Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Does personal responsibility for one's situation exist in Ireland?

2456

Comments

  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    As other posters have said, fundamentally we are a very immature country.

    Whether it's some weird throwback to Imperialism or not is a moot point but the prevailing attitude is one of "them" vs. "us" rather then simply seeing it as "Us" as it should be.

    The joy of the cute hoor and getting one over on "them" and so on is just pervasive.

    The continued re-election of TD's across the country who have been repeatedly and undeniable found with their hand in the till clearly shows how we view petty corruption -

    We think it's a bit cool, and quietly admire the person for their ability to pull the wool over someones eyes , all the while forgetting that it's OUR money that they are stealing...

    Every problem is seen as a result of someone elses action or inaction in the first case.

    Bottom line , everything that happens in your life is your responsibility - Of course , other factors are at play and Government policy can impact the environment in which you live. But the reality is that it's your own responsibility to inform yourself properly , weigh up all the risks and rewards and put in place mitigation to reduce the risk..

    But - If the worst happens and you lose your job , Mortgages rates spike or whatever.. The 1st place to look is at yourself and how you should have seen it coming and protected yourself..

    In Ireland, the 1st response is "Who did this to me , who can I blame?"

    Until we grow up and learn to wear our successes and failures equally we are going to continue to make the same mistakes....


    Some valid and true points, but there are a number of wider issues, and some of then are tricky.

    In most big decisions that are complex, the traditional advice was to rely on the relevant professional group for their (often expensive) input and direction, and to evaluate their response as part of the overall decision making process.

    But, it's been made very clear over the last while that some of that professional advice wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

    I could go into a lot of detail about some of the things that have happened to me as a direct result of relying on solicitors, accountants, architects, bankers and other state and semi state professionals that were supposed to be reliable, but I won't, it depresses me, and at this stage and distance, I can't change what happened maybe 25 years ago, so there's not much point in even voicing them, even though the results have done massive financial, psychological and emotional damage to me and my family.

    In theory, I should be able to do something about it, but fighting professional bodies through the legal system is incredibly time consuming and frighteningly expensive, and I don't have the emotional reserves or the money to be able to do anything at this stage of my life, and the other factor is that life is too short.

    It probably means that I won't be able to leave anything other than bills to my children, which was not the way it was supposed to be, and I dread our retirement. but changing it is no longer a realistic option, and I've worked long and hard over the years, so it wasn't for the lack of trying.

    So, I will instead mention things like Priory Hall, I haven't seen any professional bodies having to invoke their liability insurance to compensate people who were mistreated by members of their professions, and that covers solicitors and architects, builders and (completely untouchable) local authorities, all of whom have been culpable and negligent in the performance of their duties, and the result was a death trap that had to be closed down, with a fire engine on permanent standby while the residents moved out, as the complex was so dangerous. NO ONE has been put through the courts over that, or made to pay for their negligence and incompetence, are the problems that the owners face their problems, or are the problems the problems of professional bodies that can't be trusted to do the job they are there to do, and often are paid incredibly well for their services?

    The Golden Circle is alive and well, and even after a number of years of the worst recession in living memory, it's thriving, and working well for the select few at the top of the tree that are the members of that club.

    At the very top of the tree, we have the organisations that run the state, the Catholic church, and the political system, and they determine the tone and attitude that's seen as "the norm", and what a wonderful example of upright and outstanding citizenry we have there! (NOT).

    Corruption, fraud, cronyism, nepotism, suppressed child abuse, sexual abuse, and just about every other possible negative, and despite all of these issues, at the political level, the same cronies keep getting re elected into the system by the people they represent, because (as has been mentioned) there is a culture that is only too happy that the top is corrupt, as it excuses and minimises that crime, and makes it legitimate for everyone else to do what the leaders do, and because those same people are very good at "stroking" the system to get results at a local level for the people they represent, which is seen as being more important than their honesty. In other organisations, like the church and state services, the failures get moved or reassigned to a new role, there's no such thing as proper discipline or consequences for failure, we've seen it across both bodies, and it's not a pretty sight.

