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

Should the government apologize to young people in rented accomodation

Options
  • 30-01-2015 3:47pm
    #1
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭


    After the crash of 2008, the government not only bailed out the banks but also the people who foolishly bought properties they could not afford. The government then used borrowed billions to re-inflate the economy and by proxy - house prices and rents. This policy is now enslaving the next generation with taxes to pay for the debt. The foolish who over borrowed got to keep their houses at the tax payers expense and they quickly put up the rent on the poor young people who have since joined the labour force.

    The government is using the money it borrowed (using taxable young people as collateral) to keep property out of the reach of young people and in the hands of stupid people who over borrowed in the past, - including the very landlords who are now ripping off the young. Consequently, should this government apologize to the young people.


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    No. I think you have a limited understand of the sequence of events.

    If there's anything to apologise to renters for it's not tackling the supply issue. