faceman wrote: » You're forgetting the bank bailout also bailed out shareholders.
faceman wrote: » Because you made a terrible investment decision perhaps? The debt was already written off at the time of the bailout. Why aren't you calling the banks and government to task for misleading you investment decision rather than seeking the punishment of those who aren't to blame?
nacimroc wrote: » Every single person in the country with a mortgage would throw the keys back at the bank. Why pay off something worth less than your paying when you can hand it back with no consequences. 3 years being bankrupt is really a tiny penalty to pay to get out of a lifetime of debt. This new bill should be seen as a real lifeline, but if people are too stuborn, proud, ignorant to take it then they get what's coming to them. Just on the point of investments, even family homes were investments!
nacimroc wrote: » Just on this point that keeps coming up! We the people allowed our politicians to save the banks with our money. We needed thriving banks for everyones sake and to keep the country moving along. At no point ever did we assume that money would be used to write off Maureens Italian marble floor and range rover. Recapitalising the banks was so that we could carry on functioning as a normal economy. People are speaking as if nobody has to pay by writing off their debt. If they pay that off, its almost gauranteed, my interest rate will go up again a few times this year. There will be even more bank charges, less lending, slower economy and more hurt. So there are huge consequences to using the money they were already given.
cookie1977 wrote: » Sorry but the whole point of recapitalisation was because the banks had so much worthless debt. How can many of these people pay off the debt? Even with the suggestion of 20 euro a week, how much is that going to help the country. Not a lot I suspect.You mortgage rate is rising if you're on a variable mortgage because the banks decided it was a great idea to have trackers which cost them a fortune now. Not because of arrears or repossessions. What you fear above will happen as long as there's no domestic economic growth. The only way to sort that is for people to spend. Yours and others ideas will achieve the opposite effect or at the very least create a two tier economy with those who have and those who have not.
beaner88 wrote: » That is not true. The banks are paying very high intrabank rates because of the risk of default. They are insolvent and are relying on state aid to plug their holes. These are due to bad debts to developers and private individuals. These debts are written off in their balance sheets as bad debts but that does not mean they are "written off". They still intend to pursue them but accountants take them into account as possible losses. A big difference. The trackers are also a drag on their profits. How will it help getting people to spend by taxing me an extra 2K a year to cover other peoples debts? So they get to go out and start spending in pubs and cafes again and I get to stay at home?
cookie1977 wrote: » ..in order for an economy to grow we need the majority to be thriving. It makes no sense to punish people for what can only be described as partly their mistake.
cookie1977 wrote: » So you're almost trying to tell me you envy those in debt, not paying their mortgage? I certainly would not like to be them. Can you say that you would have done any different to those who bought in the boom if you'd had that opportunity? Yes of course the country went mad but that's no reason to turn on the populous that are now regretting earlier decisions. We are not a solely capitalist country as I've said before. We have huge state support systems to help those who are struggling. If you want true capitalisim head to the USA where many there feel we're a socialist continent. Be thankful that you're debt free, probably young and going into a recession with house prices this low. Think of all those people who are the wrong side of 40 and cannot afford to start all over again.
cookie1977 wrote: » I somehow think you'll both survive the current "high" property prices. Do you tell your friends how they were greedy and foolish and how prudent you were?
Wicklowandy wrote: » A lot of people bought homes in the boom years not as an investment; they bought it as a home because they were at a point in their lives (settling down) If they'd been born 10 or 15 years earlier, had made the same decision to buy a home in say 1990, they wouldnt be in the same situation. You cant punish a subset of people because they were born at a certain time.
Calhoun wrote: » How is paying what you owe a punishment? i don't remember seeing anywhere that purchasing property was a god given right. Yes some bought as they were looking to settle down but allot got greedy. There was a culture of keeping up with the Jones that everyone got sucked into, new cars, flipping property to move to a bigger place ect. People lived it up in the boom now its time to pay the piper. I am not saying these people should be punished indefinitely but actions must have consequences and under no circumstances should you be exempt from your dept because you were born at a certain time.
Yes but isn't there a risk on the part of the banks. Didn't they take a risk giving a mortgage to someone? Yes of course the person did not have to take such lareg amounts but shouldn't they (the bank) have done proper due diligence in to the person taking the mortgage and stress tested the individual themselves? How come when a bank is about to collapse it's rescued but when a person is about to collapse there is no sympathy?
beaner88 wrote: » I read this again and again. The banks took a risk that if a person did not repay their mortgage either due to job loss, pay cuts or whatever then they would the property as security. They also knew in the event that this security was worth less than teh outstanding debt they could pursue that person for this money. If they didn't have it then they could declare themselvse bankrupt. Nothing has since changed. Those were the rules of engagement that both sides agreed to. That is what the buyer signed and they should have been seriously worried about hte possibility of serious negative equity and job losses in a bubble economy. Their choice and they got it wrong. We all know that taking on banking debt was a huge mistake so why repeat it?
beaner88 wrote: » Cheap housing benefits a bit more than a few. It benefits the whole of society and our future society. We can never go back to a situation where property becomes this imaginary wealth generator. We can't have people spending 40% of their incomes on housing to benefit the people at the top of the pyramid. CHeap housing like cheap fuel is good for Ireland.
frogstar wrote: » I thought the point of this thread was to help those who are facing repossession. Great to see it derailed by the same argument over and over How is that going to help the op and others in that situation.
cookie1977 wrote: » Yes but isn't there a risk on the part of the banks. Didn't they take a risk giving a mortgage to someone? Yes of course the person did not have to take such large amounts but shouldn't they (the bank) have done proper due diligence in to the person taking the mortgage and stress tested the individual themselves? How come when a bank is about to collapse it's rescued but when a person is about to collapse there is no sympathy?
nacimroc wrote: » The banks did get hit! They got completely wacked. We now completely own the AIB, have huge shareholdings in others. They made huge cuts, redundancies, share prices cut to almost nothing. The banks are worth a pittance now and went from thriving businesses to owned by the state making huge losses. So an outside observer could say the banks did take a hit because of it. (I hate them also but playing devils advocate on this one)
nacimroc wrote: » But excluding that, you wouldn't blame a sweet shop because you got fat on there cheap deals. It was the banks business to lend you money. At the moment all those people took out mortgages and I asked them what happens if they don't pay it back I would guess 100% knew the consequences. So why play the "it was all the banks fault" card.
