McWilliams at it again

ei.sdraob wrote: »

head explodes ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eDfrMgFQM

Very constructive.

BTW, why could a bank bailout not have involved a payment on behalf of the people? In other words, rather than just handing over the taxpayers money, the banks must knock off a chunk of negative equity on any loan that was sold irresponsibly? Would that not be a two pronged solution? people will still be paying back their mortgage, but the mortgage amount would be reduced etc.

I'm not seeking, 'But thats unfair on the prudent' answers, but rather answers relating to if that would actually work for the bank.

I bought a car 2 years ago, its roughly worth half what I paid for it, where do I subscribe to this bailout?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Don't close down the option before considering it. Why should a person have an unencumbered house when he retires? Chances are that at some stage after retirement he will die, and the house becomes somebody's inheritance. Very few people actually need an inheritance, so why not let a house be subject to a mortgage which is redeemed at death?

That maybe an option, though there the bank is gaining again from the same sucker sold the mortgage in the first place. Win, win for the banks.

The latest figures show about 30,000 in arrears of 3 months or more, estimated at mortgages of €5.3 Billion, with another 30,000 on interest only mortgages.
Financial Regulator sticking with 'understated' arrears bulletins

JimiTime wrote: »

What do you need to be bailed out of? The fact that you are not in debt up to your eyeballs, are financially secure etc should give you great personal satisfaction. Much like I don't begrudge people on job seekers allowance, or ask for the state to pay me some cash like this too. Why? becasue I'm ok financially at the moment.

We should really stop talking in terms of 'bailout', and talk in terms of 'social responsibility'. If you are doing ok, don't look over the fence at the neighbour who was in the sh!t, but has been rescued from it. Be happy that he didn't go to the wall, and seek that our government and financial institutions never encourage this wrecklessness again.

But I'm not financially secure, the government has took debt from the banks and passed it on to me. Now they propose to take debt from other indivuals and pass it on to me, that's not secure at all.
At least homeowners who get a bailout would have a roof over their head, now that's security. Where is my equivalent?

I'm sorry people chose to go up to their neck in debt, it was their choice.
As to negative equity - it's not really a problem for a family home, the home will be passed to one of the kids presumably, so it will have long since been diluted.
No, negative equity is only a problem for developers / specuvestors, and I have given enough money to them already.

If people of no assets are going to be the ones who pay for the assets of others, who are the real victims here? How will non homeowners ever change their status unless we accept the losses?

IMHO there should never have been a bailout of the banks, they should have crashed (and even taken my deposits with them) and at least we would have decent banking system to start with, and it would be cheaper too.
I done my best to stop the bubble thorugh conversation online, and face to face and by avoiding buying into the inflated market. I don't owe anyone a shilling.

But if there is another bailout, count me in for a house, 'tis only fair / we are all victims here etc.

Tea drinker wrote: »

First problem you have is people with access to a good lawyer will be looking to get off. I mean well heeled people. VERY well heeled. With Debts to match.
People with the reading ability of a 7 year old could not have legally signed those documents.
That jet was used without my permission to try to bring those drugs into the country etc.

Ok, but as far as the banks recieving the bailouts concerned, this method would bail them out just as good?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Mechanisms could be put into place for those situations.

How about this question,
There are currently 32,321 mortgage accounts in arrears or more than 90 days. This figure is expected to keep rising. Say 40,000 are families evicted from their homes still owing the balance due after they have been sold. On top of that they are paying extra tax and deductions from their salaries to the banks that threw them out.
Why bother even working anymore after that?
On top of that there are 300,000 empty residential units in the country and we will have a whole section of society who are totally disenfranchised. The welfare requirements and social problems that will come from this don't bear thinking about.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Go to Switzerland.

Handing back the keys. A lot of people (says Aftershock) would like to, but can't.

Seems that the thing that help them be able to would be reform of the bankruptcy laws, which date back to the time of Dickens and the poorhouses.

K-9 wrote: »

I think the point is, you are all already being screwed by the shenanigans of a bunch of financially illiterate people who spent above their means. You better switch off the lights on the way out!

Ah yes, the "you were robbed before, so you won't mind being robbed again" argument.

By reducing the payments the state will save tax reliefs granted, that cost us a fortune every year, of setting the cost to some degree

I doubt very much if savings on a few tax relief schemes here and there will offset a huge bailout for 300,000+ homeowners in negative equity.

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a price point where you would consider buying a house or do you never want to own one?
I'm just curious.
There has to be a margin on house building,I'd suggest somewhere between 15 and 20% over cost for the house builder to make it worth their while.
So are you interested in a house where theres a margin like that or do you want a below cost house?
Theres plenty of below cost houses appearing now [or at least below what it should have cost to build them]..but going into the future,there will be no below cost selling of new builds.So that means for people who do actually want a house,it's getting near decision time.
For sure,the current "market" in inverted comma's has a lot of bank enforced dumping onto the market..but when that supply dries up,the opportunities will be seen for the bargains that they are.

Make no mistake about it,the old reliable constituents of the housing market will then come back into play ie demand and supply location,location,location and prices will rise.

I don't know when that will start to happen but if I had the means to borrow at current prices, and want a house in a major urban centre I'd be looking now because it will happen.
We haven't entered a new universe where conditions have changed ,we're just in an enormous flux and that will change eventually.
We're probably nearer the end of it than the start of it.

It wouldn't suit my current circumstances (not least because I may not even have a job this time next year). But if I was inclined, I think now is a good time to buy. Although if I was feeling patient, I would wait at least another year for house prices to drop another 10% or so like many economists are predicting. Given the current glut of housing, house prices will probably stay at rock-bottom for the next 2-3 years.

As for the long-term future of the property market is concerned, economists like Constantin Gurdgiev are predicting that it will be 2034 before house prices rise again to 2007 levels. So we have a long way to go before we see ever skyrocketing house prices again. I think we'll see a gradual rise in house prices after a few years. But it will be very negligible.