nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why every leaving cert student is entitled to a free house.

realitykeeper

In Ireland, the government has foolishly nationalized the banks and consequently all Irish taxpayers must pay the shortfall in the bank`s toxic loan book. Added to this gombeenery - people who over-borrowed are systematically being given debt forgiveness or availing of bankruptcy and the taxpayer is expected to pay off their toxic debt. Meanwhile the defaulters and bankruptees are still living in their big houses and the rogue developers are being paid a quarter of a mill per year for managing their messed up business affairs. To complete the mosaic, we have the refugee bankers who are living the high life in Connecticut and the politicians presiding over this joke of a country who are still paying themselves 6 figure salaries.

The fundamental point I am making here is this: If defaulters get to keep the houses they are living in (which they are), then leaving cert students are all entitled to a free house too. So spread the word and demand your free house leaving cert students - you are paying for them so you are entitled to move in. Enjoy!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

keelanj69

realitykeeper wrote: »

In Ireland, the government has foolishly nationalized the banks and consequently all Irish taxpayers must pay the shortfall in the bank`s toxic loan book. Added to this gombeenery - people who over-borrowed are systematically being given debt forgiveness or availing of bankruptcy and the taxpayer is expected to pay off their toxic debt. Meanwhile the defaulters and bankruptees are still living in their big houses and the rogue developers are being paid a quarter of a mill per year for managing their messed up business affairs. To complete the mosaic, we have the refugee bankers who are living the high life in Connecticut and the politicians presiding over this joke of a country who are still paying themselves 6 figure salaries.

The fundamental point I am making here is this: If defaulters get to keep the houses they are living in (which they are), then leaving cert students are all entitled to a free house too. So spread the word and demand your free house leaving cert students - you are paying for them so you are entitled to move in. Enjoy!

Maybe I don't understand your point but why leaving cert students specifically?

Sarn

Presumably because the OP is a LC student I would imagine. Considering that the vast majority of current LC students haven't paid any tax yet, it's a curious approach.

If I am interpreting the post correctly, students were not part of creating this mess, but will end up paying for it in increased taxes etc. As a consequence they should be given a house. I'm afraid they'll have to get in line behind the existing tax payers.

AlekSmart

realitykeeper wrote: »

In Ireland, the government has foolishly nationalized the banks and consequently all Irish taxpayers must pay the shortfall in the bank`s toxic loan book. Added to this gombeenery - people who over-borrowed are systematically being given debt forgiveness or availing of bankruptcy and the taxpayer is expected to pay off their toxic debt. Meanwhile the defaulters and bankruptees are still living in their big houses and the rogue developers are being paid a quarter of a mill per year for managing their messed up business affairs. To complete the mosaic, we have the refugee bankers who are living the high life in Connecticut and the politicians presiding over this joke of a country who are still paying themselves 6 figure salaries.

The fundamental point I am making here is this: If defaulters get to keep the houses they are living in (which they are), then leaving cert students are all entitled to a free house too. So spread the word and demand your free house leaving cert students - you are paying for them so you are entitled to move in. Enjoy!

I think I see where the OP is coming from,or indeed,where he's at,and where he's going !

This little piece from the Sunday Indo should be,IMO,required reading for LC Students everywhere...(Including Connecticut )

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/maple-10-man-seeks-to-buy-300m-nama-loans-29242911.html

Sheesh,talk about a definition of "Well Placed" :rolleyes:

Of particular interest to LC students,and to the less intelligent amongst the great-unwashed is the new correlation between intelligence and NAMA indebtedness...:rolleyes:

Mr Reilly, a low-profile, highly intelligent property investor, owes Nama about €300m. He hopes with his backers to be allowed buy back his loans at a discount of at least €100m in return for stumping up a large cheque.

The reporter,Tom Lyons,then advances further into the undergrowth with some titilating insight into Irish Government Policy...