    Some of it is a throwback to the colonial rule times, "Feck ye and your rules" became engrained and implicit in the culture, and the fact that Ireland has been responsible for it's own destiny for nearly 100 years hasn't changed or eliminated that attitude, it's still very much part of the political rule book, and goes right to the top, as was seen when CJ was given the money from Ben Dunne. Then of course, don't forget the old way, where the priest was god incarnate at the local level, so instant obedience to his every word was mandatory, and the rules didn't apply to him. That concept was brainwashed into generations, it then applied to other areas of life, and it's only now in the last couple of generations that the media, the internet and the duplicity and deception of the leaders in so many different areas has become clear, and people are starting to change their attitude towards the old ways.

    Only in Ireland would we hear the phrase "It was resting in my account", and even this week, there are more waves about the number of people involved with illegal off shore activities, and there's no smoke without fire from that direction.

    Another area that is not helpful is the Catholic Confessional concept. Doesn't matter what you've done, go and confess it, and as long as you do whatever is deemed "appropriate" by the priest, your sins are forgiven. That is such a distortion of the biblical concept of repentance, it's laughable, but it underlies so much of what has gone wrong with the moral structure of life, sin has consequences here on earth too, some of them can be very long term, and the absence of any real moral compass from the church has been another aspect of the disasters that have affected Ireland in the last few generations.

    So while personal responsibility is a nice catch all phrase, there are still a number of areas where personal responsibility is both misleading and inappropriate, given the way that Irish Society and culture operates.

    Depressing, VERY depressing, as it's not likely to change any time soon.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 17,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Shenshen wrote: »
    I love that notion "the bank takes a hit".

    Banks don't take hits. They merely pass them down the line to all their other customers, same as any other business.
    So someone hands their keys back to the bank. Let's assume their outstanding mortgage is 300k, and let's be generous and assume the bank can sell the place for 200k.
    That will leave the bank 100k out of pocket. A 100k loss that they will have to make up somehow, by getting the money out of the rest of their customers who are still able to pay them.

    So it will be up to the people who are acting responsibly and are doing their best to pay off their loans to finance the ones who don't.

    I fail to see any fairness in this.

    I see your point , companies will always try to claw back a loss somewhere or somehow . I don't think that there is a way to remove that activity completely.

    At least in the scenario where the bank takes an up front hit on the specific loan , they'll have to account for it on their books and their attempts to recover the costs elsewhere may end up costing them business - e.g. if they increase general transaction charges then they might lose customers etc.

    It'll never be perfect , but a situation where only one side takes the hit is fundamentally unfair. Both sides need to take ownership and have some impact.

    I would also fully support a situation whereby those that do hand back the keys would be excluded from getting a mortgage for a period of time - 5 years perhaps. They shouldn't be able to walk away totally scot-free.

    I don't advocate that this should be done to be honest - I think that those in trouble with their mortgage should engage with the banks and work something out between them on a an individual basis .

    I'm just saying that the ONLY proposal around debt forgiveness that I would even countenance supporting would have to involve all parties taking responsibility.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭Tiger Mcilroy


    Jawgap wrote: »
    People took out loans on the basis of unsustainable assumptions.

    I don't have an unmanageable mortgage because I foresaw any of what happened - I have a manageable financial situation because I thought about 'what-ifs' - what if I lost my job, fell ill, got transferred etc.

    In other words I was prudent and the abiding feeling I have about this country at the moment is those that were prudent are now being punished (we're certainly not being rewarded!) for their prudence - those that weren't are not suffering for their imprudence.

    This is pure nonsense, people took loans based on what the banks told they could afford, using your logic nobody would buy anything ever.

    "i cant take that 25 year mortgage because i may lose my job in 24 years and id be screwed"....at least your prudence gives you a nice high pulpit to preach from i suppose.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 17,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    This is pure nonsense, people took loans based on what the banks told they could afford, using your logic nobody would buy anything ever.

    "i cant take that 25 year mortgage because i may lose my job in 24 years and id be screwed"....at least your prudence gives you a nice high pulpit to preach from i suppose.

    People were stupid and gullible (not everyone , but enough of them)

    Banks of course were doing their bit - But people were signing up to Mortgages based on future earnings , as yet un-earned bonuses etc. etc.

    The Banks were telling everyone that they were great and that in 5 years time they'd have that promotion/pay-rise and the repayments would be easy etc. etc.

