Zamboni wrote: » Not one of them had to buy. Not a single one of them.
cookie1977 wrote: » Everyone is paying for the bailout. Not just those who didn't buy. In fact in the last budget, if you had kids and a house you were more hit then single people with no kids and no house.
cookie1977 wrote: » You're blaming all those in debt/arrears for the state of your finances? The whole basis for my point is to do with morals. I dont agree in the slightest that it's morally flawed and I'm not sure you understand that either. Everyone is paying for the crisis. Those in debt and those in credit. Those with property and those without. Those with children and those without. Everyone.
cookie1977 wrote: » The point I'm making is that mass repossessions to ensure house prices go lower (which is where this began) is not a solution to the problem. And if people think that there's a huge population of people not paying their mortgage while living the high life then nothing I can say will ever make sense. All that is happening now should have happened during the boom time. All the new taxes and such should have been brought in when it was less painful but I seem to remember the majority of people voting for which ever government told them they'd give them the most. We didn't cause the crisis but we sure as hell contributed to it.
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.
beaner88 wrote: » Can you describe to me a situation where a person had to buy and had essentially no choice in the matter?
jmayo wrote: » The reason our budgets are tough is because we were as a state spending way more than we were bringing in in revenue. Bank bailouts or not that spending deficit would have had to be faced. Claiming the last budget or any other budget is down to bailouts is disengenous. The bank bailouts led to the IMF/ECB bailout, but even if we had no bank bailouts and if we had continued to spend ala 2006/2007 we would sooner or later have ended up with the troika as international markets would have refused to keep our lavish spending going. I don't mind contributing towards services. What I do mind is contributing so that johnny and mary down the road get to stay in a house they can't afford whilst walking away from their debts or so that some public servant continues to enjoy their pay increments. You now want those who didn't overborrow or were sensible to contribute even more. Thanks for agreeing to sign up me and my kids. The new taxes are necessary now to make up for the shortfall in our current budget. Yes there is a very valid argument for introducing new property related taxes during the bubble to rain in the excessive spending. BTW how dare you claim I, and I would say many others, contributed to the crisis. I and many others did not indulge in the spending of other peoples' money, thrown at us by many banks, and a lot of us never voted for the shower of incompetents who ran this country into the ground. It is fooking marvellous how suddenly it is WE this, WE that when the sh** has hit the fan whereas there was none of this WE when everyone was rolling in dosh. Fook that for a game of cowboys. And cowboys is the word. A lot of people, particularly those in the building trade, who I now see with the poor mouth were the biggest shower of goudgers during the boom with extortionate prices leaving p*ss poor quality work behind.
Peanut2011 wrote: » Give you an example: Rent €1700 a month and going up every year. Mortgage €1500 a month Which one would you go for?? And consider that as a couple with the baby on the way! BTW, the prices were driven up by the greedy "investors" who just had to have 5 houses to rent! I have no sympathy for people like that but have all the sympathy for the young families who ended up stuck as a result of bad planning, bad law and greed. If they ever wanted the family home they had no choice!
jmayo wrote: » The new taxes are necessary now to make up for the shortfall in our current budget. Yes there is a very valid argument for introducing new property related taxes during the bubble to rain in the excessive spending. BTW how dare you claim I, and I would say many others, contributed to the crisis. I and many others did not indulge in the spending of other peoples' money, thrown at us by many banks, and a lot of us never voted for the shower of incompetents who ran this country into the ground. It is fooking marvellous how suddenly it is WE this, WE that when the sh** has hit the fan whereas there was none of this WE when everyone was rolling in dosh. Fook that for a game of cowboys. And cowboys is the word. A lot of people, particularly those in the building trade, who I now see with the poor mouth were the biggest shower of goudgers during the boom with extortionate prices leaving p*ss poor quality work behind.
cookie1977 wrote: » Rent higher then their mortgage so better to buy. Person looses job and goes in to arrears
beaner88 wrote: » That is not a situation where a person was forced to buy. They decided to take a risk to potentially save money. They got it wrong and now it's time to pay up. I didn't take that risk and I've saved money but now you are telling me I have to pay out to those that messed up? Would you be looking for bailouts for me if the original scenario had gone the other way and I was stuck paying huge rents?
mhge wrote: » It doesn't answer the question. It's not a "had to" situation at all, but a choice. Short term, better choice is maybe to buy (you save some, but your running costs will be higher when you own). Long term, not to buy as prices are not sustainable. Mortgage is a long term decision though.
Peanut2011 wrote: » The amount of money that was poured in to IBRC which was a builders bank and likes of Séan Quinn and Sean Fitzpatrick, far precedes any amount of personal debt that is a problem at the moment. Furthermore you are also paying more on any insurance you may take as a result of Séan Quinn's actions.
