beaner88 wrote: » I must have argued this same point a hundred times before. A person can be against bailouts for personal/household debt and also against bailouts for banks and big business. The two are not mutually exclusive in fact they would tend to follow from each other.
beaner88 wrote: » We have lots of empty estates out in longford and that for them.
cookie1977 wrote: » ...But a proper hit would have seen them being folded up rather than being bailed out as some capitalists on here claim they want to see happen those who cannot pay their mortgages. They got to write off their "bad debts" and collect money from the government and ECB to off set these losses yet they are not negotiating with suffering home owners.
nacimroc wrote: » They got taken over by us. If they were left to their own devices, they would have repossessed properties and sold them on to get their money back. You won't allow them to repossess so we the taxpayer have to keep them afloat. If the banks can repo, property prices would crash temporarily, then recover. The good thing about that is its all just a "value". Nobody is out of pocket until they sell so although the value of their property went down, they don't lose. Then about now (5 years later) we would see it all coming back. Instead, your system of do nothing or help the needy just shuts down everything and we sit here scratching ourselves for a decade whilst the whole thing goes to ****e. Your arguement for no repossessions is more damaging than for repo's in my opinion. The only difference is now the whole country is screwed instead of the gamblers!
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?
cookie1977 wrote: » Of course they took a hit, I understand that. But a proper hit would have seen them being folded up rather than being bailed out as some capitalists on here claim they want to see happen those who cannot pay their mortgages. They got to write off their "bad debts" and collect money from the government and ECB to off set these losses yet they are not negotiating with suffering home owners. I have no problem with them lending nor expecting that money back. My point as has always been my point is that simple repossessing is not necessarily the best answer for the banks, the mortgagee nor the public at large. That's if we want to see our country get back on it's feet. Debtors should pay back their debt, clearly. But why reposes when there are so many options to pursue first. In some ways unfortunately I blame a lot of mortgagee's who are in arrears. They didn't approach the banks early enough to explain their difficulties. But that aside they should be afforded an opportunity to pay back the banks.
WhatNowForUs? wrote: » The banks were waiting for people to get into trouble first before talking to them.
cookie1977 wrote: » I dont quite understand. Would it not be better to approach the bank since the mortgagee would know about their worsening situation first?
Wils110 wrote: » Lol at everyone thinking buying a house now is way better then 4 years ago,I'm riding an ECB tracker mortgage on a house I payed 140,000 less then value..you guys buy now an watch your interest rise over the next 20 years.you be paying more then anyone back to the bank never mind your house value intrest ****s you
beaner88 wrote: » Look at it from my side (and plenty of others) 2005 at some ****e party Mr X-"I have two houses now, its the only way to go. I'm looking to add another now in the next year. Oh you rent? hahah you need to get on the ladder. Rent is dead money mate" 2012 Mr X -"Joe its not fair, the banks have ruined us. All I'm asking is for them to share the burden. I though we were becoming a more caring society again. "
lima wrote: » This is exactly the way I feel too. I used to be so annoyed coming home and all that everyone spoke about was property this property that. I do not know those people or their kids, so what if they live on the same island, They are nothing to do with me same way as a poor family in Africa or Delhi are nothing to do with me so why should I give them sympathy? Let the people who overborrowed get their properties repossessed. Yeah if they do a deal with the band then fair enough, as long as they pay back everything the owe within their lifetimes (or the lifetimes of their kids)
repsol wrote: » There should be no debt forgiveness.If a person cannot afford their mortgage,they should have to be financially audited and a new figure that they can afford be decided.The loan period should then be extended accordingly.It would mean that there would be fewer repossessions and the banks would get ALL their money eventually.In order to keep their houses people would need to be prepared to accept a much lower standard of living.If you cannot pay your mortgage,you cannot have SKY tv,nights out etc.I know someone who is involved with a very large Credit Union and deals with people who are struggling to repay loans.When he goes through their figures they often have large amounts being spent on luxuries which they somehow feel an entitlement to.They would rather miss a repayment than miss out on drinking,gambling,shopping,SKY,smoking,takeaways,Starbucks,taxis etc.A lot of them also decide that if they cannot pay all of their loan,they pay nothing.I think a lot of mortgage holders are falling into this trap.A bank will find it hard to get a repossession on a home where the owner is paying a decent amount every month.
lima wrote: » I am 100% from Dublin. I assure you this is my opinion. Recently returned to this island from living abroad most of the time you all thought you were rich. Like it or not you bought in a game and lost the game. Now I may have to help bail you out? I remember everyone in 2005 sneering at me because I wasn't interested in 'getting on the ladder'. Time to pay your debts people and let nature take its course.
greenpilot wrote: » Judging by your syntax and phrasing your from the back end of the Eastern Block...
faceman wrote: » You're forgetting the bank bailout also bailed out shareholders.
cookie1977 wrote: » The other high cost is the bank gaurantee scheme. But leaving that aside I have to say I am surprised by the "let them eat cake" thinking here. Is it really "it's their fault so stuff them"? I kinda hoped we'd moved to a more feeling country since the recession but it seems not.
