Debt forgiveness - an economic happy story

geeky · 11-11-2010 02:42PM

I love the glib way they suggest that these written-off debts will be paid for - NAMA Bonds or an ECB bailout. If the shower that inflated this insane bubble try to make me pay for it, I'm gone, and so is any young Irish person with two brain cells to rub together.

geeky · 11-11-2010 02:44PM

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Isnt it heartwarming the way people who didnt buy during the boom for whatever reason (saying they knew what was happenning is probably rubbish) have so much sympathy for those who did. Comments like "you should have known what you were getting into" and "I have no sympathy" are quite common here.
This selfish attitude of Im alright Jack is everywhere. Whatever happened to Christian Ireland, is it dead, are we now just self centered **** who only think about ourselves ?
Ps: I didnt buy either, but I dont want to dance on the graves of those that did

No offence, but it's considerably more selfish and childish for homeowners to expect someone else to pay for their mistakes. Non-homeowners are already dealing with the consequences of the crash in terms of decreasing opportunities or redundancies.

Blowfish · 11-11-2010 02:46PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

first, how in hell would your life savings be affected? your future earning would go up as the economy improved...i'm sure you havent a clue what you're talking about now...it's better for the economy for anyone to have spare cash, this isn't about 'you' or 'them'...

But that's just it, it effectively would be a 'you' or 'them' situation. Ultimately every cent of the 'debt forgiveness' has to come from the taxpayer. Hence, to increase the disposable income of those in NE, you tax and thus decrease the disposable income of those not in NE. The total amount of disposable income across the board would be precisely the same as before, you've just shifted it around a bit. Since there hasn't been any sort of increase in wealth, how exactly has the economy been stimulated?

th3 s1aught3r · 11-11-2010 02:49PM

geeky wrote: »

No offence, but it's considerably more selfish and childish for homeowners to expect someone else to pay for their mistakes. Non-homeowners are already dealing with the consequences of the crash in terms of decreasing opportunities or redundancies.

I agree with you that
I am talking about the comments being slung at those who did buy by smug ones who didnt
I would not agree with paying for them though

Sofa King Great · 11-11-2010 02:51PM

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Isnt it heartwarming the way people who didnt buy during the boom for whatever reason (saying they knew what was happenning is probably rubbish) have so much sympathy for those who did. Comments like "you should have known what you were getting into" and "I have no sympathy" are quite common here.
This selfish attitude of Im alright Jack is everywhere. Whatever happened to Christian Ireland, is it dead, are we now just self centered **** who only think about ourselves ?
Ps: I didnt buy either, but I dont want to dance on the graves of those that did

If these people had made a huge profit on their houses you can be certain they wouldn't be willing to give some of that to me so why should I have any sympathy for them?

cloneslad · 11-11-2010 02:54PM

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Whatever happened to Christian Ireland, is it dead, are we now just self centered **** who only think about ourselves ?

The christian brothers sodomised it out of us

mikemac · 11-11-2010 02:56PM

A lot of people in negative equity for sure.
But it's still only a small percentage of home owners

If 2008 onwards were boom years would recent homeowners up maybe 100k in equity be posting here about making extra tax payments to renters and people who couldn't afford a house?

Don't think so, probably more smart comments on paying my landlords mortgage and rent is dead money.

I'll support debt forgiveness to the person who was forced by a bank to buy a house. Got a photo of the gun held to their head?

th3 s1aught3r · 11-11-2010 02:58PM

Sofa King Great wrote: »

If these people had made a huge profit on their houses you can be certain they wouldn't be willing to give some of that to me so why should I have any sympathy for them?

I am not asking you to give them anything, just have a bit of feelings for someone who is in trouble

mikemac · 11-11-2010 03:01PM

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

I am not asking you to give them anything, just have a bit of feelings for someone who is in trouble

Mortgage interest relief which they can apply for
Insurance you can take out if you lose your job, Income Protection I think is the name.

Sell the house and deal with the remaining debt, the debt you signed up for. Mabs will give free advice on this.

There are options out there

papajimsmooth · 11-11-2010 03:05PM

I would like a free house aswell

Dravokivich · 11-11-2010 03:07PM

I think people moaning about negative equity are morons, they got a loan based on what they were told the value of something was, agreed with it and bought it. If it wasn't for the banks being bailed out and the property market taking a dive closer to what is should be, they wouldn't be moaning about it.

The same thing happens with cars, they devalue big time. Most people buying cars new get loans... should they be emancipated of the difference?

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

I agree with you that
I am talking about the comments being slung at those who did buy by smug ones who didnt
I would not agree with paying for them though

As opposed to the comments made over the years by those who were smug about buying towards those who were throwing dead money into rent?

I'm not smug about these people being in debt now... I noticed they were in debt when they would have gotten the mortgage...

Sofa King Great · 11-11-2010 03:09PM

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

I am not asking you to give them anything, just have a bit of feelings for someone who is in trouble

I understand what they are saying. My feelings toward them are neutral. I feel sympathy for them based on the poor choices they made. However when they expect me to pay for their poor choices I feel no sympathy. A bit of personal responsibility needs to be taken here.

SEPT 23 1989 · 11-11-2010 03:09PM

This has to happen soon or the economy will stall and then its really game over

Flex · 11-11-2010 03:10PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

no i was quoting subway with that answer - he/she got personal.

but yeah your right really: the amount is too small...

yep, using insults to get your point across is perfectly acceptable as long as i dont report you - you're so childish i wouldnt allow you on the internet without supervision tbh...and btw: you still haven't outlined what you found so hearthily amusing about the 'didnt have a choice to buy' comment? i'm assuming you wouldnt have the capacity to argue the point so i'll leave it with you.

first, how in hell would your life savings be affected? your future earning would go up as the economy improved...i'm sure you havent a clue what you're talking about now...it's better for the economy for anyone to have spare cash, this isn't about 'you' or 'them'...

dont psycoanalyse me based on my agreement with newspaper article - another example of gross immaturity and stupidity on your behalf.

on bankruptcy you are correct - for once

You realise that for the government to come up with €10B or whatever to pay off everyone's negative equity theyll have to raise that in tax and effectively take that money out of the economy, reducing spending power of everyone, not just those in negative equity.

This whole 'bailing out' people in negative equity is a load of ****e. What happens if they get bailed out this year and next year house prices are down another 10%? Do the rest of the taxpayers in the country have to pay off this new drop in prices again? Or what if house prices rise after a bailout? Do the government get to levy higher taxes on people who were previously bailed out or do they get a % of the value of the house if its sold on or what?

And as has been said, negative equity only effects you if you planned to sell the property

Misanthrope · 11-11-2010 03:12PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

OK, maybe some wont find it a happy story - but if you're in negative equity and up to your eyeballs in a mortgage you are finding increasingly diffult to service these guys are making alot of sense.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1111/1224283092835.html

I've posted similar suggestions on here before and the obvious response for some will be this: 'i didn't get a mortgage i couldn't afford - so i''ll be damned to see people bailed out when i was sensible'.

imo, that's an ok attitude and ya cant be blamed for it, but i believe the greater good of the country would be serviced by allowing people spend their money in the economy instead of throwing it into a mortgage from the (nationalised) banks in the hope of being in equity within the next decade.

edit: how the hell do you quote properly!!!

Despite being fiscally responsible and in zero debt,I wouldn't begrudge the greedy idiots ,in above their necks ,a bailout of some kind.Just because they are gullible doesn't mean their lives should be wrecked.

This proposal however is an attempt to help the banks and not the individual.It is designed to protect the corrupt system in place in the long run.

How about everybody stay in your home and you don't owe the banks a cent?Just plain and simply.............the banks can F**k Off.Ya people who work in banks will lose their jobs.That will be an opportunity for them to find work with an honest employer.

That proposal was a slick attempt by it's authors to look after themselves and their buddies in the business.If I was an economist or financier who'd been lying my arse off for 30 years I'd be proposing a similar scheme.

I want banks to crumble.I've closed all my bank accounts in Ireland,despite the fact there was only 1.69 in one and 12 quid in the other.AIB actually made a faint effort to talk me out of it.I don't even want my name associated with them.

From stealing bank stationary to taking all the freebies, like pens and coffee.I'll do everything in my limited power to hurt these institutions.Destroying their advertising and binning their pamphlets.I tell children what banks do and how evil they are.No child today is going to want be a Bwanker when they grow up, due to the stigma attached with any luck

thebigbiffo · 11-11-2010 03:14PM

nobody has really grasped that the whole issue here is that, for whatever reasons, there are thousands of mortages in arrears and it's going to be a disaster for the economy and by extension everybody when they start defaulting.

how about this: people lost their jobs during the recession, by far the biggest chunk of those people were unskilled labourers with only secondary education. nobody would ever condone not aiding this group of people and the state spend billions every year ensuring their upkeep. why cant the same level of care not be shown to people who have been similarly effected by the crash - but just happen to working but giving it all up to a bank (the bank being essentially the state now anyway)?

well, those people got themselves into it i hear you say, nobody forced them to buy a house. well, here's news...nobody forced the large group of unemployed who are unskilled and uneducated to leave school and put their faith in a never-ending construction boom.

by the same logic, i could stand up and say i'm not in favour of the state helping anybody at all ever - they made their choices and now they have to deal with it.

thewing · 11-11-2010 03:14PM

What the fook is wrong with this country? Bloody welfare state

You can't pay your mortgage? Home repossessed.