Mr Reilly, a highly respected developer, owns about 1m sq ft of office space via his company McGarrell Reilly. The biggest of these is the 210,000 sq ft Iveagh Court Complex in Dublin 2. He also owns the Watermarque building in Dublin 4. Mr Reilly owns development sites in Dundalk, Donabate, Stepaside and elsewhere, which he hopes to build on as demand for new homes returns.

Depending upon the veracity of Tom Lyons "sources",this underpins my own suspicions about Irish Government policy....yep,it's ALL about kick-starting the Housing Market by continuing the deeply flawed Dormitory Town (Ghost Estate) principle.

Evidence of more insanity....but I am heartened that Tom Lyons found evidence that...

Nama has been more inventive in its dealings with its clients in recent months.

Above all we need Inventiveness at the moment....perhaps we could outsource the running of the country to Roger Dyson ?

el pasco

realitykeeper wrote: »

In Ireland, the government has foolishly nationalized the banks and consequently all Irish taxpayers must pay the shortfall in the bank`s toxic loan book. Added to this gombeenery - people who over-borrowed are systematically being given debt forgiveness or availing of bankruptcy and the taxpayer is expected to pay off their toxic debt. Meanwhile the defaulters and bankruptees are still living in their big houses and the rogue developers are being paid a quarter of a mill per year for managing their messed up business affairs. To complete the mosaic, we have the refugee bankers who are living the high life in Connecticut and the politicians presiding over this joke of a country who are still paying themselves 6 figure salaries.

The fundamental point I am making here is this: If defaulters get to keep the houses they are living in (which they are), then leaving cert students are all entitled to a free house too. So spread the word and demand your free house leaving cert students - you are paying for them so you are entitled to move in. Enjoy!

Why should leaving cert students be entitled to a free house??

wolfpawnat

el pasco wrote: »

Why should leaving cert students be entitled to a free house??

Why should anyone? Sounds like a person with a gear to grind early on a Sunday morning to me.

ChRoMe

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Why should anyone? Sounds like a person with a gear to grind early on a Sunday morning to me.

Everyone is entitled to a place to call home.

wolfpawnat

ChRoMe wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to a place to call home.

It is a basic human right to have a roof over your head. But the OP is clearly just ranting for the sake of it randomly going on about students getting houses.

ninty9er

I suspect it's a cunning brainstorming thread for for the unseen essay on the LC English paper :pac:

The Corinthian

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It is a basic human right to have a roof over your head.

Then rent one or go to the corpo and get yourself some social housing.

The OP makes a valid, if inaccurate, observation. If debt forgiveness for those who 'cannot' keep up with their mortgages is introduced as a widespread policy, the houses they'll get won't be free (as they have already put money in), but in effect they will end up getting for a fraction of the price that they'd bought them for and the balance will most likely end up being paid for by the tax payer.

Given they have this 'right' to ownership, at a bargain price, of property, paid for by the tax payer, then it stands to reason that all tax payers should be entitled to the same 'right' - including those LC students who will be expected to spend their working lives to pay for this.

Cody Pomeray

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then rent one or go to the corpo and get yourself some social housing.

The OP makes a valid, if inaccurate, observation. If debt forgiveness for those who 'cannot' keep up with their mortgages is introduced as a widespread policy, the houses they'll get won't be free (as they have already put money in), but in effect they will end up getting for a fraction of the price that they'd bought them for and the balance will most likely end up being paid for by the tax payer.

This point is about 5 years too late.

Now that the Irish and European Governance have committed to re-capitalisation of the Irish banking system under the 'pillar bank' model, there is no rational alternative but to (1) protect the public investment in terms of safeguarding the banks' balance sheets, and (2) preventing the further undermining of the exchequer position.

This can only be achieved by debt forgiveness, a debt equity swap or some other alteration which involves a substantial improvement to lending terms for householders with mortgages that ultimately results in cost to the taxpayer.

I presume we are agreed so far.

What you fail to understand is that the benefits of such a scheme are likely to outweigh the benefits, if any, of mass defaulting/ firesales/ Government housing for defaulters and the subsequent consequences for the banking system.

