Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New Beginning?? Long term resolution for unwanted house.

124678

Comments

  • #92
    strongback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭strongback


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Not in Ireland, lots of people were. Did you see what tradesmen were charging?

    Not sure where you are showing a 50/50 balance. You aren't say a 50% write off you are saying an entire write off of all debt for the person with the bank taking the entire hit.

    It really doesn't matter what you think that is not the legal position here as you have been told repeatedly. The fact is it isn't even common in the world to write off debt in the manner you are saying. Wonder if you have some monetary tipping point where it no longer is the persons responsibility to pay it back. Is it only houses?

    Rather than just repeat yourself and then people repeat the responses back at you how about writing the criteria and how you think it should work?

    Your arguments are incoherent as you don't seem to acknowledge what is in place or understand what has already happened. Money from the government had nothing to do with debt write off so what is the point mentioning it as a reason for write offs?



    The 50/50 I wrote of relates to the value of the house. Most houses are in the order of being worth 50% of their peak value at least as an average. The bank sells the house and recovers 50% of the mortgage through the sale and the remaining 50% is written off.

    I know this idea absolutely infuriates anybody who has a small mortgage or none at all.

    The other option is to take it out of the banks hands and just go bankrupt which still amounts to the same 50/50 arrangement for the bank. If the banks take the lead it saves some pain for the individual but as they don't seem to be able to act then bankruptcy is the only sensible option.

    Also money from the government has everything to do with the debt. It's why Noonan has started talking tough with the banks and the repossessions proceedings are ramping up.

    There is nothing incoherent about linking the fact that the goverment gave the banks a bailout to cover bad loans. The loans have been scrutinized over and over again and the banks can take the hit of nonpayment. The governments insolvency legislation allows for people not paying back their mortgages.

    Some people still seem very naive about how this country is run.


  • #93
    The Spider
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Op, been in a similar situation myself, missus bought a place, so I went and bought our house on my own, granted moved a bit outside Dublin and commute.

    Tell your missus to apply for the mortgage, and don't volunteer any info about getting married, nobody's business but your own, see what she can get on one salary, buy what you can afford (important).

    When you get married you both had assets each in your names, so they don't suddenly become shared, that way the family home won't be taken over if the apartment goes belly up.

    Then start thinking about going for the debt writedown they're going to be given out, just play it up with the banks when the time is right.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/debt-writedowns-on-agenda-in-central-bank-deal-with-lenders-1.1386655


  • #94
    strongback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭strongback


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    That isn't true, the money was not to write of mortgages but bad investment funds. They may have been property based funds but few were connected to Ireland. If you start with that faulty belief I can see where you end up but it is simply not what happened or how it applies. They lost the money elsewhere you are suggesting they lose more. How does that make economical sense.


    I'm sorry but you are incorrect. The bailout money covered mortgage shortfalls as well. I don't have time now to dig out some info.

    A minimum recovery value was placed on all loans.


    You keep trying to derail my argument with spurious comments. I chose to debate politely.


  • #95
    GalwayMagpie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 163 ✭✭GalwayMagpie


    Beardyman wrote: »
    I've sent them a couple if mails but if I want to meet anyone there's a minimum charge of €150. I understand they must be inundated with queries but if you've already sent on all of your financial details they must be able to state whether or not they can do anything for you before you start handing over money. I was just wondering if anyone actually had any experience of dealing with them?


    So you don't wish to pay your debts, and your new wife certainly does not wish to be burdened by your various financial misdemeanors.

    So you figure you will pawn it off on the taxpayer?

    While you are at it, why not ask if they will give you a free holiday house by the beach in Spain.


  • #96
    D3PO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    strongback wrote: »
    The 50/50 I wrote of relates to the value of the house. Most houses are in the order of being worth 50% of their peak value at least as an average. The bank sells the house and recovers 50% of the mortgage through the sale and the remaining 50% is written off.

    Sorry but that is a 100% write off.