    Yes - The banks were very wrong , but equally anybody that believed that crap and signed on the dotted line without doing their own due diligence needs to accept their role in their own current situation.

    I'm not talking about people who lost their jobs - No amount of fiscal prudence fully protects from that... I'm talking about the multitude of people who are still employed , but who can't afford their mortgage due to increased interest rates or due to a change in circumstances (having kids mainly).. That's a lack of planning , plain and simple.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    This is pure nonsense, people took loans based on what the banks told they could afford, using your logic nobody would buy anything ever.

    "i cant take that 25 year mortgage because i may lose my job in 24 years and id be screwed"....at least your prudence gives you a nice high pulpit to preach from i suppose.

    Well, how about a simple risk assessment?
    My partner and I did that before taking out our mortgage - we just calculated how bad things would have to get before we would not be able to meet the repayments (worked out as one of us losing their job and the other getting their pay reduced by half - in which case our savings would allow us to tide ourselves over for about 6 months). Now fortunately, all that happened so far was that my partner was out of work for about a year, and we were managing as expected.

    Why is it so unreasonable to plan ahead a little bit, and see if and how you would cope with financial setbacks?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭Tiger Mcilroy


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    People were stupid and gullible (not everyone , but enough of them)

    Banks of course were doing their bit - But people were signing up to Mortgages based on future earnings , as yet un-earned bonuses etc. etc.

    The Banks were telling everyone that they were great and that in 5 years time they'd have that promotion/pay-rise and the repayments would be easy etc. etc.

    Yes - The banks were very wrong , but equally anybody that believed that crap and signed on the dotted line without doing their own due diligence needs to accept their role in their own current situation.

    I'm not talking about people who lost their jobs - No amount of fiscal prudence fully protects from that... I'm talking about the multitude of people who are still employed , but who can't afford their mortgage due to increased interest rates or due to a change in circumstances (having kids mainly).. That's a lack of planning , plain and simple.

    So if somebody lost their job its ok but if somebodys circumstances change for whatever reason were stupid?..im not defending anybody and we all should pay our bills but posters claiming they had the first clue at the time and were one of the minority that saw it all coming is pure waffle.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭Tiger Mcilroy


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Well, how about a simple risk assessment?
    My partner and I did that before taking out our mortgage - we just calculated how bad things would have to get before we would not be able to meet the repayments (worked out as one of us losing their job and the other getting their pay reduced by half - in which case our savings would allow us to tide ourselves over for about 6 months). Now fortunately, all that happened so far was that my partner was out of work for about a year, and we were managing as expected.

    Why is it so unreasonable to plan ahead a little bit, and see if and how you would cope with financial setbacks?

    Im not saying its unreasonable at all to plan ahead, its just boring listening the hindsight brigade claiming that large portions of society are stupid when they were somehow prudent when they most likely were not in a position to buy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    This is pure nonsense, people took loans based on what the banks told they could afford, using your logic nobody would buy anything ever.

    "i cant take that 25 year mortgage because i may lose my job in 24 years and id be screwed"....at least your prudence gives you a nice high pulpit to preach from i suppose.

    No it's not pure nonsense, taking out a mortgage based on what the banks told them could afford is pure nonsense and completely idiotic. If you wanted to buy a car tomorrow and applied for a loan from the bank for €10,000 as this is the cost of the car you saw and decided you wanted, and then the bank turn around and say to you but sure here is €300k go buy a Ferrari or something nicer so you can show your friends how cool you are.

    Are you saying you would take the €300k and buy the Ferrari just because the banks offered you the money?

    People knew what they could afford and should have borrowed an amount that reflected what they could afford, they didn't do this however, they instead decided to splash the cash and show off to all their friends and family.....ooooh look at our 3,000 sq ft house with the marble tiles throughout aren't we bloody brilliant blah blah blah......

    Basically what happened was there were people who's income was say €30,000 per annum from 1995 - 2005 and then in 2006 during the boom their income jumped to €80,000 so they toddled off to the bank and took out a mortgage based on their income of €80,000 ignoring the fact that they were in the middle of a boom and ignoring the fact that this wasn't their realistic income.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    This is pure nonsense, people took loans based on what the banks told they could afford, using your logic nobody would buy anything ever.

