crash and road tax would go up on my big 4 ltr dream car. I want to keep this car but no way am I paying for it anymore as I cant afford the repayments and tax and insurance anymore.
I really think the tax payers who cycled to work or drive there mums car while saving up there own hard worked money for a day when they could afford the car of there dreams should cough up and pay for my big car so I can keep on driving around in it.0 -
You talk in a lot of meaningless hyperbole. A lot.
and you pick snippets from posts and attach your own meanings to them. We all have our failings, not always necessary to point them out though. As for hyperbole in my previous post i don't see it. Your entire argument seems to me to be based on the idea that houses should be repossessed coz thats the way the world works. So change the way the world works. The current economic systems are the result of centuries of economic, ethical and philosophical debate and not some incontravenable universal truth. In fact it would not require a sea change in economic thinking, businesses write down and re-negotiate debt day in day out and continue to do business with the same people. In fact I would go so far as to say the Banks themselves would probabbly prefer to reduce debt for individual mortgage holders than repossess & resell houses as it woud be cheaper .. but the societal outcry and implications for the future will prevent them from doing so. My naivity has some bound and I would like to point out again that I am quite happy with the current systems of engagement by the banks.0 -
Spiritofthekop wrote: »:rolleyes:
Holy Jaysus!...Of course you would say that.
How about this...
I consider my Lexus Jeep I bought a few years ago my pride and joy, I treat it like a house. It cost me 70,000 I got a huge loan for it as its all I ever wanted. Nobody told me that a recession would hit us and the banks never warned me, its a 4 liter and my road tax has gone up & insurance has gone up too, the value of the car is now under 20,000 ive lost upwards of 50,000. I really think the bank should just write this off as no one warned me the car market would crash and road tax would go up on my big 4 ltr dream car. I want to keep this car but no way am I paying for it anymore as I cant afford the repayments and tax and insurance anymore.
I really think the tax payers who cycled to work or drive there mums car while saving up there own hard worked money for a day when they could afford the car of there dreams should cough up and pay for my big car so I can keep on driving around in it.
ok, so please explain how reposessing and reselling a house helps either the bank or society .. apart from teaching those bad bad people who bought houses from oh lets say 2002 to 2007 a badly needed lesson. Look I know it's not going to happen but it would be the pragmatic approach. Again I'll point out what I said in a previous post .. most arguments I hear against it seem to have examples similar to you're own involving high end Lexus and trips to Cheltenham. I can only assume this implies that you believe the majority of those in arrears are living in 'salubrious' mansions and the houses of their dreams .. I seriously doubt this is the case. The majority of houses I see coming on the market at auctions and daft labeled bank sales are bog standard apartments and 3 bed semis. Hardly the stuff of dreams.0 -
Spiritofthekop wrote: »:rolleyes:
Holy Jaysus!...Of course you would say that.
How about this...
I consider my Lexus Jeep I bought a few years ago my pride and joy, I treat it like a house. It cost me 70,000 I got a huge loan for it as its all I ever wanted. Nobody told me that a recession would hit us and the banks never warned me, its a 4 liter and my road tax has gone up & insurance has gone up too, the value of the car is now under 20,000 ive lost upwards of 50,000. I really think the bank should just write this off as no one warned me the car market would crash and road tax would go up on my big 4 ltr dream car. I want to keep this car but no way am I paying for it anymore as I cant afford the repayments and tax and insurance anymore.
I really think the tax payers who cycled to work or drive there mums car while saving up there own hard worked money for a day when they could afford the car of there dreams should cough up and pay for my big car so I can keep on driving around in it.
I don't agree with your Lexus analogy. I do agree with Pawnicide and whatever people may feel about mortgage debt writeoff - it is happening.
Your lexus tanked in value as soon as you left the forecourt. It was always expensive to run, now it's more expensive.
Would you sell your house to keep it running? Because people are selling their cars to repay their mortgages, mortgages that are becoming more and more difficult to repay.
