Should people be evicted from houses they cant afford?

space_man

In light of the comments by the Department of Finance's Secretary General John Moran that many people are living in houses and are refusing to pay or are unable to pay the debt o/s, is he correct and should the banks get tougher on them?

Should they not be made to move to a more modest adode?
Will is cost us too much to evict them?
Where does your sympathy lie?

admiralofthefleet

taxpayers bail out the banks

the very same banks then crucify the taxpayers when they cant afford their mortages

Ireland

Richard Hillman

Yes but they should be bumped to the front of the queue for council housing.

COYVB

Banks should be legally obliged to renegotiate mortgage repayments with the people in question

admiralofthefleet

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes but they should be bumped to the front of the queue for council housing.

finish off the ghost estates around the country and give them on a rent to buy scheme

SEPT 23 1989

Taxpayer pays on the double

COYVB

Mr.S wrote: »

if the bank is willing

That shouldn't come into it these days. They should be forced, by law, to renegotiate it given the things that have gone on in the last few years

galwayrush

It will probably cost more to rehouse people in council houses. Wonder who picks up that bill?

Grayson

COYVB wrote: »

Banks should be legally obliged to renegotiate mortgage repayments with the people in question

yep. There are cases of people who have lost jobs etc who are unable to pay. Those guys I feel sorry for.

There are people who just over extended by getting a morgage too high on a house they couldn't really afford, that is now in negative equity. Not really feeling that sorry for those guys.

And then there's people with investment houses. No real sympathy for them at all.

But either way, all groups signed up to a legal agreement. So I think they should still be liable for the amount. the banks should just do their best to insure that they are given a chance to pay it.

FloatingVoter

I'd like a ten bed mansion with a seafront view and a heated indoor swimming pool. Damn, I can't afford it so its not to be. This is called reality.
If someone is in one and they can't afford it what makes them different to me.

Richard Hillman

galwayrush wrote: »

It will probably cost more to rehouse people in council houses. Wonder who picks up that bill?

The houses are already built. If we evicted problem families from estates more often then it would free up houses for people who cant afford their mortgages and it would increase the living standards in a lot of places.

Pilotdude5

Yes. Why should the rest of us pay for peoples houses? Because of their gamble to get on the "property ladder" other peoples lives have been destroyed.

Its not like everyone who bought property in the boom years were living in overcrowded squalor, and so moving to a new house was not a necessity. Just a luxury.

Madam_X

Not if they are paying as much as they can.

Ten-bed mansion with pool bla bla - at least use a realistic analogy. There are people who bought a three-bed modest semi-detached house in non expensive areas and they were in full-time employment and now their hours have been cut. This is likely the most common scenario. What relevance has "mansion" talk to them?

COYVB

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I'd like a ten bed mansion with a seafront view and a heated indoor swimming pool. Damn, I can't afford it so its not to be. This is called reality.
If someone is in one and they can't afford it what makes them different to me.

Perhaps they could afford it before the banks screwed the Irish people over, and now due to the cutbacks and austerity measures that were caused by said bank shenannigans, they're finding themselves unable to afford the repayments? In this case, there should be a fully means tested renegotiation on the mortgage to arrive at a figure they can afford, and one that's revisited again in 5 years. The bank took a calculated risk giving these people mortgages, then (however unintentionally) bent the country over and royally screwed it. They should be forced to suck it up and take a hit for a few years in certain cases.

Not in all however. If someone has 3 homes then any renegotiations should only be available for a single one and they should lose the others if they can't afford them. In fact renegotiations should ONLY be on the table if they agree to cut the others

COYVB

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Why should the rest of us pay for peoples houses?

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

Fr_Dougal

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes but they should be bumped to the front of the queue for council housing.

Why? What makes them more deserving?

Pilotdude5

COYVB wrote: »

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

Yes the banks are definitely at fault too, no doubt about that.

But look at this young fella: (An actor I know, but represents a the youth of 5 years ago.)

Did he need a 100% mortgage just to "have a place he can call his own"? And thus consider himself "successful" while looking down on others who continued to rent?

Zamboni

COYVB wrote: »

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

Why? - Were they forced to sign the contracts and accept the money under duress?

COYVB

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Did he need a 100% mortgage just to "have a place he can call his own"?

He certainly did not, but the banks did their damnedest to make everyone in the country feel like that was the case

Gatling

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes but they should be bumped to the front of the queue for council housing.

So what people who actually couldn't afford a real house ,and didn't play keeping up with the Jones by paying stuiply over inflated prices on a house ,shouldnt be punished by been bumped own the list for peoples Who get evicted for not paying the mortgage ,some people probably can't but there are some holding out for a debt write down or the new insolvency laws ,
They want on the housing list they apply and go to the bottom where everyone else has to go when they apply for housing

COYVB

Zamboni wrote: »

Why? - Were they forced to sign the contracts and accept the money under duress?

