Can somebody explain....

Fulton Crown

OK we have couple A Nigel and Emma - both in good jobs - University Education - go getters - want to be "successful".

Couple B Peadar and Bridie both in reasonable jobs - want to do the best they can - but not risk takers.

Nigel and Emma set their hearts on a good 5 bed detached in a nice part of the city with good infra structure etc...they take out the biggest mortgage they can afford and other loans to furnish their pad to a high standard.

They change their exec cars every two years.

Peadar and Bridie go for a nice 3 bed semi in an OK part of the city and take out a mortgage which they feel they can comfortable afford.
They furnish the house modestly keeping within their means and both drive modest functional second hand cars.

Nigel and Emma find the going tough in the recession...what with the kids in private schooling..golf club .....gym fees etc and are struggling to pay their mortgage.

Peadar and Bridie use the local community schools and continue their modest lifestyle which enables them to cope with the recession and with some difficulty make ends meet.

Nigel and Emma look for a write off on their mortgage as they cannot meet their committments...using an agreed formula they know they may get a write off of circa 300K ...and enable them to continue living in their comfortable 5 bed dee.

Peadar and Bridie are meeting all their committments with some ease so a write off is not an issue for them.

Under a deal agreed with "Europe" Nig and Em get the write off and their mortgage is now affordable.

Should Paedar and Bridie feel agrieved...or have I missed something ......?

howamidifferent

As I understand it, Nig and Em may get a write off but only after selling the 5 bed detached and are now bankrupt. Now they have to rent...;)

Scofflaw

Also, Peadar and Bridie, to be honest, are more likely to own 6 properties, three of them in Bridie's mother's field, and to be deeply underwater.

Or, to put it another way, your caricatures are caricatures.

amused,
Scofflaw

nuac

Dont agree with you Scofflaw - know people at both extremes of the samples quoted. Expensive lifestyles were the order of the day.

When the tiger was roaring I was nearly ashamed to admit that I had never brought my children skiing -thought I would be reported to the child cruelty man - not so much talk of that nowadays.

If you live in a relatively small community no need to have an expensive car jujst to impress people - that is what I tell the family anyway

Scofflaw

nuac wrote: »

Dont agree with you Scofflaw - know people at both extremes of the samples quoted. Expensive lifestyles were the order of the day.

When the tiger was roaring I was nearly ashamed to admit that I had never brought my children skiing -thought I would be reported to the child cruelty man - not so much talk of that nowadays.

If you live in a relatively small community no need to have an expensive car jujst to impress people - that is what I tell the family anyway

Sure - but then I know people who are university-educated, go-getters, business owners, and who could see the bubble for what it is, while there are a lot of Peadar and Bridies who were sucked into it.

Indeed, that's really what made it such a bubble - the sucking in of people who weren't risk-takers, who thought they were onto a sure thing, or who were afraid that if they didn't get onto the property ladder now they never would. So, while I'd have no hesitation agreeing that during the Tiger the materialism you refer to was very much the order of the day, that's the point - it was the order of the day, it wasn't down to a couple of unIrish Blackrock types. It was Paddy and Bridie - that was the problem.

And what about Mary the accountant, who leveraged her terraced house in Drumcondra to buy a few more properties to rent? Or Joe the farmer's son, who inherited "a bit of land" outside Carlow town, and "built a few boxes on it"? Or Conor, who went straight from school into construction, and with the mad wages he was getting bought one of the houses he was helping build off plans?

More to the point, to characterise those who are now in negative equity or in difficulty with their mortgages as the OP has done is pure polemic - "Nigel and Emma" (not Irish names) have "a pad" (ooh, so trendy!), send their kids to private school (stuck up snobs), play golf (self-indulgent snobs, at that), etc etc, while Peadar and Bridie (good Irish names) are just absolutely lovely and authentic and Irish in every way.

It's an attempt to push the reader into agreeing that mortgage writeoffs are a BAD THING because they'll take money from authentic and sensible Irish people - like you the reader, obviously, since who would accept themselves in the caricatures of Nigel and Emma? - and give it to those sneery D4 caricatures everyone's allowed to hate. And we don't want that, right?

As it happens, I am opposed to mortgage writedowns, or at least general solutions that impose a higher cost on taxpayers, and I would be one of those who didn't buy during the bubble because I could see it was a bubble - but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with someone framing their argument through dishonest polemical use of stereotypes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC

Always good to expose manipulative writing. If more people could see through it the tabloids would be going broke.

Fulton Crown

Sure - but then I know people who are university-educated, go-getters, business owners, and who could see the bubble for what it is, while there are a lot of Peadar and Bridies who were sucked into it.

Sure! Your hardly telling us something new here my smart friend.

Indeed, that's really what made it such a bubble - the sucking in of people who weren't risk-takers, who thought they were onto a sure thing, or who were afraid that if they didn't get onto the property ladder now they never would. So, while I'd have no hesitation agreeing that during the Tiger the materialism you refer to was very much the order of the day, that's the point - it was the order of the day, it wasn't down to a couple of unIrish Blackrock types. It was Paddy and Bridie - that was the problem

.

UnIrish ? Blackrock types ? Cannot see where in my post it says or implies that.

And what about Mary the accountant, who leveraged her terraced house in Drumcondra to buy a few more properties to rent? Or Joe the farmer's son, who inherited "a bit of land" outside Carlow town, and "built a few boxes on it"? Or Conor, who went straight from school into construction, and with the mad wages he was getting bought one of the houses he was helping build off plans?

What about them ? What is you point here poster ?