    I know this idea absolutely infuriates anybody who has a small mortgage or none at all.

    The other option is to take it out of the banks hands and just go bankrupt which still amounts to the same 50/50 arrangement for the bank. If the banks take the lead it saves some pain for the individual but as they don't seem to be able to act then bankruptcy is the only sensible option.

    Not correct. You go bankrupt all your assets will be taken and divided amongst your creditors, so all savings, your car etc. will be taken. As the bank will be your main or only creditor then they will get at least some of the difference back. So its not the same arrangement.

    Also money from the government has everything to do with the debt. It's why Noonan has started talking tough with the banks and the repossessions proceedings are ramping up.

    There is nothing incoherent about linking the fact that the goverment gave the banks a bailout to cover bad loans. The loans have been scrutinized over and over again and the banks can take the hit of nonpayment. The governments insolvency legislation allows for people not paying back their mortgages.

    The government game a bailout to keep the banks solvent not to write off bad debts.

    Some people still seem very naive about how this country is run.

    Sorry but your the naive one here if you think that the banks will roll over whilst hundreds and thousands of people have their debts written off.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    D3PO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    strongback wrote: »
    I'm sorry but you are incorrect. The bailout money covered mortgage shortfalls as well. I don't have time now to dig out some info.

    A minimum recovery value was placed on all loans.


    You keep trying to derail my argument with spurious comments. I chose to debate politely.

    not ALL loans only on loans that were at risk. They didn't check every loan. That was part of an exercise in terms of knowing how much money they needs to provide the banks to keep them liquid.

    It wasn't done so that all those loans were written down to the minimum recovery value.

    It was not given to cover mortgage shortfalls, although they government did expect some pragmatic action from the banks which would in cases of loans being so far underwater that they would never be serviced to do something about it. In some cases this has happened but understandably the banks have been slow to do so freely as you can be guaranteed that if they were strategic defaults would go through the roof.


  • #98
    strongback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭strongback


    D3PO wrote: »
    Sorry but your the naive one here if you think that the banks will roll over whilst hundreds and thousands of people have their debts written off.


    The bank still owns the house and it has a value of approximately 50% of the cost of the mortgage or more. I was talking about the banks hit not the individuals.

    Of course all assets are frozen in bankruptcy, I never inferred they wouldn't be.

    The pain is the bankruptcy process and the aftermath. The governments alternative of an 8 year insolvency process does exactly the same thing as jumping ship to the UK. My point was why put people through bankruptcy when the problem can be dealt with more sensibly. The cost to the bank is no different as they still buy all the negative equity when a person goes bankrupt.


    How do you keep a bank solvent that is crippled by bad debt. You bail out the bad debt, the biggest loan book in these banks was mortgages by a country mile.


    This debate is going backwards.


  • #99
    strongback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭strongback


    D3PO wrote: »
    not ALL loans only on loans that were at risk. They didn't check every loan. That was part of an exercise in terms of knowing how much money they needs to provide the banks to keep them liquid.

    They bailed out the bad loans and put a minimum recovery value on properties, they did this in conjunction with NAMA. NAMA then bought the properties at a fraction of their worth thus ensuring a profit when they made a sale, it was ass covering of the highest order. I was involved as an employee with many properties what went this way .

    It wasn't done so that all those loans were written down to the minimum recovery value.


    It was all about a minimum recovery value with the government bailout making up the shortfall with banks trying to trade their way out of it if possible.

    It was not given to cover mortgage shortfalls, although they government did expect some pragmatic action from the banks which would in cases of loans being so far underwater that they would never be serviced to do something about it. In some cases this has happened but understandably the banks have been slow to do so freely as you can be guaranteed that if they were strategic defaults would go through the roof.


    It was given specifically to cover bad debt in the property market.


    The government has the bad debt covered but they don't want to make it too easy for people who are chancing their arm trying to get a debt write down.


