Mad_maxx wrote: » in many ways we are a nation made up entirely of children , nations made up of adults understand that if you stop paying your mortgage , you loose your home as for " an anti David Hall " there is one , his name is Brendan Burgess , unfortunately he is an incredibly unlikeable , contrary and borderline obnoxious individual , dont get me wrong , he is 100% correct on mortgage defaulters and David Hall is a pure charlatan of the highest order but you need someone with an ounce of likability and Burgess doesnt even have that
Wanderer78 wrote: » .....................
schmittel wrote: » Hundreds is tiny, meaningless in the context of the number in default.
PropQueries wrote: » It may have something to do with so many groups who get bailed-out through the back door. If I can’t afford to pay my mortgage I can easily throw at the government that don’t they borrow to help farmers, keep pre-2011 public sector salary and pensions at boom time levels, didn’t you borrow to bail out the banks etc. etc. etc. While it’s not the thing to say, the only group who actually pay up front for their “bailout” are many of the unemployed through their PRSI etc.
DataDude wrote: » This one summed it up for me:https://eddempsey.ie/Residential-Property/Woodley-52-Foster-s-Avenue-Mount-Merrion-Co-Dublin/113 Fine family home in a prime location. Falling to pieces with the last mortgage repayment made in October 2014, coming to market in 2021 (assume a lengthy battle was required). The strangest thing in Ireland is, you could easily have someone like Richard Boyd Barrett outside this house campaigning on behalf of the "poor home owners". Ireland is an odd country when it comes to housing.https://www.thejournal.ie/fosters-avenue-repossession-3013593-Oct2016/
Wanderer78 wrote: » ...and we need a functioning property market in order to do that, this is a merry-go-round
awec wrote: » Yes, but I was just saying that it does happen. It's a difficult conundrum, because anyone repossessed is likely going to be relying on the state to house them. And we all know what that means.
timmyntc wrote: » If repossessions were easy then we would not have a dysfunctional property market. As I've said before, the major dysfunction is the inability to repossess. There is nothing else stopping repossessions from being allowed - its purely a govt decision to legislate for it. I have no idea what you mean by we need a functioning property market to allow repossessions - the lack of repossessions IS the dysfunction!
DataDude wrote: » I've never really understood the sentiment that repossessing someone's house is so horrendous. What are you condemning them to? Renting? Like what many/most young families are forced to do these days? Just seems strange to so aggressively defend the "right to the family home"...once you have a family home...if you don't...then good luck to you... People completely ignore that by affording additional protections/rights to those with something, you automatically disadvantage the people without that thing..
schmittel wrote: » I actually think this is a myth - that everybody who faces repossession will require state housing. The can but wont pay cohort are significant. And even if it is was true. Repossessions need to happen anyway to kick start the musical chairs I have been banging on about. eg there are those in serious arrears in 4 bed houses but would only qualify for a two bed house from the state. Repossess the four bed and if they need assistance for a two bed, then that will be provided for them. There is no shortage of support available in this country to those who need it. We should not be giving people a pass on their mortgage as well.
Mad_maxx wrote: » did you mean to quote someone else perhaps ?
schmittel wrote: » I remember Burgess made an attempt a few years ago to highlight the issue, and he just ended up in a shouting match with Hall. I agree Burgess is not exactly easy to warm to, but he's nothing like as obnoxious as Hall.
Wanderer78 wrote: » again, we re stuck in a highly dysfunctional cycle in both markets, neither can be resolved as is, something dramatic needs to change in order to break this cycle. allowing major sectors, in particular the fire sectors(finance, insurance and real estate) to resolve these issues, primarily since 08, has failed, we need to accept this before moving forward, but we re not ready for that just yet
timmyntc wrote: » This is a load of waffle. You've said nothing of value there.The govt can fix the repossession issue - it is solely up to them to reform the process to allow evictions & repossessions. It can be resolved, the political will isnt there however. As for house prices, that is a separate issue that has no bearing on repossession/mortgage rates issue.