    "i cant take that 25 year mortgage because i may lose my job in 24 years and id be screwed"....at least your prudence gives you a nice high pulpit to preach from i suppose.

    Not really - assumptions should be realistic. People were making loan applications based on what they could afford alright, without leaving any cushion for change and assuming wages and property values would continue to expand for the foreseeable future, if not indefinitely.

    Also, how many people 'massaged' their incomes on application forms for mortgages, or promised to rent out rooms etc IIRC even at the height of the madness the process of applying for a mortgage was still pretty involved so people were making very conscious choices about what to put down on forms and what information to provide based on the age old Irish tradition of 'sure-it'll-be-grand.'

    And inflated mortgages I can kind of understand given our historic obsession with owning our houses - but what of the eye-watering levels of unsecured household debt a lot of people incurred (coupled with negligible savings rates) - I suppose people are not responsible for their decisions to whip out the credit card and not set aside a proportion of their salary each month?

    It's difficult to be screwed if you plan properly - old fashioned ideas.........like having six months salary saved to buffer you against things like losing your job 24 years into a 25 year mortgage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭Tiger Mcilroy


    geeksauce wrote: »
    No it's not pure nonsense, taking out a mortgage based on what the banks told them could afford is pure nonsense and completely idiotic. If you wanted to buy a car tomorrow and applied for a loan from the bank for €10,000 as this is the cost of the car you saw and decided you wanted, and then the bank turn around and say to you but sure here is €300k go buy a Ferrari or something nicer so you can show your friends how cool you are.

    Are you saying you would take the €300k and buy the Ferrari just because the banks offered you the money?

    People knew what they could afford and should have borrowed an amount that reflected what they could afford, they didn't do this however, they instead decided to splash the cash and show off to all their friends and family.....ooooh look at our 3,000 sq ft house with the marble tiles throughout aren't we bloody brilliant blah blah blah......

    Basically what happened was there were people who's income was say €30,000 per annum from 1995 - 2005 and then in 2006 during the boom their income jumped to €80,000 so they toddled off to the bank and took out a mortgage based on their income of €80,000 ignoring the fact that they were in the middle of a boom and ignoring the fact that this wasn't their realistic income.

    All ifs and or buts im afraid, not everybody behaved like this but sure rant away.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,266 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Think the 'Shur it'll be grand' attitude, self-interest and our sneaking admiration for 'cute hoorism' are our main faults as a nation.

    We tend to dismiss potential problems that are coming down the line until it's too bloody late, then the inevitable circle of blame starts up in the aftermath.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    All ifs and or buts im afraid, not everybody behaved like this but sure rant away.

    Good rebuttle there, no ifs or buts about it, people were stupid about the money they borrowed, now that they are realising how stupid they were they are choosing to blame everyone else but themselves for their stupid decisions.

    "Ah sure it's the governments fault, bloody government grrrr :mad::mad::mad::mad:"...."sure how could anyone predict our incomes wouldn't keep rising and would in fact fall"....."no way could anyone see this coming"..."the banks have a lot to answer for, making me borrow so much money, even though I really didn't want to, bloody banks grrrrrrr :mad::mad::mad::mad:"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,086 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    EoinHef wrote: »
    Weird i keep seeing something on AH as well....posts saying people should have not taken about mortgages they cant afford!!

    Considering most people COULD afford these mortgage when they got them i find it a very strange thing to say,do you not agree OP? It was only later when s**t really hit the fan people couldnt afford to pay,so very few took a mortgages out with the knowledge they could not pay them down the line.

    Of course if everyone had known things were gonna go the way they did they wouldnt have taken those mortgages,and i reckon the banks would not have lent them either.

    Our economic system is all about confidence resulting in boom-bust cycles. the bigger the boom the bigger the bust. It was ever thus so imagining that everyone would remain on ever-increasing wages is ridiculous.

    I don't think you could teach that level of responsibility to the irish. The Germans have rent control which avoids the inflated prices and keeps cost of living down. Never in a million years could you get the irish to agree to that kind of policy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    All ifs and or buts im afraid, not everybody behaved like this but sure rant away.

    No, not everybody did.
    Those who didn't are now being asked to pick up the tap for those who did behave like that, with suggestions being thrown around that those woh did overstretch should be allowed to just hand their house back to the bank and walk away.