  • #100
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    strongback wrote: »
    The bank still owns the house and it has a value of approximately 50% of the cost of the mortgage or more. I was talking about the banks hit not the individuals.

    Of course all assets are frozen in bankruptcy, I never inferred they wouldn't be.

    The pain is the bankruptcy process and the aftermath. The governments alternative of an 8 year insolvency process does exactly the same thing as jumping ship to the UK. My point was why put people through bankruptcy when the problem can be dealt with more sensibly. The cost to the bank is no different as they still buy all the negative equity when a person goes bankrupt.


    How do you keep a bank solvent that is crippled by bad debt. You bail out the bad debt, the biggest loan book in these banks was mortgages by a country mile.


    This debate is going backwards.

    Because bankruptcy is the sentence that must me served in return for reneging on bad debts.i don't care if they do a mass bankruptcy or individual bankruptcy.
    If a person is insolvent they go bankrupt. Their Debts are wiped and allowed to start again, BUT with certain restrictions attached.
    Joe goes bankrupt and gets a clean slate to start again with restrictions attached. Mary honours her debt. Why shouldn't some classification be distinguished between Mary and joe?
    Under the system you proposed joe would get a clean slate without any restrictions. Thus massive calls for everyone for the same clean slate.

    Bankruptcy is and should only be for a person who is insolvent. Insolvent isn't losing 90% of an investment. Insolvent us being unable to meet debts as they fall due.


  • #101
    D3PO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    your getting confused. NAMA didn't take Joe soaps loans onto their books, they took developers loans onto their books. NAMA bought these loans off the bank.

    This is a regular banking transaction, banks package loans, CFD's and other financial instruments all the time. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with bailouts.

    With all due respect if you were an employee on some of these transactions you should understand the mechanisms involved.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    LowKeyReturn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 934 ✭✭✭LowKeyReturn


    John Mason wrote: »
    In 2007, i bought a 3 bedroom house, for under 200k in Dublin City Centre.

    Just because some people lost the run of themselves, and spent 500k+ on a house, does not mean i have should have to pay half their mortgage.

    People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions and stop blaming other people.

    "oh, the bank held a gun to my head and said, that if i didnt sign the mortgage documents for 600,000k, they were going to shoot me and my whole family - i had no choice in the matter. I only wanted 150k"

    PAH !!!

    Well done on your bargain - you were in a tiny minority. Did you actually see the second part of my post? You've quoted it.

    Since when has D11 been the city centre?


  • #103
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,947 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    strongback wrote: »
    The 50/50 I wrote of relates to the value of the house. Most houses are in the order of being worth 50% of their peak value at least as an average. The bank sells the house and recovers 50% of the mortgage through the sale and the remaining 50% is written off.

    I know this idea absolutely infuriates anybody who has a small mortgage or none at all.

    The other option is to take it out of the banks hands and just go bankrupt which still amounts to the same 50/50 arrangement for the bank. If the banks take the lead it saves some pain for the individual but as they don't seem to be able to act then bankruptcy is the only sensible option.

    Also money from the government has everything to do with the debt. It's why Noonan has started talking tough with the banks and the repossessions proceedings are ramping up.

    There is nothing incoherent about linking the fact that the goverment gave the banks a bailout to cover bad loans. The loans have been scrutinized over and over again and the banks can take the hit of nonpayment. The governments insolvency legislation allows for people not paying back their mortgages.

    Some people still seem very naive about how this country is run.


    You really aren't accurate or making sense.

    If I gave you €100 and you bought something that was then only worth €50 and gave me the thing back and said I am done I lose more than €50. First off I was going to get interest of say €20. I have actually lost €70 in accounting terms. If you paid some of the €100 with interest of €11 twice totalling €22. €120-22=98 take away the recovered asset value €50 I have to swallow €48 loss. That is not 50/50 split as what have you as the customer lost?

    The insolvency bill is for people who can't afford the loan not those who wish to walk away.