Wanderer78 wrote: » ...and if this was done, there would be rapid rise in homelessness, this is currently unresolvable, unless radical changes are implemented, i personally would go with a public banking system, but that to would be problematic
awec wrote: » Yea that's a fair point. I'd definitely differentiate between the absolute chancers who haven't paid a cent in years, and those who have fallen behind but are trying their best and do have a reasonable chance of catching up again. I would not want to see anyone in the later group repossessed, it would be counter productive.
timmyntc wrote: » No there wouldnt! The total housing stock wont have changed, it will just have shuffled around a bit. Those who refuse to pay can rent or seek state assistance, meanwhile those who are currently renting and looking to buy can buy the houses released to the market and will in turn free up rental spots. Stop your scaremongering - the only crisis is the one we're in right now with banks pulling out. Fixing repossessions will take us out of crisis not into it.
DataDude wrote: » If you really want to make your blood boil, have a read of this with your lunch. He gets torn to pieces in the comments section, and is responding himself so nearly more entertaining than the article. People pulled up his records + planning applications and he was collecting 100s of k from the medical card scheme. Built a mcmansion in the country. Fell into negative equity so emigrated to Australia. Didn't even have the decency to leave the key in the door, continued to rent the house out for years whilst not paying a dime on the mortgage. Bought a massive house in Australia all whilst keeping the house in Ireland rented. Then writes into the Irish Times saying his debt should be forgiven because we need him...https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/generation-emigration/many-emigrants-left-to-escape-debt-why-isn-t-this-talked-about-1.2503581 Looked like it worked anyway - seems he's back in businesshttps://www.independent.ie/regionals/enniscorthyguardian/news/local-doctor-questions-nphets-covid-19-plan-39670981.html
PropQueries wrote: » He has a bit of a point though. The risk takers are what we need to keep an economy growing. Obviously, it’s the risk takers who will leave if they’re not allowed to start again and punished for decades if they fail just once. Workers pay PRSI so are entitled to any help they get, the state took the tax revenue from the developers when times were good before they went bust. The only groups who appear to have been bailed out are the non risk takers who add very little to the future growth of the economy IMO A good example is in 2012 when the state allowed AIB to put over a €1billion into the AIB pension fund at a time when we really didn’t have any cash. Maybe keeping AIB open was needed. But funding their pension deficit? Was that needed? Link to AIB pension deficit funding here: https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/aib-beats-pension-crisis-after-11bn-loans-bailout-30740410.html
DataDude wrote: » Really don't see a GP servicing medical card patients building a 300Sqm+ one off house in the country as a "risk-taker". Or certainly not the type of risk-taker that we desperately need to protect and nurture.... I'd somewhat agree with entrepreneurs in some instances, but you always have to be wary of the moral hazard raised when people are protected from the consequences of their actions.
engagethecore wrote: Agreed , its not a fluke that two lenders (who do well abroad) want to pull out of the market . Very difficult to get money when you cant get money back when somebody doesn't pay for their Mortgage
Hubertj wrote: Current system is down to populism, not simply gubberment. Mixture of weak politicians, populism, rise of the left, lack of personal responsibility
Villa05 wrote: » The art of politics in manipulating the public into the belief that your polices are benefitting them when the truth is that its really benefitting that political groups interests, financiers and lobbyists
engagethecore wrote: » Agreed , its not a fluke that two lenders (who do well abroad) want to pull out of the market . Very difficult to get money when you cant get money back when somebody doesn't pay for their Mortgage
Villa05 wrote: » The KBC news and who is potentially buying it wont come as any suprise to McWilliams who predicted a similar outcome for Ulster Bank in his podcastHow Ireland Works and seperatley this on this one is really good. David interviews a former US Bank Regulator on how he would handleThe Davy Stockbrokers scandal They claim that some of those involved were also involved in the greencore scandal back in 1993, Its like an episode of only fools and horses starring the wealthy and privileged For those that remember around that time there were numerous financial scandals Ansbacher, DIRT Tax etc and shortly after them their was a tax amnesty introduced despite the protestations of revenue as they were close to catching most of the issuesIt is amazing that no criminal investigation was initiated following the Davy Scandal
Donald Trump wrote: » There might also be another reason why they jump. They might be expecting a market correction in the slightly longer term and don't want to be left with impaired assets on their book. Short term bubble and medium term bust perhaps.