See this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83595215&postcount=15

Zamboni

COYVB wrote: »

See this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83595215&postcount=15

I did. It doesn't answer the question.

COYVB

Zamboni wrote: »

I did. It doesn't answer the question.

It does actually. Nobody forced anyone to sign, no more than they forced the banks to offer mortgages. Both sides took a risk, one side crippled the country ensuring that the majority of the country now earns less than they did 5 years ago. That side should be forced to take a temporary hit for their actions and renegotiate mortgages with people who are unable to afford the previously agreed ones because of the other party's actions. It's quite simple. The banks have been supported an astronomical amount by the taxpayer, time for them to return the favour - at least temporarily

Grayson

COYVB wrote: »

Perhaps they could afford it before the banks screwed the Irish people over, and now due to the cutbacks and austerity measures that were caused by said bank shenannigans, they're finding themselves unable to afford the repayments? In this case, there should be a fully means tested renegotiation on the mortgage to arrive at a figure they can afford, and one that's revisited again in 5 years. The bank took a calculated risk giving these people mortgages, then (however unintentionally) bent the country over and royally screwed it. They should be forced to suck it up and take a hit for a few years in certain cases.

Not in all however. If someone has 3 homes then any renegotiations should only be available for a single one and they should lose the others if they can't afford them. In fact renegotiations should ONLY be on the table if they agree to cut the others

I'm actually ok with this. the only thing i don't like seeing (not that you said it) is when i see that government money should be used.

If a renegotiation takes place, and the buyer is still paying back the full amount, I'm ok with that.

Herb Powell

Madam_X wrote: »

Not if they are paying as much as they can.

Ten-bed mansion with pool bla bla - at least use a realistic analogy. There are people who bought a three-bed modest detached house in non expensive areas and they were in full-time employment and now their hours have been cut. What relevance is "mansion" talk here?

People love to talk tough and smug.

I say renegotiate the mortgages. There's so many people in the same boat, it's just silly to evict people on prinicple.

Grayson

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Yes the banks are definitely at fault too, no doubt about that.

But look at this young fella: (An actor I know, but represents a the youth of 5 years ago.)

Did he need a 100% mortgage just to "have a place he can call his own"? And thus consider himself "successful" while looking down on others who continued to rent?

he's unemployed in it too. Shure anyone can get a morgage.

Zamboni

COYVB wrote: »

It does actually. Nobody forced anyone to sign, no more than they forced the banks to offer mortgages. Both sides took a risk, one side crippled the country ensuring that the majority of the country now earns less than they did 5 years ago. That side should be forced to take a temporary hit for their actions and renegotiate mortgages with people who are unable to afford the previously agreed ones because of the other party's actions. It's quite simple. The banks have been supported an astronomical amount by the taxpayer, time for them to return the favour - at least temporarily

But you don't want them to return the favour to the taxpayer - you want them to give it to mortgage holders.
In this great scheme of yours - what about the renting taxpayers - do they get their tax back too?

COYVB

Grayson wrote: »

If a renegotiation takes place, and the buyer is still paying back the full amount, I'm ok with that.

Yup, when I say renegotiation, I'm not saying the value of the mortgage decreases, I'm saying that the monthly payment decreases, but the length increases

smileyj1987

Mr.S wrote: »

Yes.

If you can't afford it then you shouldn't be let live there. (Obviously the option of renegotiating the mortgage should happen first, if the bank is willing).

They should be made renegotiate the mortgage the people of this country bailed them out so they should be helping people who need it now .

COYVB

Zamboni wrote: »

But you don't want them to return the favour to the taxpayer - you want them to give it to mortgage holders.
In this great scheme of yours - what about the renting taxpayers - do they get their tax back too?

You seem to think I'm saying the home owners would have to pay back less money than the agreed sum - I'm not saying that at all. They'd have to pay back exactly what was agreed, but they'd be able to renegotiate monthly payments for extending the duration of the mortgage. Nobody gets anything back, or any reductions, they're just helped to make things manageable instead of making them homeless

Zamboni

COYVB wrote: »

You seem to think I'm saying the home owners would have to pay back less money than the agreed sum - I'm not saying that at all. They'd have to pay back exactly what was agreed, but they'd be able to renegotiate monthly payments for extending the duration of the mortgage. Nobody gets anything back, or any reductions, they're just helped to make things manageable instead of making them homeless

You do know what happens to interest when you extend a term, yes?
You are just kicking the can down the road.