jmayo wrote: » Ehhh would you mind telling that to the shareholders in Anglo or the ones in BOI/AIB whose shares went from €15 to 15cents? FFS the amount of sh**e thrown around in these threads is unbelievable.I am getting really fooking sick and tired of this sh**e thrown out about solidarity, being a caring society, looking after the vulnerable and now being a feeling country when people are basically looking for handouts to get them out of their massive personal debts. None of these people were talking about solidarity, being a caring society, looking after the vulnerable or being a feeling country when they were flush with money, or rather other peoples' money that they signed up for with their finanical institutions. Now when the sh** has hit the fan they want to spread it about. It is true what a couple of posters have highlighted here about how anyone that was renting was looked down as some type of poor eejit and all the Paddies could talk about was how much their property was worth or how many properties they had. During the boom a friend of mine who was living in Sweden was home one Christmas and he thought the place had gone mad, including his own family some of whom were buying property in places in Eastern Europe they had never even visited. The writing was on the wall for anyone who cared to notice, but it was like a bunch of teenagers who had gotten the keys to mammy and daddies drinks cabinet. Those partying hardest listened least. Shure the boom was going to get even boomier and weren't we going to have the first soft landing in history from the biggest property bubble in history. :rolleyes: A large number of people are going to have to face it, they lived beyond their means, they borrowed too much based on a false premise (overly high earnings due to boom or full time employment in area historically with none), and that they can never hope to pay back their debts. They are going to have to face fact that they can't walk away from their debts and at the same time hang on to their property. Would it work that way with their jeep or BMW ?
faceman wrote: » Plenty of suggestions being given that sound very like debt bondage to me, which is a form of slavery. Also, this is relevant.http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/warning-over-debt-fuelled-suicides-579602.html
cookie1977 wrote: » Wow more generalisms. Em I cannot live in a jeep and if my jeep was repossessed my government would not give me another one. Bad example comparing a car to a house.
cookie1977 wrote: » We've got to be practical. And that means everyone. Yes we've got to get people to live within their means while they work out their debt and that means giving up/cutting back on lots of luxaries so be it. It goes with the territory of being in debt. But it serves no one for a house to be repossessed (not even the bank who are only thinking short term) other then the person wanting to buy it for cheap.
cookie1977 wrote: » Many of the issues that current indebted people are facing now were not of their own creation. Mass reposessions serve no one. Better to leave the person where they are and work out some plan for long term repayment. And if that means in some (severe) cases that there's a right down of the debt or a shared partnership in the property (ala McWilliams) with the bank owning half of it for sale at a later date, then so be it.
jmayo wrote: » It is similar in terms of failure to repay the outstanding loan and ultimate loss of the asset. Granted there is more protection for a property used as a home, but it still doesn't mean that normal rules of borrowing/repayment never come into affect. But you have to admit some cases are beyond help and it serves no one, including the debtor, to carry on with the charade. It needs to be made easier for these situations to be resolved. Debtor walks away with nothing and are in bankruptcy for few years. Lender gets house, resells house or even rents house back to debtor. Either way house does not continue in ownership of failed debtor. The other thing that has been hinted at is that there are some mortgage holders/defaulters who are refusing to even attempt to repay their debts and they are holding out for this "bailout for the little guy" where they get their debt written off and they get to keep their house. That can never happen. And many of the issues are of the debtors own making. They often signed up for huge mortgage, often on inflated earnings, and often took on other detbs. In some cases the debts aren't just for their homes. I know of numerous people who decided to remortgage to afford deposit on other proeprty (often foreign property), to buy new cars, to buy boats, to offload credit card debts, personal loans, etc. It was complete madness for some. What about repossessions of rental properties ? What repossessions where borrower has made no attempt to repay ? The housing market will always be in limbo as long as there is huge chunk of property that should be repossessed and hasn't and as long as the state has a stockpile that it will not release to the market.
beaner88 wrote: » We have to get the message out then, debt is not a dirty word. We need to let our kids know that they don't need to be scared of debt. If they ever get into trouble they will be let off paying their debt and they will get to keep the asset. Because that's the sort of caring society we live in. The only people to watch out for are those oddballs who don't buy on credit.
Zamboni wrote: » Just wondering - is there any sympathy for the guy who played the game correctly? The person that read the market correctly. The person that saved. The person that rented despite the derision of their contempories. The person that avoided luxuriant spending. The person that avoided taking on any finance. The person that now, for all intents and purposes should be able to buy a beautiful house for a rock bottom price but can't because of state interference in what should be a free market? The person that now has to continue to rent because the floor is still after five years being artificially propped up. The person that now has increased taxation to cover increased MIR for people that purchased between 2004-2008. The person that now has to sit back and see unemployed people living in beautiful houses they never paid for and maybe never will. Just wondering.
cookie1977 wrote: » You're equating someone up to their eyeballs in debt, facing the harsh realities that they could loose their home and possibly so scared out of their wits that they dont know what to do or what the future holds to someone who has no debt, looking to buy a house at a better price then it was a few years ago and is also so intelligent they didn't jump on the so called bandwagon? Just wondering.