More to the point, to characterise those who are now in negative equity or in difficulty with their mortgages as the OP has done is pure polemic - "Nigel and Emma" (not Irish names) have "a pad" (ooh, so trendy!), send their kids to private school (stuck up snobs), play golf (self-indulgent snobs, at that), etc etc, while Peadar and Bridie (good Irish names) are just absolutely lovely and authentic and Irish in every way.

Not my intention poster...slight exageration perhaps....but mainly to just to make for easier reading

It's an attempt to push the reader into agreeing that mortgage writeoffs are a BAD THING because they'll take money from authentic and sensible Irish people - like you the reader, obviously, since who would accept themselves in the caricatures of Nigel and Emma? - and give it to those sneery D4 caricatures everyone's allowed to hate. And we don't want that, right?

No ! I was just making the point that If Nigel and Emms got a write down and could keep their house it is hardly fair to the Peadars and Bridies. ?

As it happens, I am opposed to mortgage writedowns, or at least general solutions that impose a higher cost on taxpayers, and I would be one of those who didn't buy during the bubble because I could see it was a bubble - but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with someone framing their argument through dishonest polemical use of stereotypes

.

Little bit harsh my"cordial" friend..this not a freekin court affadavit...it's a genuine atempt to get other posters views on a matter that has been puzzling me .

Chill out pal and loosen a few buttons.....

Cordially - E Fulton Crown

woodoo

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Should Paedar and Bridie feel agrieved...or have I missed something ......?

The government may try and make sure the Nigel and Emma's of this world don't end up gaining by drowning themselves in debt. But i think they will fail. There will be plenty who scam and gain from debt forgiveness if it goes ahead.

I would be a little worried about the property tax. If they decide to exempt people in arrears then why would Nigel and Emma bother staying out of arrears.

Fulton Crown

woodoo wrote: »

.

There will be plenty who scam and gain from debt forgiveness if it goes ahead.

Yes I would agree..they always say that the percentage of scammers and cheaters is minimal....I believe that though the overall percentage is low the amounts in question are quite substantial

I would be a little worried about the property tax. If they decide to exempt people in arrears then why would Nigel and Emma bother staying out of arrears

.

I think the question of exemptions was around negative equity rather than arrears.

For my part I will be saying to Hogan..look pal I paid my Household tax ...I now EXPECT you to pursue alll those who don't as vigourously as tha law allows...particularly the hidg profile "protestors" who are in receipt of large wedges from John Q taxpayer.

Yes Hogan....vigourously !

djpbarry

Fulton Crown wrote: »

UnIrish ? Blackrock types ? Cannot see where in my post it says or implies that.

The stationary holder on my desk can see where you implied that.

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Yes I would agree..they always say that the percentage of scammers and cheaters is minimal....I believe that though the overall percentage is low the amounts in question are quite substantial

Which ties in with the theme of your OP – you’re espousing the popular myth that frivolous, wealthy individuals are living the high life at the expense of frugal, hard-working, ordinary folk.

The Corinthian

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Yes I would agree..they always say that the percentage of scammers and cheaters is minimal....I believe that though the overall percentage is low the amounts in question are quite substantial

Well apparently those looking to play the poor mouth are not such a small number:

Mr Deeter said the lowest estimate Irish Mortgage Brokers had suggested was that around 12 per cent of the total arrears were held by people who could afford to make repayments but had chosen not to in the hope of being the beneficiaries of some class of debt forgiveness.

...

The lowest number suggests that 12 per cent of mortgages which are in arrears don’t need to be. But the highest percentage that we’ve heard is that some collectors believe as many as one in four dont need to be in arrears.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0403/1224314298615.html

creedp

djpbarry wrote: »

The stationary holder on my desk can see where you implied that.
Which ties in with the theme of your OP – you’re espousing the popular myth that frivolous, wealthy individuals are living the high life at the expense of frugal, hard-working, ordinary folk.

Well it make a change from over-paid PS with fantastic pensions are living the high life at the expense of frugal, hard-working, ordinary private sector workers.

I agree there is an element of steroetyping going on here but I think there is a danger if we keep going on about mortgage relief the proportion of mortgages going into arrears wil continue to rise. This will be fundamentally unfair on the majority of taxpayers that continue to pay
their way often with sacrifaces. It was bad enough that the bloody developers got away with it but 2 wrongs do not make a right!

Galwayguy35

frivolous, wealthy individuals are living the high life at the expense of frugal, hard-working, ordinary folk.[/QUOTE]

Yup, sounds about right to me.

The Corinthian

The strategy of foregoing mortgage payments in the hope of being bailed out by some future forgiveness programme almost transcends social and economic lines, which is why the original, emotive, example was so inaccurate.

You may well be "frugal, hard-working, ordinary folk" but given that there is a possibility that you might get off the hook for a good chunk of your debt, it's still going to be worth your while to play the poor mouth.

Only if and when such a forgiveness programme is announced and described or finally dismissed is this situation going to be resolved as many will not qualify, others may choose that the terms are not what they hoped for and so they'll finally bite the bullet and start repayments once more because there's not going to be any other white knight on the horizon to bail them out. As it's politically unattractive decision to make (it loses votes no matter what), I expect it'll be fudged as long as possible in the vain hope that things get better and it isn't needed any more.

It's pure anti-social self interest - being the cute hoor - and we should not be surprised if a significant number of people are playing this game, regardless of their background or stereotyped demographic.

djpbarry

creedp wrote: »

I agree there is an element of steroetyping going on here but I think there is a danger if we keep going on about mortgage relief the proportion of mortgages going into arrears wil continue to rise.

I'm not disagreeing with that - mortgage forgiveness is a very bad idea.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yup, sounds about right to me.

Because it's a lovely, convenient little scenario that absolves "ordinary folk" of all responsibility? Sure doesn't everyone love an aul' scapegoat?