    The government did not give the banks money to write off every loan on their books. They did not proof every loan either you are simply wrong on this. It didn't happen as you described and the insolvency law doesn't apply as you think and you haven't even got the basics of what would be fair in your eyes as a 50/50 split. You are suggesting the banks take the whole hit and even taking how you read the bail out you are suggesting the banks write off debt not covered in the bailout.

    You are making no sense and remain incoherent. It seems to be you don't actually understand the subject


  • #104
    strongback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭strongback


    D3PO wrote: »
    your getting confused. NAMA didn't take Joe soaps loans onto their books, they took developers loans onto their books. NAMA bought these loans off the bank.

    This is a regular banking transaction, banks package loans, CFD's and other financial instruments all the time. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with bailouts.

    With all due respect if you were an employee on some of these transactions you should understand the mechanisms involved.


    I never said NAMA related to individual houses. I gave an example of how the government and banks dealt with bad loans. You like putting words into other peoples mouths. In the previous post you misquoted me two or three times as well.

    Mortgage debt was assessed. Are you trying to say if there are insolvencies the banks will go under? This has all been sorted out a long time ago. The banks took the money and kept stum as the government tried to negotiate its way out the problem through Europe.

    The government has now brought the issue to the point where they can say to the banks 'alright get your arses in gear and sort out these bad mortgages'. Almost immediately the bank has up'd the interest rates and out go the threatening letters to home owners.


  • #105
    gaius c
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Very simple reason that the folks who are not actually insolvent won't be allowed to walk away from their debts...once they do, nobody else will bother paying their (non recourse) debts. Sorry dudes but you're about to be made an example of.

    Ultimately I think we'll end up with all new lending being non-recourse but are folk ready for the increased interest rates banks will charge to cover their increased risk?


  • #106
    strongback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭strongback


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    You really aren't accurate or making sense.

    If I gave you €100 and you bought something that was then only worth €50 and gave me the thing back and said I am done I lose more than €50. First off I was going to get interest of say €20. I have actually lost €70 in accounting terms. If you paid some of the €100 with interest of €11 twice totalling €22. €120-22=98 take away the recovered asset value €50 I have to swallow €48 loss. That is not 50/50 split as what have you as the customer lost?

    The insolvency bill is for people who can't afford the loan not those who wish to walk away.

    The government did not give the banks money to write off every loan on their books. They did not proof every loan either you are simply wrong on this. It didn't happen as you described and the insolvency law doesn't apply as you think and you haven't even got the basics of what would be fair in your eyes as a 50/50 split. You are suggesting the banks take the whole hit and even taking how you read the bail out you are suggesting the banks write off debt not covered in the bailout.

    You are making no sense and remain incoherent. It seems to be you don't actually understand the subject


    How do the banks take the whole hit when they still own the asset. They recover a significant portion of the original mortgage loan.......that's not rocket science.

    I never said insolvency was for people who can pay their debts. Another person putting words in my mouth.



    You're biggest problem it seems to me is reading comprehension.


    Your counter arguments are so waffley you sound like a hack, are you affiliated to a political party?



    My points just to break them down into little itty bity bite sizes pieces are as follows:


    1. Going insolvent is a good option for people with unsustainable debt.

    2. Older people with little or no debt pontificating about mortgage debt being a set in stone commitment and write down talk being a disgrace are more than a little hard to listen to.

    3. The government have bank debt under control and the country will not collapse if debt forgiveness becomes a reality for those that really can't pay.


  • #107
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    mrmitty wrote: »
    I find it interesting that posters here want to 'tar and feather' the op and insist that he pay this debt in full.
    It's true that he took on this debt and it's true that he should suffer as a result but the banks also entered into a business arrangement, should they not suffer at all for their bad decisions?
    Seems to me that both parties should suffer equally, no?
    The op can afford his mortgage so the bank made no mistake in his case.


  • #108
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    strongback wrote: »

    You guys born in the 1960's had it all, so your pontificating falls on deaf ears.