    That's what personal responsibility is about - it's not about never making a mistake, it's aknowledging if you did and not trying to shift the blame. And it's about trying to find a sensible way out of the trouble you got yourself into without impacting innocent bystanders.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,401 ✭✭✭lukesmom


    It's so easy to blame 'de gubbermint' for everything. People need to take responsibility for the situation they find themselves in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    EoinHef wrote: »
    Considering most people COULD afford these mortgage when they got them i find it a very strange thing to say,do you not agree OP? It was only later when s**t really hit the fan people couldnt afford to pay,so very few took a mortgages out with the knowledge they could not pay them down the line.

    First of all, lets exclude people who couldn't pay the mortgage because they got sick or lost a job or something like that. That could happen when the economy is in full boom and they'd still be screwed.

    A lot of people though are over extended. They were over extended in the boom and just didn't realise it. They went for a mortgage and asked what the max they could get was. Some topped it up with over drafts and loans. They could just afford it during the boom and assumed that wages etc would rise. When they ended up with less cash due to taxation increases it brought them below the line they needed to live on. Plus the negative equity means they can't offload the property.


    However I think that most people in this situation have taken responsibility. they made cutbacks in their expenses and are adjusting. they realise that although the bank let them get those loans/mortgages and although the government allowed the banks to do it, it was their own choice.

    the thing is that these people aren't whingers. It's only the whingers we hear.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭Tiger Mcilroy


    geeksauce wrote: »
    Good rebuttle there, no ifs or buts about it, people were stupid about the money they borrowed, now that they are realising how stupid they were they are choosing to blame everyone else but themselves for their stupid decisions.

    "Ah sure it's the governments fault, bloody government grrrr :mad::mad::mad::mad:"...."sure how could anyone predict our incomes wouldn't keep rising and would in fact fall"....."no way could anyone see this coming"..."the banks have a lot to answer for, making me borrow so much money, even though I really didn't want to, bloody banks grrrrrrr :mad::mad::mad::mad:"

    In fairness your making up scenarios that didnt happen and are using them to argue with.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 17,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    So if somebody lost their job its ok but if somebodys circumstances change for whatever reason were stupid?..im not defending anybody and we all should pay our bills but posters claiming they had the first clue at the time and were one of the minority that saw it all coming is pure waffle.

    Not what I said at all....

    As other posters have said , it's got nothing to do with anyone claiming prescience in foreseeing the current economic situation but it's about looking at the future and "Stress testing" the cost of the mortgage to see if it is manageable under a number of reasonable scenarios.
    • Loss of Job
    • Interest Rate change
    • Personal circumstances change like having kids , getting married etc.

    All of these are reasonable things to consider when taking on a 20 yr+ financial responsibility.

    You need to review them and either accept the risk or mitigate against it by reducing the size of your mortgage or if possible taking out other protections (income protection policies etc).

    My point around people who lost their job was simply that that one is probably the hardest to mitigate against outside of insurance policies , which can be expensive..

    I have sympathy for people in that situation , but I have significantly less for people who didn't plan for the fact that they might have kids or that they might not be made managing director of their company in 5 years etc...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 477 ✭✭The Strawman Argument


    A lot of the stuff people are saying here applies to Irish people are really things that just apply to humans in general...


    One reason there are regulating bodies and whatnot is to ensure that the banks/etc don't lose the run of themselves by being making overly large risks during booms.
    RE: loans, you can basically guarantee a lot of the applicants are gonna be a bit clueless in terms of forecasting their own finances across multiple decades and there's a pretty good chance they're gonna exaggerate their figures a good bit to boost their chances of getting the loan. It's the banks job to see through that ****, it's the regulator's job to see through the bank's ****...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,740 ✭✭✭the evasion_kid


    People got too caught up in the property market it was all buy,buy,buy and get your foot on the property ladder,with a mortage that would probably see you into the grave first.I remember couples i used to drink with nearly bragging about their 400,000 euro mortgages and thinking to myself how insane it all was,some lost their jobs ended up arguing,splitting up and moving back in with their parents.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭Tiger Mcilroy


    Grayson wrote: »
    First of all, lets exclude people who couldn't pay the mortgage because they got sick or lost a job or something like that. That could happen when the economy is in full boom and they'd still be screwed.

