Mortgage debt plan 'will save economy'

Richard tea · 21-08-2011 02:39PM

mikemac wrote: »

Haven't heard such nonsense since FG wanted to compensate Eircom investors who lost money

I saved my money so if this goes ahead am I getting one of the empties for free?
Well, we're both getting free equity after all

Dream on. You will do what your told by the gov and thats that.

10000maniacs · 21-08-2011 03:07PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Families don't need Ferrari's to live in. They need houses.

If people can't afford their houses, go live in a trailer park. Idiots shouldn't be subsitised by prudent people.

Kidchameleon · 21-08-2011 03:11PM

10000maniacs wrote: »

If people can't afford their houses, go live in a trailer park. Idiots shouldn't be subsitised by prudent people.

They could afford those houses, that's why they were given the load by the bank. Its was when the recession hit and mass unemployment came that the problem for them began.

Sofa King Great · 21-08-2011 03:13PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

They could afford those houses, that's why they were given the load by the bank. Its was when the recession hit and mass unemployment came that the problem for them began.

So when you say they could afford them what you actually mean is that they couldnt afford them???

CiaranC · 21-08-2011 03:15PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Families don't need Ferrari's to live in. They need houses.

They can rent one they can afford then

7sr2z3fely84g5 · 21-08-2011 03:17PM

i think actually a lot of people could not afford the houses in the first place,but we kept building and selling houses to each other on credit it got ridiculous,anyone who was anyone in boom era could simply walk straight into a bank and get an loan or credit card straight away.

Other things to consider,during the good times bertie and co agreed to give pay rises for anyone who asked for it,now all locked in leaving the economy banjaxed in taxing people to death to make up for the pay rises.

10000maniacs · 21-08-2011 03:17PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

They could afford those houses, that's why they were given the load by the bank. Its was when the recession hit and mass unemployment came that the problem for them began.

Thats capitalism. Why should they be bailed out using taxpayers money?

galwayrush · 21-08-2011 03:25PM

10000maniacs wrote: »

If people can't afford their houses, go live in a trailer park. Idiots shouldn't be subsitised by prudent people.

You make it sound like those people were so stupid to lose their jobs..:rolleyes: Imagine getting a mortgage to buy a house at market value , (a loan that was based on their earnings and ) and not factor in that they may not have a job for life, :rolleyes:

carrolls · 21-08-2011 03:26PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

They could afford those houses, that's why they were given the load by the bank. Its was when the recession hit and mass unemployment came that the problem for them began.

I know a guy who was prudent with his home loan, and was made unemployed two years ago.
He paints peoples houses and sells CDs on a Saturday in the market to suppliment whatever social welfare he receives, and although its hard, he has covered his mortgage for the last two years.
The taxpayer doesn't owe the people of Ireland a living, and the sooner the country realises this, the sooner we will get over this recession.

skregs · 21-08-2011 03:28PM

galwayrush wrote: »

You make it sound like those people were so stupid to lose their jobs..:rolleyes: Imagine getting a mortgage to buy a house at market value , (a loan that was based on their earnings and ) and not factor in that they may not have a job for life, :rolleyes:

Yeah, imagine basing a 30/40 year financial arrangement based solely on current earnings without any provisions for a drop in income.

You'd have to be stupid to do it, and people were stupid

CiaranC · 21-08-2011 03:29PM

galwayrush wrote: »

You make it sound like those people were so stupid to lose their jobs..:rolleyes: Imagine getting a mortgage to buy a house at market value , (a loan that was based on their earnings and ) and not factor in that they may not have a job for life, :rolleyes:

Its almost a certaintly that you wont be working for 100% of the life of your mortgage, of course you should factor that in. Jesus Christ.

Guy:Incognito · 21-08-2011 03:29PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have no problem with my tax money being used to help people from loosing their home. Id rather that than helping ar**hole bankers keeping their bonuses.

Can I have some to buy the house I didnt take a massive mortagage out fot a few years ago? Wouldnt mind a free house, or even the free use of one for a few years.

Sofa King Great · 21-08-2011 03:29PM

galwayrush wrote: »

You make it sound like those people were so stupid to lose their jobs..:rolleyes: Imagine getting a mortgage to buy a house at market value , (a loan that was based on their earnings and ) and not factor in that they may not have a job for life, :rolleyes:

While I have sympathy for anyone with a massive mortgage hanging over their head I still don't see why they should have this written off at my expense, your expense and the expense of the guy mentioned above who is supplementing his social welfare to continue to fund his mortgage

Kidchameleon · 21-08-2011 03:31PM

Sofa King Great wrote: »

So when you say they could afford them what you actually mean is that they couldnt afford them???

Oh Jesus, just read my post again, stop twisting my words to suit your silly argument.

