Should people be evicted from houses they cant afford?

COYVB · 10-03-2013 03:46PM

Zamboni wrote: »

You do know what happens to interest when you extend a term, yes?
You are just kicking the can down the road.

And again, that's why I said it would be a renegotiation revisited in 5 years. If you're assuming that things will never pick up again in Ireland, then that's fine, but the likelihood is that they will at some point. Do you not think what I'm suggesting is preferable to making countless families homeless, in turn putting even bigger strain on the state, rather than having the banks do a bit of legwork to reduce payments temporarily?

Boskowski · 10-03-2013 03:51PM

Of course they should be evicted.

I know we are in a poor economic climate and all that, but the reality is entering a mortgage contract always meant you have to pay for your house or else. Why should it be any different now?

I know there'll be a lot of people trotting out the 'no fault of their own', 'most vulnerable', 'bankers got bailed out' bladibla bull.
I really don't know how that makes a difference though. Losing your job would always have been a possibility, good economy or bad, and a lot of people not only didn't think of a fallback plan for that eventuality but actually stretched themselves to the max and beyond. I fail to see why my tax money should make up for their shortfall.

Plus a lot of people are just riding that train now cos they bought a house that was too expensive for them in the first place and they thought the expected value increase would make up for that. So now their houses haven't increased in value as they thought it would and they're thinking they're going to get away with the 'I have fallen on hard times' line. In reality they just don't want to pay whats now a sizable chunk of their income and they feel they should be entitled to buy a new car for that money instead.

Faolchu · 10-03-2013 03:52PM

I'd love a fireman red ferrari I can't aford it so I don't get it. I wanted a 4bed detached home I couldn't afford it I didn't get it.
I wanted a two week holiday in the bahamas, I could afort it so I settled for a week in majorca. If they can't keep up the payments then turf them out, they signed a legally binding contract and you'd nbe damn sure if the banks didn't keep up their side of the deal the home owner would want action so why shouldn't the bank be the same.

Also all these evictions all happen after the renegotiations have failed. In most instances the bank played ball and the homeowner didn't keep up their side of the deal. Fup 'em let them live on the street

earlyevening · 10-03-2013 03:53PM

COYVB wrote: »

Do you not think what I'm suggesting is preferable to making countless families homeless, in turn putting even bigger strain on the state, rather than having the banks do a bit of legwork to reduce payments temporarily?

Homeless? a strain on the state?

Why can't the vast majority of them just enter the private rented sector?

People aren't going to be on the streets if their houses are repossessed.

Homelessness is not defined by not owning a house.

Pilotdude5 · 10-03-2013 03:53PM

Grayson wrote: »

he's unemployed in it too. Shure anyone can get a morgage.

Need a place to get laid? Buy a house!

beefstew · 10-03-2013 03:54PM

The banks need to talk to these people in debt and renegotiate the terms of the mortgage. If someone can't afford to pay all their mortgage, they should be forced to pay what they can and review it every year until their situation improves. A little money is better than no money, what are the banks going to do if they start repossessing houses. There's so many out there, they won't be able to sell them. I can't understand why they won't do this, it seems very simple perhaps.

galwayrush · 10-03-2013 03:54PM

Faolchu wrote: »

I'd love a fireman red ferrari I can't aford it so I don't get it. I wanted a 4bed detached home I couldn't afford it I didn't get it.
I wanted a two week holiday in the bahamas, I could afort it so I settled for a week in majorca. If they can't keep up the payments then turf them out, they signed a legally binding contract and you'd nbe damn sure if the banks didn't keep up their side of the deal the home owner would want action so why shouldn't the bank be the same.

Also all these evictions all happen after the renegotiations have failed. In most instances the bank played ball and the homeowner didn't keep up their side of the deal. Fup 'em let them live on the street

What a noble sentiment.:rolleyes:

COYVB · 10-03-2013 03:56PM

Boskowski wrote: »

I fail to see why my tax money should make up for their shortfall.

It shouldn't. They should have to pay back everything they owe in the end

clairefontaine · 10-03-2013 03:56PM

Let's say they do evict people and reposess homes?

What the hell are they going to do with all of them? It's not like anyone can buy them?

Will there be a land grab by foreign investors?

COYVB · 10-03-2013 03:57PM

earlyevening wrote: »

Why can't the vast majority of them just enter the private rented sector?