It is fair to say that the benefits of having a functional banking system with reasonably buoyant balance sheets, and the benefits of mitigating exposure of the exchequer to defaulters through social housing and the extension of other welfare provisions are benefits that fall broadly on society - including on leaving certificate students.

The Corinthian

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

This can only be achieved by debt forgiveness, a debt equity swap or some other alteration which involves a substantial improvement to lending terms for householders with mortgages that ultimately results in cost to the taxpayer.

I presume we are agreed so far.

Indeed we are.

But as you say yourself, there are more than one way to skin a cat, as it were, and the OP's argument really only holds up if that solution is debt forgiveness. In a debt equity swap, the mortgage holder is no longer getting a 'free ride' at the tax payer's expense and so other tax payers cannot morally demand similar treatment (well, they can, but there's little profit in doing so).

People often talk of the 'moral hazard' as if it is some sort of abstract and imaginary concept, yet the OP is actually demonstrating the consequences of that moral hazard; if poor investments or debt are rewarded, or at least not penalized, then even those who never did so will in future feel entitled to follow the same example - nothing stopping others from buying today what they know they will be unable to afford in a year, especially if they know that their debt will be forgiven.

Cody Pomeray

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed we are.

But as you say yourself, there are more than one way to skin a cat, as it were, and the OP's argument really only holds up if that solution is debt forgiveness. In a debt equity swap, the mortgage holder is no longer getting a 'free ride' at the tax payer's expense

But of course they are.

Under a debt-equity arrangement, the terms of the original mortgage will not be met, the taxpayer is assuming a risky property investment in a going concern, and the householder gets to remain on in his home, with the capital on his mortgage reduced.

And this proposal for taxpayers to become shareholders in troubled Celtic Tiger mortgages comes at a time when new, post-bust borrowers who appear very credit-worthy are having a very difficult time getting mortgages, or even having their very credit-worthy parents being accepted as guarantors (or "co-borrowers")). That is a moral hazard. There is always a moral hazard. That much is inescapable.

The point is that despite this difficulty, the benefits of sustainable bank balance sheets, and the benefits of minimising exposure of the Department of Social Protection to the mortgage crisis are benefits that fall broadly on society - whether that happens through debt forgiveness, debt equity swaps, or whatever.

The Corinthian

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But of course they are.

Depends on the terms of the debt-equity arrangement.

Under any arrangement, the mortgage holder will no longer hold full equity on the property. However, if equity is bought at current prices, then it is quite likely that the mortgage holder will no longer hold any equity.

They would effectively become tenants in this scenario, whereby once sold they receive nothing and what they've invested effectively becomes rather expensive rent, never to be reimbursed. Meanwhile the government may wait until prices increase again and reimburse itself of it's investment when the property is eventually sold.

There is always a moral hazard. That much is inescapable.

True, but you can limit it to a minimum.

AlekSmart

The Corinthian wrote: »

Depends on the terms of the debt-equity arrangement.

Under any arrangement, the mortgage holder will no longer hold full equity on the property. However, if equity is bought at current prices, then it is quite likely that the mortgage holder will no longer hold any equity.

They would effectively become tenants in this scenario, whereby once sold they receive nothing and what they've invested effectively becomes rather expensive rent, never to be reimbursed. Meanwhile the government may wait until prices increase again and reimburse itself of it's investment when the property is eventually sold.

True, but you can limit it to a minimum.

One other Moral Hazard,IMO,is for the Irish Governing Classes to continue with the pursuit of Home Ownership as the Holy Grail of Irishness itself.

I believe that this Government should take the first step towards bringing Tenancy,as a concept,in from the cold,by using the "difficulties",currently being spoken of far and wide,as prompts to drag Private Rental to at least a parity-of-esteem position with home ownership.

