professore wrote: » On topic, would people in this situation prefer to be able to declare some sort of bankruptcy where they would lose the house and any possessions worth taking (maybe stuff worth over a grand) that would see them free to return to a normal credit existence after say 2-3 years, OR Pay the banks some barely affordable amount that left them with a minimum basic standard of living until their circumstances improved, possibly for the rest of their lives? I know which I would choose, option 1.
cookie1977 wrote: » An we needed the troika's cheap cash only after bailing the banks out and finding no one else trusted us with loans other then at ridiculous rates. Any way back to the main point on house reposessions.
cookie1977 wrote: » Did you have a read of the McWilliams idea? If feasible let the home owner share the property ownership with the bank for 20 years. Home owner pays half the mortgage and house can be sold in 20 years where the bank gets half the sale value. Or maybe the owner could buy out the bank. Just one option.
professore wrote: » I have seen it, and I think it has merit. In fact if this whole thing had been treated more like a business in the first place, and the banks been allowed to go, or at the very least Anglo, we would have been in a far better place now. I run a small business, and customers have gone bankrupt over the years. All you can do is try to get what you can out of them, but there comes a point that you just have to write the rest off. That's capitalism. I won't knowingly extend thousands (or even hundreds) in credit to a customer who I have a fair idea won't be able to pay me - if I do I should take the consequences, as the banks should have.
cookie1977 wrote: » Certainly the new bancruptcy laws once they come in seem to be a lot less penal thankfully (previously it could be possible to die still in bancruptcy). There's also a difference between personal debt and debt such as PPR. It does no one good to loose a PPR as far as I can see. Surely a negotiated settlement if possible is a lot better then reposession followed by rehousing? I think it would. I may have too much faith in my fellow man but I'd still bet most people in debt would like a way out that satisfies all. I do worry though about the numbers of people ignoring debt thinking it'll go away. Whether that's due to stress, ignorance or plain stubburness it's not the way to approach it. It's better to speak with people who can help. Even by talking to your bank you will get protection for up to 5 years under MARP. Head in sand helps no one least the indebted person.
cookie1977 wrote: » The rights or wrongs of the bailout are not under discussion here. We're talking about home reposession. The bailout happened.
professore wrote: » I agree with this. I wonder how willing are the banks to do a deal though? Thankfully I don't have personal experience of this.
cookie1977 wrote: » I'd ask some of the posters in the thread what kind of society would we have if we repossesed all these houses. Do they believe it would really solve all/most of the problems the country has?
mhge wrote: » I don't think it's supposed to solve all/most problems. Nothing can, they can only be solved by joined up thinking and not by any particular single shot. As to what society we would have - a fair society with its books in order, and also as we are a society with strong social support people who can't afford accommodation would receive rent supplement/social housing and people who can afford to would rent. Nothing out of the ordinary.
cookie1977 wrote: » Yes but if there's a solution that gets the banks some cash and allows people to remain in their own homes rather than receiving state support which would you prefer?
mhge wrote: » It's impossible to say without knowing how many houses are currently not being paid for and how many situations belong to can't pay vs won't pay. It may very well be a much larger burden than social housing for some of these owners, especially taking into account that some of them are well capable of renting, and that a large number of mortgages in arrears are properties for rent where owners are not at risk (of losing their home) at all.
cookie1977 wrote: » A lot of stats are available from the central bank and they dont paint a pretty picture for the tax payer:http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Pages/Data.aspx
cookie1977 wrote: » If you looked at the stats over the last few quarters they have only gotten worse. And I cannot see how with new taxes on property and new "other" taxes how things will improve next year. So as Einstein said Insainity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We've got to try something new
mhge wrote: » I think that the point of the thread is that repossessions where due would be something new... They would certainly bring clarity.
mhge wrote: » You may have a point here, but from what was featured in the media a typical repossession would start as a poor mouth story and in time would develop into a bad investments/years of head in the sand story. Perhaps we need more stories to show the full picture. But from can be seen now if they continue dealing with such situations as they would with any other investment debt, they can go on for a good while before they start turfing out homeowners (not that anyone gets turfed out on the street, realistically) and in the meantime the situation may well improve for the latter.
cookie1977 wrote: » I think the problem here is that so many are embarrassed and afraid by this. I used to listen to Drivetime when they had a reporter visiting the repossession courts every week. Very sad altogether. This has to be looked at in the bigger picture. Even the number of postings on boards of people who've been avoiding discussing or dealing with their debt/arrears until it's nearly too late is worrying. Suicide numbers in ireland were 527 in 2009 and the figure for 2010 is expected to top 600 (it takes almost 2 years to compile suicide numbers) and this year it's though those numbers could be as high as 1000.http://www.independent.ie/national-news/three-people-now-die-from-suicide-every-day-of-the-year-3010723.html It's unlikely that some or most of these are not due to the recession. Debt in this country is seen as a dirty word. As Faceman mentioned earlier in the USA they hand back the keys and suffer bad credit for a while but it's more common to go boom and bust and boom again. While as I said, it should not be easy to get out of debt it has to be a practical solution for all concerned.
cookie1977 wrote: » Well if the house is reposessed then really any debt left over should be written off if people cannot afford it. I know that was in some of the bancruptcy proposals but not sure if it'll come through the actual bill. You can't get blood out of a stone.
beaner88 wrote: » I have a huge shareholding in these banks that you want to write off 100Ks worth of debt. Why should I take the hit?
cookie1977 wrote: » What more can they pay if the house has been reposessed? The banks have already written off the bad debt so any cash the get is a plus for them. Would you like to see them bpaying back 20 euro a month in perpetuity. Perhaps even pass on the debt to their children?
beaner88 wrote: » Yes. Why not? It's their debt. Why should the banks shareholders have to cover their debt? It wasn't my investment decision, it was the states. They have billions of euro worth of shareholding actually make that liablities so that works out as as substantial sum for every person, more so for somebody who pays more than their fair share of tax.
