McWilliams at it again

changes wrote: »

Well whatever happens i couldn't stomach people who bought 2nd, 3rd or even 4th properties being bailed out. If those people stayed out of it during the boom wouldn't be in half the trouble we are in now.

fair point.

If those same "investors" had stayed out of the market it might have reduced the overheating that was happening at that time.

I have no sympathy for those kind - they should be left to fend for themselves.

It does not immediately follow that if homeowners were to default on their homes that the taxpayers would have to bail out the banks. The government chose to bail out the banks, it could just as easily choose not to and force the banks to make a deal with their creditors.

Whats best for the bank's bondholders is not what is best for Ireland, or vice versa. Someone has to lose money, and I choose the involved parties.

Mister men wrote: »

So let me get this straight... people bought houses they could'nt afford and now people like myself (who rented through those years and still is renting as prices are still to high) are expected to help them out? :mad:

These people partly payed your wages for the last few year and most could afford them when they had a job.

del88 wrote: »

Basically the wages increases of the last 7 years for all have been funded by the young homeowners of this country ,if they had not been giving the mortgages the house prices would not have risen to such ridicules levels.The whole economy lived off the fat of the construction boom.
Even the wise few (who like to strut around the Irish Economy & Budget 2010 forum telling us how they predicted the whole thing) earned their wages from the house boom either directly or indirectly.
We all benefited from the Celtic tiger so i think it's only fair that we all share the burden of its demise...and as someone else said 70,000 people handing back the keys would mean the tax payer foots the bill......

fjortal wrote: »

I am one of those "greedy" etc 2007 house buyers, in a rediculous amount of neg equity, a ghost town outside dublin, mortgaged until I am 70, with 3 kids under 4 1/2 (before I get into a debate about contraception....jobs oxo!)

I do not expect a bail out (although the ..whats good for the goose thing does stick in my throat a bit). I will pay my mortgage, I entered into a contract (foolishly or otherwise).... but we are a one income family and if my partner lost his job.... it really scares me that other mothers and families are living this nightmare!

I really feel that the vitriol and anger is so misplaced, the "greedy" who had the audacity and stupidy to buy houses V the clever who rented, the public V the private, where are the voters?

I do not believe that there is a strong viable alternative and thats what even more depressing than the negative equity.

grammer and spelling are not a strong point..... this is my first post.

del88 wrote: »

No it's not your fault, it's the governments fault... their job (which me and you employed them to do) was to look after the best interests of the people of this country....they failed....they allowed the banks to give large mortgages to the young of this country leaving them with debts that they may never pay back.....the government (and a lot of the opposition) actively encouraged people to buy in to the property market.

All good posts.

Personally, I'm against the notion of a NAMA for the people but economically there maybe an argument for it. Most of the people who bought in the last 5 years are in negative equity, young and indebted for terms of 30 to 40 years.

This is the part of the bubble that annoyed me most, 35/40 year mortgages. I could see the logic of them in a time of high interest rates, but at a time of record low interest rates?

Yes, people should have known better, but there has been a huge transfer of wealth and debt in this country over the last decade or so.

People profited from the gullibility of many people. That shouldn't be forgotten. Some people did make a fortune out of the bubble and they shouldn't be let just sit back and laugh at the ill fortune of others. They should pay their share too.

Anyway, economically, we maybe doing more damage forcing people to pay massive 40 year mortgages on property that may never return to the bubble values paid, within 10/20 years time at best. You have the madness of the same people paying over priced mortgages for property worth 1/2 what it was worth AND increased taxes and cuts to Services to BAIL OUT the very banks who often negligently sold them these very mortgages.

Surely these taxpayers, who are getting hit twice, deserve some break? Or are people not of systemic importance? Just banks and bond holders?

Some sort of package may free up disposable income, which can be used to help the recovery. The cost in the long run, may not be as bad as many assume.

I wasn't a builder, developer, auctioneer, landlord or civil servant during the boom. So I saw very little benefit from it myself.

Talk the the greedy developer you bought your over-priced house from or your mortgage lender. Don't come cap-in-hand to me looking for money because I haven't got any. I'm already completely broke and struggling thanks in no small part the greed and stupidity of the "I had to get on the property ladder or else/Bertie-made-me-do-it" brigade.

MysticalRain wrote: »

I wasn't a builder, developer, auctioneer, landlord or civil servant during the boom. So I saw very little benefit from it myself.

Talk the the greedy developer you bought your over-priced house from or your mortgage lender. Don't come cap-in-hand to me looking for money because I haven't got any. I'm already completely broke and struggling thanks in no small part the greed and stupidity of the "I had to get on the property ladder or else/Bertie-made-me-do-it" brigade.