Because rental prices have gone through the roof since nobody wants to buy

galwayrush · 10-03-2013 03:58PM

COYVB wrote: »

It shouldn't. They should have to pay back everything they owe in the end

They could go bankrupt in the UK , after one year and they don't legally owe anything anymore.

Boskowski · 10-03-2013 03:59PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Let's say they do evict people and reposess homes?

What the hell are they going to do with all of them? It's not like anyone can buy them?

Will there be a land grab by foreign investors?

Someone will once the price is right. It's whats called the market adjusting itself. Only our government tries everything to prevent that from happening.

What's a 'landgrab' anyway? I always thought foreign investment is what everyone desperately wants for this country?

earlyevening · 10-03-2013 04:01PM

COYVB wrote: »

Because rental prices have gone through the roof since nobody wants to buy

Still lower than what the mortgage repayment was.

space_man · 10-03-2013 04:02PM

COYVB wrote: »

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

yes but we (you, me and every taxpayer) now own those stupid banks!
shouldn't people take responsibility for their decisions however stupid:eek:

Boskowski · 10-03-2013 04:03PM

COYVB wrote: »

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

And the ones seeking out stupid mortgage contracts have no responsibility at all? Were they all lemmings?

Legs.Eleven · 10-03-2013 04:04PM

This is what they've been doing here in Spain and there's been a couple of cases of suicide since. People have been protesting and the banks have put a freeze on evictions for the time being, which is great news and an example of how people power can really work.

I used to teach one of the head honchos in the credit dept of a large Spanish bank and he was completely heartless about the evictions - he didn't give even the slightest ****. I gave up that class as a result after having a go at him (it was preemptive, I probably would've got fired anyway). While I don't blame the banks 100%, a large proportion of the responsibility lies with them when they gave mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford them.

Provisions have to be made right now while times are tough for people - they can't just be thrown out onto the street. It's completely inhumane.

clairefontaine · 10-03-2013 04:05PM

Boskowski wrote: »

Someone will once the price is right. It's whats called the market adjusting itself. Only our government tries everything to prevent that from happening.

What's a 'landgrab' anyway? I always thought foreign investment is what everyone desperately wants for this country?

As far as I am aware, realtors and sellers are only accepting cash purchases. Even if banks are lending out mortgages, I'm not sure who would take them, so who is going to sell? How would the banks actually sell off all these houses?

Since there is hardly any lending in the country, and sellers want cash, obviously the only people who can buy are people outside the country.

landgrabbing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_grabbing

clairefontaine · 10-03-2013 04:07PM

If they are going to evict and reposess, they should reimburse all the money already paid by the home owner.

They need to take some responsibility for this financial horror.

COYVB · 10-03-2013 04:09PM

Boskowski wrote: »

And the ones seeking out stupid mortgage contracts have no responsibility at all? Were they all lemmings?

They have the responsibility to pay back every penny owed, which they would. It's just that they'd have the opportunity to restructure their mortgage temporarily to allow them to make ends meet in the meantime. They'd still pay back every penny owed, plus additional interest. I fail to see how evicting them is preferable to that

Gatling · 10-03-2013 04:10PM

So home owners should be absolved of any blame ,

clairefontaine · 10-03-2013 04:11PM

COYVB wrote: »

They have the responsibility to pay back every penny owed, which they would. It's just that they'd have the opportunity to restructure their mortgage temporarily to allow them to make ends meet in the meantime. They'd still pay back every penny owed, plus additional interest. I fail to see how evicting them is preferable to that

Ah but do they? If the prices were inflated how is this not somehow related to fraud?

They were sold zirconias at diamond prices.

Legs.Eleven · 10-03-2013 04:11PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

This is what they've been doing here in Spain and there's been a couple of cases of suicide since. People have been protesting and the banks have put a freeze on evictions for the time being, which is great news and an example of how people power can really work.

I used to teach one of the head honchos in the credit dept of a large Spanish bank and he was completely heartless about the evictions - he didn't give even the slightest ****. I gave up that class as a result after having a go at him (it was preemptive, I probably would've got fired anyway). While I don't blame the banks 100%, a large proportion of the responsibility lies with them when they gave mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford them.

Provisions have to be made right now while times are tough for people - they can't just be thrown out onto the street. It's completely inhumane.