We really do need to drag ourselves away from this supposed stigma of renting being "Dead Money",whilst ownership (at any cost) is put forward as evidence of entreprenurial skills beyond belief.

beeno67

We really have to stop posting this stuff about Irish being addicted to property ownership. We are not. We are simply average Europeans.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/mobile/index.php#Page?title=Housing%20statistics&lg=en

" just over seven out of every ten (70.8 %) persons in the EU-27 lived in owner-occupied dwellings, while 17.8 % were tenants with a market price rent, and 11.4 % tenants in reduced-rent or free accommodation."

AlekSmart

beeno67 wrote: »

We really have to stop posting this stuff about Irish being addicted to property ownership. We are not. We are simply average Europeans.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/mobile/index.php#Page?title=Housing%20statistics&lg=en

" just over seven out of every ten (70.8 %) persons in the EU-27 lived in owner-occupied dwellings, while 17.8 % were tenants with a market price rent, and 11.4 % tenants in reduced-rent or free accommodation."

Good stuff,beeno67.

However,I would suggest that the Irish homeowner demographic may well be slightly different to the EU model.

I don't have stats,but my experience has been that the average EU mortgagee would not have entered the purchase market quite as early as their Irish EU27 kinsman ?

Equally,the range of financial products available to that EU person was/is somewhat more prudent than the somewhat incredible "products" which were aggressively marketed to young Irish people during our BUY NOW ! era.

One other significant effect of the Age vs Mortgage issue is the virtual imprisonment of significant numbers of young Irish people as opposed to the mobility inherent in a Properly Regulated Private Rental market....as in,follow the work...:(

beeno67

AlekSmart wrote: »

Good stuff,beeno67.

However,I would suggest that the Irish homeowner demographic may well be slightly different to the EU model.

I don't have stats,but my experience has been that the average EU mortgagee would not have entered the purchase market quite as early as their Irish EU27 kinsman ?

Equally,the range of financial products available to that EU person was/is somewhat more prudent than the somewhat incredible "products" which were aggressively marketed to young Irish people during our BUY NOW ! era.

One other significant effect of the Age vs Mortgage issue is the virtual imprisonment of significant numbers of young Irish people as opposed to the mobility inherent in a Properly Regulated Private Rental market....as in,follow the work...:(

Average age of first time buyer in 2005 was 30. In UK in 2005 it was 29. I don't know other EU figures but thirty is not particularly young. It means average mortgage holder in Ireland now would be well over 40.
The bubble burst 6 years ago. There are very few under 30s with mortgages.

Schnitzel Muncher

OP, I would avoid using this sort of logic in your upcoming leaving cert exams. Unless out want to fail badly.

The Corinthian

AlekSmart wrote: »

We really do need to drag ourselves away from this supposed stigma of renting being "Dead Money",whilst ownership (at any cost) is put forward as evidence of entreprenurial skills beyond belief.

Personally, I think the only way of doing that is to teach personal finance in school.

One of the things that I think the property bubble exposed is that many people don't look before they leap, or if they do, they only do so in very simplistic and clichéd terms - such as the idea that rent is 'dead money'. In reality, it isn't always; as those who continued renting and who bought after the bubble burst, taking advantage of drops in equity that superseded rent paid, demonstrated.

If we could teach in schools, even the basic concept of opportunity cost, that alone could could change consumer behaviour in the long term, so that it is less likely to make such stupid investment choices in the future.

carpejugulum

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I think the only way of doing that is to teach personal finance in school.

One of the things that I think the property bubble exposed is that many people don't look before they leap, or if they do, they only do so in very simplistic and clichéd terms - such as the idea that rent is 'dead money'. In reality, it isn't always; as those who continued renting and who bought after the bubble burst, taking advantage of drops in equity that superseded rent paid, demonstrated.

If we could teach in schools, even the basic concept of opportunity cost, that alone could could change consumer behaviour in the long term, so that it is less likely to make such stupid investment choices in the future.

But who is going to teach it? Time is spent on Irish language and religion and sciences are shunned.