You can't pay the leccy bill? Buy a fooking candle

They were on the terms and conditions when you signed the agreements.

There wasn't a clause 'If I kick up enough fuss, the taxpayer will bail me out'....

No bloody accountability, from top to bottom

Bring on the IMF.......

c_man · 11-11-2010 03:22PM

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

This selfish attitude of Im alright Jack is everywhere. Whatever happened to Christian Ireland, is it dead, are we now just self centered **** who only think about ourselves ?

We're not the ones asking the rest of society to pay up.

I rent in a grotty little apartment, but it does the job. But yeah I'll happily fork over so that Ali and buddies can return to the lavish lifestyle.

Imo people who lied up to their eyeballs on their mortgage applications, scooped up all manner of semi-d's, followed the teachings of Eddie Hobbs and had delusions of "being in the game" by entering to flip for a couple of hundred grand are just as culpable as Seanie Fitz etc for the mess.

People were mad as hell when we bailed out the banks. How much madder will they be when they're bailing out their neighbours, putting them in a better financial position than themselves?

mikemac · 11-11-2010 03:23PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

well, those people got themselves into it i hear you say, nobody forced them to buy a house. well, here's news...nobody forced the large group of unemployed who are unskilled and uneducated to leave school and put their faith in a never-ending construction boom.

Some one group of people get welfare and now you're crying for welfare too.

A bailout is nothing but welfare.
And as said many times before, negative equity does not matter until you go to sell your house.

Realy OP, your tactic is if you cry enough and raise enough of a racket you'll get a payoff from taxpayers.
And you know, your tactic may work.
I seem to remember investors in Eircom shares screaming for compensation and got some.

Of course if they made a fortune on these shares would they be screaming to give it all to the exchequer?
Would homeowners with massive equity like in 2006 do the same? :rolleyes:

Seems to me when you make a profit in Ireland you're cute and canny and when you make a loss the taxpayers will compensate you.

thebigbiffo · 11-11-2010 03:28PM

c_man wrote: »

How much madder will they be when they're bailing out their neighboursQUOTE]

this is what it boils down to: if it does me no good, no thanks.

anyway, this isn't about 'anyone' in negative equity it's about people who cant service their mortage and are about to fall into repossession. imo, better to have those people in the houses they bought owing less money that out on the street with no credit while the bank firesells their property further ruining the market and economy.

mikemac · 11-11-2010 03:30PM

Even in 2010 houses are still overpriced

How does firesaling a property ruin the market?
If anything, it bring prices closer to reality

c_man · 11-11-2010 03:31PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

this is what it boils down to: if it does me no good, no thanks.

No, not really. Do you think that's why people were angry with the bank bailouts?

Dravokivich · 11-11-2010 03:34PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

nobody has really grasped that the whole issue here is that, for whatever reasons, there are thousands of mortages in arrears and it's going to be a disaster for the economy and by extension everybody when they start defaulting.

These people where in that massive debt the second they signed the mortgage agreement.

The decrease in the value of a house, does not decrease the value of the loan someone got out to pay for it.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

how about this: people lost their jobs during the recession, by far the biggest chunk of those people were unskilled labourers with only secondary education. nobody would ever condone not aiding this group of people and the state spend billions every year ensuring their upkeep. why cant the same level of care not be shown to people who have been similarly effected by the crash - but just happen to working but giving it all up to a bank (the bank being essentially the state now anyway)?

well, those people got themselves into it i hear you say, nobody forced them to buy a house. well, here's news...nobody forced the large group of unemployed who are unskilled and uneducated to leave school and put their faith in a never-ending construction boom.

by the same logic, i could stand up and say i'm not in favour of the state helping anybody at all ever - they made their choices and now they have to deal with it.

er no... what we actually need is industry that utilises labourers. Without that, we won't be able to build up an economy.

Canceling out peoples debt and cranking up the credit machine again won't...

thebigbiffo · 11-11-2010 03:34PM

feelingstressed wrote: »

Some one group of people get welfare and now you're crying for welfare too.

A bailout is nothing but welfare.
And as said many times before, negative equity does not matter until you go to sell your house.

seriously, you're not following. for a start, i've been very clear in that 'i'm' looking for nothing.

second, here's something: wel·fare
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.

2. Welfare work.
3. a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.

the welfare of citizens of the state should be a concern of the state. turfing people out of their homes is the opposite of ensuring the 'welfare' of your citizens, especially when the state owns the banks.

third: THIS IS NOT ABOUT EVERYONE ON NEGATIVE EQUITY. it's about people who can no longer afford their total mortgage and are in danger of losing their home.