Oh and just to add, my ex student banker admitted part of the responsibility lay with them but his answer to that was, "That's business!". Fucker.

Boskowski · 10-03-2013 04:12PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

As far as I am aware, realtors and sellers are only accepting cash purchases. Even if banks are lending out mortgages, I'm not sure who would take them, so who is going to sell? How would the banks actually sell off all these houses?

Since there is hardly any lending in the country, and sellers want cash, obviously the only people who can buy are people outside the country.

And would that be a bad thing?

Like I said bringing those houses back into the market would allow the market to adjust itself naturally. Of course it would mean house prices in certain areas would drop much lower. Eventually it will be so low that people start buying. And it won't be all foreigners, plenty of people with cash in Ireland still. Only they're not buying into a market that is non-stop being tampered with by the government. They're not stupid people thats why they have cash in the first place.

clairefontaine · 10-03-2013 04:14PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Oh and just to add, my ex student banker admitted part of the responsibility lay with them but his answer to that was, "That's business!". Fucker.

Well see that is it. And they know it. It's just a game to them, with magic numbers that float in this sparkly universe of abstraction, and their game is that THEY NEVER LOSE MONEY. They don't care if everyone else does, but they cannot, and he is right, that is business.

Legs.Eleven · 10-03-2013 04:15PM

Boskowski wrote: »

Of course they should be evicted.

I know we are in a poor economic climate and all that, but the reality is entering a mortgage contract always meant you have to pay for your house or else. Why should it be any different now?

I know there'll be a lot of people trotting out the 'no fault of their own', 'most vulnerable', 'bankers got bailed out' bladibla bull.
I really don't know how that makes a difference though. Losing your job would always have been a possibility, good economy or bad, and a lot of people not only didn't think of a fallback plan for that eventuality but actually stretched themselves to the max and beyond. I fail to see why my tax money should make up for their shortfall.

Plus a lot of people are just riding that train now cos they bought a house that was too expensive for them in the first place and they thought the expected value increase would make up for that. So now their houses haven't increased in value as they thought it would and they're thinking they're going to get away with the 'I have fallen on hard times' line. In reality they just don't want to pay whats now a sizable chunk of their income and they feel they should be entitled to buy a new car for that money instead.

You're actually just inventing stuff here to suit your agenda. What evidence do you have of this attitude? And please don't use your mate's wife's husband's 1st cousin, for the love of jaysus. :rolleyes:

Gatling · 10-03-2013 04:16PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ah but do they? If the prices were inflated how is this not somehow related to fraud?

They were sold zirconias at diamond prices.

Because they chose to play the game of if we pay 300,000e for a property now in ten years it will be worth 750,000 we win ,

Nobody body forced them to buy or pay over inflated prices then go a get a new car on finance to match the new shiny house and now they cant afford either ,

COYVB · 10-03-2013 04:17PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ah but do they? If the prices were inflated how is this not somehow related to fraud?

They were sold zirconias at diamond prices.

Nobody forced them to buy

wolfpawnat · 10-03-2013 04:17PM

I think their repayments should have to be renegotiated based on their now lower incomes. I don't think it would fair to abolish their debt, just make it more realistic for them. If a person is not willing to pay lower rates, then out on their asses with them, but if they are trying, I think any bank/building society doing this should be forced to repay money they were given in their bailouts etc.

People paid way to much for houses and that is partly due to the "boom" and partly greed, I was in my late teens/early twenties and I saw that things were getting ridiculous, surely educated people in their later twenties and thirties would have seen that too. But at the same time, if all they bought was a realistic sized home, they should be helped to sort their debts..... now if only people renting could also do the same with landlords if they have reduced incomes.

ronjo · 10-03-2013 04:18PM

To be honest this is a stupid thread. The OP says

"Should people be evicted from houses they cant afford?"

while the poll says

"Should we evict people who refuse to pay their mortgages?"

They are two completely different questions.

wolfpawnat · 10-03-2013 04:19PM

ronjo wrote: »

To be honest this is a stupid thread. The OP says

"Should people be evicted from houses they cant afford?"

while the poll says

"Should we evict people who refuse to pay their mortgages?"

They are two completely different questions.

Indeed, cannot and will not are two entirely different scenarios.

Should people be evicted from houses they cant afford?

Comments