    Strangely enough I find those of us of that age much more pragmatic about this issue with the ability to see the bigger picture. The hardliners on the right tend to be of the same generation that was shafted. Sitting on their 'well I didn't buy' horse. Or even younger, those in their early 20s who have no idea really just how crazy those few years were.


  • #109
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    strongback wrote: »
    How do the banks take the whole hit when they still own the asset. They recover a significant portion of the original mortgage loan.......that's not rocket science.

    I never said insolvency was for people who can pay their debts. Another person putting words in my mouth.



    You're biggest problem it seems to me is reading comprehension.


    Your counter arguments are so waffley you sound like a hack, are you affiliated to a political party?



    My points just to break them down into little itty bity bite sizes pieces are as follows:


    1. Going insolvent is a good option for people with unsustainable debt.

    2. Older people with little or no debt pontificating about mortgage debt being a set in stone commitment and write down talk being a disgrace are more than a little hard to listen to.

    3. The government have bank debt under control and the country will not collapse if debt forgiveness becomes a reality for those that really can't pay.

    Who say's that it's only older people saying this? What about all those who borrowed more responsibly (and there are plenty)


  • #110
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    While I have very little sympathy for op but something will have to be done for people in difficulty and with no chance of repaying their debt. A pile of people burdened with unsustainable debt is bad for the local economy (the one that actually creates jobs) plus those unresolved loans will just increase interest on future loans. It doesn't bother me because we are on tracker rate in the house that is not in negative equity and we have no intention of moving. But those here who are so vocal how they were not silly enough to buy at the peak of the boom will be paying huge interest if this doesn't get resolved in some way.

    Just in case some thought things are that black and white.


  • #111
    gaius c
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    strongback wrote: »
    2. Older people with little or no debt pontificating about mortgage debt being a set in stone commitment and write down talk being a disgrace are more than a little hard to listen to.

    You have repeated this a few times now and you're actually wrong. The generation most in trouble are that very generation who re-mortgaged and gambled everything so that they could play amateur property developers. To make matters worse, they then went guarantor on their childrens' mortgages and failed to make the connection between their own speculation and the fact that their children needed assistance to buy shoeboxes in Adamstown!

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0412/381004-mabs-mortgage-arrears/

    While FTB's from the noughties are almost certainly in negative equity in unsuitable accomodation, they are unlikely to have multiple BTL's on interest-only mortgages like the Pat Kenny generation. The FTB's also have time to recover. The PK generation are set to lose everything at the very point when they expected to retire from work and have their lifestyle funded by rent flowing in.

    Any debt writeoffs will be a bailout for the landlord, multiple-dwelling owning class. Never forget that. Genuine hardship cases should declare insolvency. The rest need to knuckle down and pay their debts.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    Gaius, no one to my knowledge is lobbying for debt write-offs for investors.


  • #113
    D3PO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    strongback wrote: »
    How do the banks take the whole hit when they still own the asset. They recover a significant portion of the original mortgage loan.......that's not rocket science.

    .

    sweet jesus. You don't even understand what your saying.

    Let me break down what your saying to your level.

    Your suggesting bank repossesses sells. The sale provides some cash 50% in this example and the bank takes the hit on the other 50% portion, whilst the mortgage holder loses the asset but also has no debt left.

    Newsflash that is the bank taking 100% of the hit.

    The hit is not the value of the asset but the portion of the loan that goes bad.

    BANK therefore takes 100% of the hit the mortgage holder takes 0%

    Look if your going to argue a point at least know what your saying so you can actually argue.


  • #114
    gaius c
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    StillWaters wrote: »
    Gaius, no one to my knowledge is lobbying for debt write-offs for investors.

    People who own multiple dwellings are fair game IMO and shouldn't be allowed to lump their debts onto the taxpayer.
    A good example of it.


  • #115
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    gaius c wrote: »
    People who own multiple dwellings are fair game IMO and shouldn't be allowed to lump their debts onto the taxpayer.
    A good example of it.