Sofa King Great · 11-11-2010 03:40PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

third: THIS IS NOT ABOUT EVERYONE ON NEGATIVE EQUITY. it's about people who can no longer afford their total mortgage and are in danger of losing their home.

They knew on day 1 that if they did not keep up with repayments they would lose their home.

What about the people who are servicing massive debt? Should they be forced to pay higher tax to pay the debt of others?

mikemac · 11-11-2010 03:41PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

third: THIS IS NOT ABOUT EVERYONE ON NEGATIVE EQUITY. it's about people who can no longer afford their total mortgage and are in danger of losing their home.

www.welfare.ie.
Give up the house they cannot afford and go rent somewhere, you can apply for rent allowance. Renting isn't the end of the world
Go to MABS for advice on how to deal with the debt they signed up for

THere is the state providing services to help

Or maybe.....let the people who are still paying mortgages pay for those who cannot? Is that it?

jodaw · 11-11-2010 03:42PM

thewing wrote: »

What the fook is wrong with this country? Bloody welfare state

You can't pay your mortgage? Home repossessed.

You can't pay the leccy bill? Buy a fooking candle

They were on the terms and conditions when you signed the agreements.

There wasn't a clause 'If I kick up enough fuss, the taxpayer will bail me out'....

No bloody accountability, from top to bottom

Bring on the IMF.......

No to the ECB/IMF intervention. We should have never taken private debt into the public purse...

It is the system that is wrong. People simply borrowed what the bank would lend and paid the price asked for a home for their family. They were lead on by the Euphoria and constant bombardment of the media and everyone else.

I agree the if we had a "normal" and "fair" global system, that people should take responsibility for their own actions. But the people were duped by the banks. The banks did not risk a penny, since they will never lose. Why should the average person enslave themselves if the banks never lose?

As a person that is currently out of the property market and has no debt, i do not begrudge such people a bailout. Over the next five years the price of property will be decimated in this country ...

But the main thing i realize is that the country will be unable to function without a write down in mortgage debt. It is ahead, make no doubt about it. But it is to the benefit of all in this country ...

We are in it together ...

Screw the banks, save the people. Not the opposite, which is exactly the route being taken now!

thewing · 11-11-2010 03:47PM

The problem with this idea is where does it stop

If you bail out those who can't pay their mortgages what do you do about those struggling to pay their's but not looking for a handout - tax relief?

What about those who paid out 'dead money' i.e. rent for years to avoid paying for a house - shouldn't they be compensated.

If you can't pay your mortgage, the house gets repossessed - Mammy and Daddy, or in this case the state, won't always be around to bail you out.

As for getting the economy going - the sooner the house prices reach the bottom the better. NAMA is currently propping them up, and this would only prolong the inevitable. Not wanting to become dependant on the housing market again, it would only be one aspect of the overall recovery.

Let taxpayers money be spent on job creation, so these people can pay their mortgages....

prinz · 11-11-2010 03:49PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i believe the greater good of the country would be serviced by allowing people spend their money in the economy instead of throwing it into a mortgage...

Nonsense. The greater good of the country would be serviced by people learning a valuable lesson and by becoming financially responsible for themselves.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the facts are normal joe cant be blamed because he bought a house between 2003 and 2008, that he didnt expect his job to be lost or his wages slashed, or he wanted to live close to his family or work....

Yes you can because it was clear as day that fecking house prices were ridiculous. Even rent was a joke. People have to accept part of the blame for what happened.

thebigbiffo · 11-11-2010 03:50PM

feelingstressed wrote: »

Even in 2010 houses are still overpriced

How does firesaling a property ruin the market?
If anything, it bring prices closer to reality

i dont agree. panic selling large volumes of property in a short space of time depresses the market quickly and has the ability to create an 'artificial' bottom to the market.

c_man wrote: »

No, not really. Do you think that's why people were angry with the bank bailouts?

well yeah, it was going to cost us as a state. most people agree that the banks needed to be bailed out for our own good to a degree, just maybe not the the extent we did.

Dravokivich wrote: »

These people where in that massive debt the second they signed the mortgage agreement.

The decrease in the value of a house, does not decrease the value of the loan someone got out to pay for it.

yes but based on current earning etc as they were, nobody forsaw a crash of this size, such massive cut backs in wages etc. this is what makes those debats a problem now.

Dravokivich wrote: »

er no... what we actually need is industry that utilises labourers. Without that, we won't be able to build up an economy.

Canceling out peoples debt and cranking up the credit machine again won't...

i dont really know what you're saying. surely you cant think that we should have so much unskilled labour in the country?

your second point i sort of disagree with...i just believe that freeing up more money instead of pumping it further into the back will in fact help the economy.