Tigger · 21-08-2011 03:31PM

carrolls wrote: »

I know a guy who was prudent with his home loan, and was made unemployed two years ago.
He paints peoples houses and sells CDs

does he avoid tax and claim unemployment?

on a Saturday in the market to suppliment whatever social welfare he receives, and although its hard, he has covered his mortgage for the last two years.
The taxpayer doesn't owe the people of Ireland a living, and the sooner the country realises this, the sooner we will get over this recession.

mikemac · 21-08-2011 03:31PM

"NAMA for the little people"

I reckon we're reading Joe Duffy's show tomorrow, the researchers read boards

carrolls · 21-08-2011 03:33PM

Tigger wrote: »

does he avoid tax and claim unemployment?

No he does not. Bloody cheek.

galwayrush · 21-08-2011 03:35PM

skregs wrote: »

Yeah, imagine basing a 30/40 year financial arrangement based solely on current earnings without any provisions for a drop in income.

You'd have to be stupid to do it, and people were stupid

People also wanted a home, they paid prices that the market set .
Yes, banks stretched the rules to give some stupid people loans they clearly could not afford, those obviously should have never been granted the loans in the first place, it's the banks that deserve that hit. People who lied about their income to secure a loan they could not afford certainly do not deserve any bailout.I was refering to the people who were prudent to buy something relative to what they could afford at the time, but through circumstances beyond their control, eg..lost their jobs , i don't see why they deserve to be called stupid.
No simple solution.

Kidchameleon · 21-08-2011 03:36PM

carrolls wrote: »

He paints peoples houses and sells CDs on a Saturday

Ha I think this guy called the other day, told him to p*ss off!

Sofa King Great · 21-08-2011 03:37PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Oh Jesus, just read my post again, stop twisting my words to suit your silly argument.

It is foolish for anyone to think that they will be in a job for life. Just because the person could keep up with repayments at a time of low interest rates and full employment does not mean they can afford to keep up repayments if they lose their job or interest rates rise. These factors should be taken in to account when undertaking to repay a sum of money over 25 or 30 years.

carrolls · 21-08-2011 03:41PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ha I think this guy called the other day, told him to p*ss off!

You would wouldn't you.;)
Thats whats wrong with this country. Freeload sympathisers.

galwayrush · 21-08-2011 03:41PM

Sofa King Great wrote: »

It is foolish for anyone to think that they will be in a job for life. Just because the person could keep up with repayments at a time of low interest rates and full employment does not mean they can afford to keep up repayments if they lose their job or interest rates rise. These factors should be taken in to account when undertaking to repay a sum of money over 25 or 30 years.

Then, bar being a civil servant with a job for life, or being a GP or something similar on the earnings scale, nobody else would qualify for a mortgage.:pac::pac:

Tigger · 21-08-2011 03:43PM

carrolls wrote: »

No he does not. Bloody cheek.

but you clearly state that he gets unemployment

carrolls · 21-08-2011 03:45PM

Tigger wrote: »

but you clearly state that he gets unemployment

But he declares his earnings.

Tigger · 21-08-2011 03:47PM

carrolls wrote: »

But he declares his earnings.

if you insist

skregs · 21-08-2011 03:48PM

galwayrush wrote: »

banks stretched the rules to give some stupid people loans they clearly could not afford, those obviously should have never been granted the loans in the first place, it's the banks that deserve that hit.

No, it's the recipients of the loan that deserve that hit. Banks aren't your parents, if you're stupid enough to take out a loan you can't repay, its your fault. If you're stupid enough to get a mortgage you can't afford, its your fault. You were never forced to buy a house, you were never forced to buy a house above your means, you were never forced to get a 100% mortgage.

Sofa King Great · 21-08-2011 03:49PM

galwayrush wrote: »

Then, bar being a civil servant with a job for life, or being a GP or something similar on the earnings scale, nobody else would qualify for a mortgage.:pac::pac:

Or you build in a contingency for a period of unemployment. Obviously this will not be viable for long term unemplyed but should go some of the way to solve the problem

Balmed Out · 21-08-2011 03:52PM

Nobody has ever had to buy a home. Lots rent.
To a large extent the banks are the taxpayers as we own most of them at this stage. Everyone should realise that it wouldnt be the banks taking a hit it would be the taxpayers.
It would simply be putting money from one pocket into another so I cant see any benefits to the economy from doing it.

Ultimately there will have to be a degree of debt forgiveness but this should be only for those who will never be able to pay it. The house would have to be taken off them.

carrolls · 21-08-2011 03:52PM

Tigger wrote: »

if you insist

Just because you wouldn't, it doesn't mean that everyone is a crooked as you.

galwayrush · 21-08-2011 03:54PM

skregs wrote: »

No, it's the recipients of the loan that deserve that hit. Banks aren't your parents, if you're stupid enough to take out a loan you can't repay, its your fault. If you're stupid enough to get a mortgage you can't afford, its your fault. You were never forced to buy a house, you were never forced to buy a house above your means, you were never forced to get a 100% mortgage.

I know one lady who was refused a mortgage by a few banks, but was pointed in the direction of one manager who could ' overcome' her difficulties , this involved some fraud. OK, she was stupid to want something she could not afford, but in a case like this, that bank manager has a lot to answer for.

Mortgage debt plan 'will save economy'

Comments