I disagree with pawnicide in the delay and pray tactics the banks are taking - this kicking the mortgage problem down the road, as if by some miracle we're going to have massive job creation or massive house price rises - it won't happen.
If people are in serious trouble, then they should be helped back on their feet - not dug further into the ground.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't agree with your Lexus analogy. I do agree with Pawnicide and whatever people may feel about mortgage debt writeoff - it is happening.
Your lexus tanked in value as soon as you left the forecourt. It was always expensive to run, now it's more expensive.
Would you sell your house to keep it running? Because people are selling their cars to repay their mortgages, mortgages that are becoming more and more difficult to repay.
I disagree with pawnicide in the delay and pray tactics the banks are taking - this kicking the mortgage problem down the road, as if by some miracle we're going to have massive job creation or massive house price rises - it won't happen.
If people are in serious trouble, then they should be helped back on their feet - not dug further into the ground.
I really think that writing off debts and letting people keep the asset is setting a really bad example for future generations.
If people know its possible they will ALWAYS find ways and holes to manipulate loans & debt just so they can keep the asset and write it off.... if this was to happen.
And you know they will.0 -
Spiritofthekop wrote: »I really think that writing off debts and letting people keep the asset is setting a really bad example for the future.
But look at the alternatives. The bank repossess the house, sells it for 250k and chases the homeowner for the balance. The homeowner is now homeless, can't afford to rent and is now claiming Rent Supplement.
2) Homeowner goes bankrupt, bank loses 250k straight away, now has to sell home - sells it *maybe* for 250k at a higher rate of interest to coer the loss.
Homeowner walks away and rents.
If this happens (and I believe this is what Elderfield fears) in large numbers then the banks are in bigger trouble, which will mean more money from the taxpayer.Spiritofthekop wrote: »If people know its possible they will ALWAYS find ways and holes to manipulate loans & debt just so they can keep the asset and write it off if this was to happen.
And you know they will.
Ok, there will always be those people,just like there were the greedy in this situation. But I wouldn't tar everyone with the same brush. I believe that if the BANKS wrote down mortgage debt for those in serious trouble, who have no hope of repaying it then ths would ultimately save the taxpayer.
Of course there would be conditions applied - you can't sell your home. A lien on the property of some kind (not for the full amount but a partial payment). It goes on your credit record.
But forcing people into bankruptcy when they maybe can pay the mortgage on what the house is worth now - is a crazy situation in my opinion.
I don't think making one mistake should be punishable by a lifetime sentence.0 -
-
Great, so is it free houses for everyone then? I cant afford a house either!
Where do I apply for mine.
Did you get that translation on Google or make it up all by yourself?
By the way I said Write-Down
And just for you I am posting the definition - when you find the word FREE let me know.
"Definition of 'Write-Down'
Reducing the book value of an asset because it is overvalued compared to the market value. A write-down typically occurs on a company's financial statement, when the carrying value of the asset can no longer be justified as fair value and the likelihood of receiving the cost (book value) is questionable at best.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/writedown.asp#ixzz1qPUfyB5R"0 -
Moral hazard illustration
Couple A
Admin €35,000
Labourer €60,000
Combined Earning €95,000
House purchase in 2006 €600,000
Now
Admin €32,000
Unemployed €9,776
Combined Income €43,776
House Value €300,000 and mortgage repayments not being met.
Couple B
Admin €35,000
Admin €35,000
Rent €1,000 per month on house value €450,000
Now
Admin €32,000
Admin €34,000
Combined Income €66,000
Rent €880 per month on house value €225,000
I accept its rough math but bear with me.
Couple B who have greater combined earnings now than couple A and pay more in taxes, have worse accomodation than Couple A.
Any write down of debt for couple A punishes couple B.
You can nitpick about the numbers if you wish but either way the repossession moratorium is punishment for people who rented.0 -
Folks, I've had a complaint. Can people remain civil to each other?