Peanut2011 wrote: » No, you are still not paying out for personal debt of people who you say messed up. You are paying now for Businesses who messed up, Government Pay Packets as the revenue is not taking in as much as needed and for the foreign investors in our banks who our government decided should still receive their pay outs despite the gamble nature of investments. The amount of money that was poured in to IBRC which was a builders bank and likes of Séan Quinn and Sean Fitzpatrick, far precedes any amount of personal debt that is a problem at the moment. Furthermore you are also paying more on any insurance you may take as a result of Séan Quinn's actions.
migu wrote: » What a horrible person you are, do you not realise that there were people who saved deposits, borrowed prudently and lost their jobs. When they have used their savings to pay the mortgage what do they do then? What do you mean who cares about their family? Do you want children living in emergency accomodation? The only good thing about the NAMA interference and manipulation in the market is that it keeps prices artificially high and pond life like you cannot buy that repo (which is the carcass of somebody's broken dream) for a song. You represent everything that is wrong with the small minded, self centred Irish begrudger - I see why it didn't work out abroad and you had to skulk back home. Pathetic creature
cookie1977 wrote: » One mans choice is anothers no choice.
cookie1977 wrote: » Like many on here now wanting repossessions so they can get a house. Why don't they wait patiently and save and see what happens to the market. Why do you almost revel in the possibility of repossessions? No one seems to answer this (other then those that don't want repossessions but want to see people repay, which is good in my mind) and I've asked it a few times.
cookie1977 wrote: » If we did not have the bank bailout out taxes would not be as high so the bailout was the cause of most of our problems.
cookie1977 wrote: » Yes I stand by the statement that we all have some blame to take.
cookie1977 wrote: » You are also so wrong on the numbbers enjoying the recession with free living.
Peanut2011 wrote: » I agree with most of what you are saying here, however what I do not agree is lumping extra taxes on the population in order not to reduce spending.
mhge wrote: » Agreed, but what's your point? That since there are many wrongs let's add another one?
beaner88 wrote: » And you believe these are good things? Jesus wept.
jmayo wrote: » Oh we sing from the same hymm sheet on that so please don't get me started. I am all for massive public spending cuts. But I do believe we would also have had to have tax hikes.
Peanut2011 wrote: » No, lets look at the ways of dealing with the issue rather than just bury the people. Where are they going to go??? Home re-possesed, still €100'sK left to repay.... They can't go for social housing as they owned a house.... Would you be happy with seeing all these people out on the street homeless?? I never said that, I am pointing that the extra money we are all paying for has nothing to do with the personal or mortgage debt, so the people that are saying "why should I pay for bla, bla, bla" can get a reality check. I love how there are many here so self centred and could not care less about others, what they don't get is that it was than same self centred attitude that brought the country to the level it is now at!
mhge wrote: » Nice phrase, still doesn't answer the question. Revel? A lot of drama in what you say. I've no interest in getting a repo house for myself. But you can see the state of the banks and of the market; you say yourself that a new solution is needed. Perhaps a new solution could be to bring clarity to the books, to save money for the state (as RA is likely to be cheaper than covering a mortgage), to actually psychologically help people who may be in a healthier mental situation when they are out of the house which became the noose around their neck. They will not be thrown into the streets.
Peanut2011 wrote: » No, lets look at the ways of dealing with the issue rather than just bury the people. Where are they going to go??? Home re-possesed, still €100'sK left to repay.... They can't go for social housing as they owned a house.... Would you be happy with seeing all these people out on the street homeless??
beaner88 wrote: » You think bailouts are a good thing.
mhge wrote: » Between rent allowance/social housing/renting no family ends up homeless on the street...
cookie1977 wrote: » And this is good for the tax payer and society how?
lima wrote: » Darling I came home because I got an offer of a well paid permanent job, and also because I wanted to buy a cheap repo'd house. Your offending me me shows how much of a begrudger you are as you are clearly jealous of the fact I am debt free and living the life with my great job and money. I don't know you and you don't know me, don't be so offensive to me.
cookie1977 wrote: » Instead of forcing the banks to take a share of the problem you'd rather see the state rehouse or help pay for rent. I don't agree. It does no one any good. Sure the banks have been shown to sit on houses rather then sell them so that again benefits no one. Still think it's better to do somesort of a deal where possible and leave them in situ. Let the banks share the burden for not doing proper due dilegence on the mortgages. They've already written down the bad loans.
Peanut2011 wrote: » If you have ever owned a property you are not eligible to go on social housing list. All the other allowances you have mentioned are only available if you on a social welfare..