    A lot of people though are over extended. They were over extended in the boom and just didn't realise it. They went for a mortgage and asked what the max they could get was. Some topped it up with over drafts and loans. They could just afford it during the boom and assumed that wages etc would rise. When they ended up with less cash due to taxation increases it brought them below the line they needed to live on. Plus the negative equity means they can't offload the property.


    However I think that most people in this situation have taken responsibility. they made cutbacks in their expenses and are adjusting. they realise that although the bank let them get those loans/mortgages and although the government allowed the banks to do it, it was their own choice.

    the thing is that these people aren't whingers. It's only the whingers we hear.

    This is the point a large percentage of the people accept that they borrowed the money and are paying their way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,624 ✭✭✭Revoker88


    the vast majority if people COULD NOT afford the mortgages they got. you had people getting 400k mortgages and net income of no more than 60k a year.

    When i was looking into a house 60k would have gotten about 300K from the major lenders. Is there figures you can quote me or is it just personal experience,that was in 2007.

    If i was still on the salary i was on then i would be very comfortable now,alas it was unsustainable and i understand that but at the time nobody knew things were about to change so dramatically. Hindsight is a great thing. People were getting mortgages based on their salary + the value of the asset they were buying. That was a mistake by the banks imo,they thought they could have access to an asset that would only go up in value while us scmuks were paying to live in it. They thought it was win win for them and just kept throwing money around. People just did what they had to do to get a house to start families etc,and im not talking about the type who bought 3 houses and a holiday home. Just a primary residense

    I dont think debt forgiveness will ever happen,but a guy who was earning that 60k back in 2007 could be earning half that now,with some of the penal interest rates are friends the banks are charging us that would mean after tax there would be near zero left to live on if he had a sizeable mortgage based on a 60k salary. Now while he would like to take responsibility for it,in reality he cant pay back the loan,whats that person to do?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    People got too caught up in the property market it was all buy,buy,buy and get your foot on the property ladder,with a mortage that would probably see you into the grave first.I remember couples i used to drink with nearly bragging about their 400,000 euro mortgages and thinking to myself how insane it all was,some lost their jobs ended up arguing,splitting up and moving back in with their parents.

    Likewise.......I've a decent salary and I used to wonder how friends and colleagues earning about the same as I did were able to afford the house inside the M50, the couple of holidays a year, the new car every few years.......at the time I just couldn't figure out how they were making the sums add up and I assumed a lot were doing 'nixers' (maybe they were?) to earn extra cash.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭Tiger Mcilroy


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Not what I said at all....

    As other posters have said , it's got nothing to do with anyone claiming prescience in foreseeing the current economic situation but it's about looking at the future and "Stress testing" the cost of the mortgage to see if it is manageable under a number of reasonable scenarios.
    • Loss of Job
    • Interest Rate change
    • Personal circumstances change like having kids , getting married etc.

    All of these are reasonable things to consider when taking on a 20 yr+ financial responsibility.

    You need to review them and either accept the risk or mitigate against it by reducing the size of your mortgage or if possible taking out other protections (income protection policies etc).

    My point around people who lost their job was simply that that one is probably the hardest to mitigate against outside of insurance policies , which can be expensive..

    I have sympathy for people in that situation , but I have significantly less for people who didn't plan for the fact that they might have kids or that they might not be made managing director of their company in 5 years etc...

    Thats exactly what you said or do you mean another group that you didnt refrerence in the below post?

    People were stupid and gullible (not everyone , but enough of them)


    I'm not talking about people who lost their jobs - No amount of fiscal prudence fully protects from that... I'm talking about the multitude of people who are still employed , but who can't afford their mortgage due to increased interest rates or due to a change in circumstances (having kids mainly).. That's a lack of planning , plain and simple.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    A lot of the stuff people are saying here applies to Irish people are really things that just apply to humans in general...

    Pretty much every study has shown that humans are really, really bad at quantifying risk. The average person, who has no mathematical, statistical or economic background will find it next to impossible to quantify risks associated with mortgages.
    (Note: I'm not saying everyone is dumb, just that they won't be able to identify risks. A good mortgage advisor should do this for them and educate the customer so they can make an informed decision)


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 17,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Thats exactly what you said or do you mean another group that you didnt refrerence in the below post?