The so called "I had to get on the property ladder or else/Bertie-made-me-do-it" brigade are young families that bought houses to live in and you paid low taxes (if you worked) off the back of the price they paid for their house.....you benefited from that.

MysticalRain wrote: »

It was mostly borrowed, not "paid for". It would have been real wealth that we could all have benefited from if the government had focused on building a sustainable export-led economy instead of funneling it into a get rich quick scheme that ultimately benefited a few elites and indebted the rest of us.

Your dead right....I'm not saying i seen this whole mess coming but it always amazed me when the papers talked about Ireland (back in 2007) being the riches country in the world when our exports where average....

del88 wrote: »

The so called "I had to get on the property ladder or else/Bertie-made-me-do-it" brigade are young families that bought houses to live in and you paid low taxes (if you worked) off the back of the price they paid for their house.....you benefited from that.

Riddle me this; unless the poster you quoted was hitting well above the second band, he'd have derived no tangible benefits through taxation that I'd see. If I remember correctly; the higher rate was lowered by a whopping 1% to 41% during the Ponzai Years [2001-2007] whilst first band/VAT/CGT/CAT remained unchanged. I'm open to correction on this but please for arguments sake outline how that poster would have benefitted from low taxes, I'm intrigued.

del88 wrote: »

Your dead right....I'm not saying i seen this whole mess coming but it always amazed me when the papers talked about Ireland (back in 2007) being the riches country in the world when our exports where average....

Yes, the same papers that were pimping houses in their property section. Like the saying goes, don't believe everything you read in the papers...


Although that is a somewhat unfair characterization. I read plenty of those articles myself at the time. If you read through to the end of those articles, you would have come across a comment from a German or Scandinavian economist pointing out the fact that most of Ireland's so-called "wealth" was tied up in property.

MysticalRain wrote: »

They weren't all young families. You had plenty of teachers with properties in Bulgaria and as well as Ireland. The same crowd who mercilessly tried to extract every last penny out of me in rent during the boom years, and now they want to take even more for me now that their get-rich-quick scheme has gone tits up.

I worked in the tech industry, so I benefited from the 1990s tech boom, not the post 2001 property bubble. All the property bubble did for me was divert valuable investment away from our industry, and drive inflation up so day-to-day living was more expensive for me than it otherwise would have been.

Ireland had low taxes before the property boom. My taxes are now going to be raised to pay for the property debacle.

I agree with most of what you say....but that was not the fault of the young families that belived the politicians and media to a degree(who made bucket loads of money from property supplements i might add).

cson wrote: »

Riddle me this; unless the poster you quoted was hitting well above the second band, he'd have derived no tangible benefits through taxation that I'd see. If I remember correctly; the higher rate was lowered by a whopping 1% to 41% during the Ponzai Years [2001-2007] whilst first band/VAT/CGT/CAT remained unchanged. I'm open to correction on this but please for arguments sake outline how that poster would have benefitted from low taxes, I'm intrigued.

Through increased tax credits and in particular, the increased 20% tax band, particularly if a 2 income family.

VAT actually was increased during the bubble, affecting Construction in particular, the 12.5% rate became 13.5%. CGT and CAT largely remained unchanged, some improvements here to reflect the bubble prices, no changes there, which brought in increased revenues. Stamp Duty revenue definitely did massively increase as did VRT.

The whole problem was our philosophy in taxes was low direct taxes, including PAYE, PRSI and Corporation tax which was used to increase VAT, VRT, Stamp Duty etc. receipts. Which is why we are in the mess we are in with such a huge deficit compared to others. We became dependent on spending taxes which is why we have a double whammy when unemployment hit and companies got hit by the recession.

MysticalRain wrote: »

The main banks were of systematic importance to the economy. If they went down, then the rest of the economy went down with them. That wasn't the case with angle and nationwide of course. That was a complete waste of money. But there is no point in pouring good money after bad.

Despite the sob stories, most people will eventually pay off their mortgages even if it takes them 40 years to do it. At least then they will learn some sense of fiscal responsibility from the experience.

The socialist in me has no problem caring for the genuinely needy in society. I have no problem paying extra taxes to fund someone's dole if they lose their job. I just told line at bailing out the kinds of people who earned a lot more money than I ever did and would still be genuinely well off if they had behaved bit more responsibly.

I'd usually agree with you, indeed 6 months ago, I'd probably have posted the exact same.

I do think, in certain defined cases, definitely restricted just to first time buyers at the most, i.e. very importantly excluding investors and people who traded up to a 3,000 sq. ft. house to keep up with the Jones, there are cases that a debt reduction scheme may offer Long Term Economic benefit.

I stress Long Term. We've had enough Short Term measures!