It is just as well the person removed the insult before I got here.0 -
Moral hazard illustration
Couple A
Admin €35,000
Labourer €60,000
Combined Earning €95,000
House purchase in 2006 €600,000
Now
Admin €32,000
Unemployed €9,776
Combined Income €43,776
House Value €300,000 and mortgage repayments not being met.
I want to draw you out on that:
When they earned 95k they had a gross monthly income of almost 8k per month, now they have a gross monthly income of 3,648pm. They pay 2,370 which leaves them with 1,278pm. Now, unless the unemplyed person gets a similiar job with a similiar wage then this is a hopeless case.
It isn't about moral hazzard - when this couple bought their home they could afford it.
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/amortization-calculator.aspxCouple B
Admin €35,000
Admin €35,000
Rent €1,000 per month on house value €450,000
Now
Admin €32,000
Admin €34,000
Combined Income €66,000
Rent €880 per month on house value €225,000
Rough figure I know. They have taken a pay cut, or pay more taxes - without any debt writedown and their rent has reduced?I accept its rough math but bear with me.
Couple B who have greater combined earnings now than couple A and pay more in taxes, have worse accomodation than Couple A.
Any write down of debt for couple A punishes couple B.
How do couple B have worse accomadation?
Plus, they always have the freedom to move and far from Couple A punishing coule B - It's couple B who will benefit when they are able to buy a cheaper house.You can nitpick about the numbers if you wish but either way the repossession moratorium is punishment for people who rented.
No, the refusal of the government to force the banks to deal with unsustainable mortgages is what is stalling the market. Debt write down is not an alien concept - it is common and normal in other countries.0 -
Moral hazard illustration
Any write down of debt for couple A punishes couple B.
You can nitpick about the numbers if you wish but either way the repossession moratorium is punishment for people who rented.
Apart from the numbers which I realise are only for illustrative purposes the concept of 'moral hazard' only comes into play when one of the parties either knowingly misleads the other or they may not do all in their power to live up to their side of the contract. Banks are not that free and easy in their negotiations with those in arrears and are well practiced at ensuring they are getting the max. I fail to see how you can consider this a 'punishment' for couple B .. in the example above .. maybe it may seem unfair .. but as you said yourself the figures aren't really indicative of the what's actually happening.
In your example couple A, if house is repossed, now have a personal loan of 300,000, and must now rent a home. They are completely f****d. Labourer can go to college, retrain till the cows come home but they'll never get out from under their cloud of debt .. I believe the societal, moral and economic benefits of leaving couple A in their home outweigh the percieved 'moral hazard' of the outraged couple B.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Moral hazard illustration
Couple A
Admin €35,000
Labourer €60,000
Combined Earning €95,000
House purchase in 2006 €600,000
Now
Admin €32,000
Unemployed €9,776
Combined Income €43,776
House Value €300,000 and mortgage repayments not being met.
Couple B
Admin €35,000
Admin €35,000
Rent €1,000 per month on house value €450,000
Now
Admin €32,000
Admin €34,000
Combined Income €66,000
Rent €880 per month on house value €225,000
I accept its rough math but bear with me.
Couple B who have greater combined earnings now than couple A and pay more in taxes, have worse accomodation than Couple A.
Any write down of debt for couple A punishes couple B.
You can nitpick about the numbers if you wish but either way the repossession moratorium is punishment for people who rented.
But some people just cant see it Zamboni....very well put by the way.
Its like the renters who saved for a day when they could afford something always come last in every situation with the media. Its like they dont matter...
while...
The investors, auctioneers & first time buyers, landlords always have this attitude that they deserve first dibs on everything and the people who stayed out of it all but saved & want in now dont get any say in it.
Its like they are saying well property has fallen a lot from a false peak so you should be happy.... so sh-t up looking for real value, the property market is still vastly over- priced in most situations!
The renters who saved for a better day out there get no exposure or any help from the powers that be.0
Advertisement