    That link refers to PPRs? Unless you are saying Spider is a policy influencer?


  • #116
    ihavethepower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34 ✭ihavethepower


    Glad to hear you have found happiness again Beardyman! If you take stock of what you have, you are not in the worst situation. I think that you should get to the solicitors and write a pre-nup to shield your future spouse from the issues you describe. The next thing would be to talk to the banks to see what they can do (probably nothing), but in the long run you can say you approached them and they did nothing. If you are on interest only currently there'll be a bigger headache for them when you come off it and are (possibly) unable to pay.
    If you are not living in your mortgaged property/renting it, is it then seen as an investment property??


  • #117
    strongback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭strongback


    D3PO wrote: »
    sweet jesus. You don't even understand what your saying.

    Let me break down what your saying to your level.

    Your suggesting bank repossesses sells. The sale provides some cash 50% in this example and the bank takes the hit on the other 50% portion, whilst the mortgage holder loses the asset but also has no debt left.

    Newsflash that is the bank taking 100% of the hit.

    The hit is not the value of the asset but the portion of the loan that goes bad.

    BANK therefore takes 100% of the hit the mortgage holder takes 0%

    Look if your going to argue a point at least know what your saying so you can actually argue.


    50% of the mortgage is recovered it what I am saying. They do not lose 100% of the mortgage value. Another with reading comprehension problems I guess.

    To repeat myself the banks do not take the big hit the tax payer has largely covered these bad mortgages.

    All you are doing is muddying the waters as you have been doing from the start. Misquote after misquote. Do you work for a bank?


  • #118
    D3PO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    strongback wrote: »
    50% of the mortgage is recovered it what I am saying. They do not lose 100% of the mortgage value. Another with reading comprehension problems I guess.

    To repeat myself the banks do not take the big hit the tax payer has largely covered these bad mortgages.

    All you are doing is muddying the waters as you have been doing from the start. Misquote after misquote. Do you work for a bank?

    reread what you said. You said the bank take 50% of the hit. The hit is the loss. Therefore they take 100% of the hit you fail to understand this.

    You have this ridiculous utopian idea that the banks have been given all the money the need to take all these "50% hits :rolleyes:" you fail to comprehend the fall out of doing so and the slew of defaults this would bring about as everybody in Negative equity would automatically strategically default as they would be stupid not to.

    The financial system would collapse the banks would go insolvent the country would turn into a basketcase. You need to understand economics before you start arguing what you are trying to.


  • #119
    ihavethepower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34 ✭ihavethepower


    D3PO wrote: »
    reread what you said. You said the bank take 50% of the hit. The hit is the loss. Therefore they take 100% of the hit you fail to understand this.

    You have this ridiculous utopian idea that the banks have been given all the money the need to take all these "50% hits :rolleyes:" you fail to comprehend the fall out of doing so and the slew of defaults this would bring about as everybody in Negative equity would automatically strategically default as they would be stupid not to.

    The financial system would collapse the banks would go insolvent the country would turn into a basketcase. You need to understand economics before you start arguing what you are trying to.

    Has this not happened already?


  • #120
    D3PO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    ihavethepower wrote: »
    Has this not happened already?

    in some cases yes. But what is being proposed would lead to everybody doing it. Besides which those that have done it have not had any write downs that im aware of. Ive not seen anecodotal evidence from anybody that it has happened either


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    strongback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭strongback


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    Who say's that it's only older people saying this? What about all those who borrowed more responsibly (and there are plenty)


    Hard to fully agree that anybody unlucky enough to buy a house from 2005 to 2007 was completely irresponsible. People 20 years earlier scrimped and saved to get a mortgage and took on a lot of debt but it didn't cripple them for life luckily for them.

    I am quite sure many people who bought at the height of the boom deeply regret it. They jumped in without enough real experience. Bankruptcy is a tough lesson but the people who go through it will never again take the risks they ignorantly walked into during the boom.


Advertisement