    People were stupid and gullible (not everyone , but enough of them)


    I'm not talking about people who lost their jobs - No amount of fiscal prudence fully protects from that... I'm talking about the multitude of people who are still employed , but who can't afford their mortgage due to increased interest rates or due to a change in circumstances (having kids mainly).. That's a lack of planning , plain and simple.
    So if somebody lost their job its ok but if somebodys circumstances change for whatever reason were stupid?..im not defending anybody and we all should pay our bills but posters claiming they had the first clue at the time and were one of the minority that saw it all coming is pure waffle.

    Yes , I said people had been stupid and yes I said that my point was less focused on those that had lost their jobs and more on those who hadn't planned for fairly reasonable potential changes in their circumstance..

    But , I have never said that anybody somehow fully foresaw the Global economic issues since 2008.

    My earlier post perhaps didn't clarify the point I was making enough , but I think the more recent one does..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Thats exactly what you said or do you mean another group that you didnt refrerence in the below post?

    People were stupid and gullible (not everyone , but enough of them)


    I'm not talking about people who lost their jobs - No amount of fiscal prudence fully protects from that... I'm talking about the multitude of people who are still employed , but who can't afford their mortgage due to increased interest rates or due to a change in circumstances (having kids mainly).. That's a lack of planning , plain and simple.

    You can post in bold all you want.....but the data is against you.

    Data from the Central Bank (2011) showed there were almost as many equity release mortgages in trouble as there were first time buyers - so people were borrowing to buy a property then borrowing against the 'equity' a few years later!!! And that's before you get to consider the muppets who borrowed at LTVs over 90% and even over 100%!

    Most of these equity releases and purchases took place in 2004 to 2006 and guess what? Mortgages issued in the period 2004 to 2007 make up the majority of mortgages in arrears.

    Finally, most of the time kids aren't an unplanned event ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭Tiger Mcilroy


    Jawgap wrote: »
    You can post in bold all you want.....but the data is against you.

    Data from the Central Bank (2011) showed there were almost as many equity release mortgages in trouble as there were first time buyers - so people were borrowing to buy a property then borrowing against the 'equity' a few years later!!! And that's before you get to consider the muppets who borrowed at LTVs over 90% and even over 100%!

    Most of these equity releases and purchases took place in 2004 to 2006 and guess what? Mortgages issued in the period 2004 to 2007 make up the majority of mortgages in arrears.

    Finally, most of the time kids aren't an unplanned event ;)


    The bold part isnt my post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,740 ✭✭✭the evasion_kid


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Likewise.......I've a decent salary and I used to wonder how friends and colleagues earning about the same as I did were able to afford the house inside the M50, the couple of holidays a year, the new car every few years.......at the time I just couldn't figure out how they were making the sums add up and I assumed a lot were doing 'nixers' (maybe they were?) to earn extra cash.

    I know one thing for certain,I was working a 40-45 hour week and remember hearing about this mystical Celtic tiger on the radio and newspapers.....I never seen it


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    timetogo wrote: »
    Personal responsibility does exist in Ireland. Not everybody blames the government for everything.

    Blaming somebody else is an easy choice. If you do that there's nothing you can do to make you lot in life better. If you don't you've got some work to do. The first option is the one a lot of people go for.

    Like other posters here I know some people who rant and rave about the government for everything. Generally the people not ranting and raving are those that are too busy trying to get ahead.

    Admittedly the government do seem to cock up a hell of a lot.

    It's kind of depressing though. The same people who gave out about Fianna Fail are now giving out about FG and I guarantee they'll be ranting about the next one.

    Have you ever travelled? You won't hear anything about Ireland once you depart
    these shores! But, you will hear the citizens of ANY country you visit complaining
    about their respective governments. Am always amused by this! Heck, just turn on
    Sky and they are complaining about Cameron et al. Turn on Fox News - not a word
    about Ireland, but plenty about the 'dreadful' Obama and co. It is the lot of the
    government of any country to have people 'ranting' about it!! I remember in the
    heady days of Enda's election with the 'largest majority ever', a cousin of mine
    saying 'this time next year, Enda will be the most hated man in Ireland'. Prophetic
    or acknowledging the realities of being in government?? :(


Advertisement
Advertisement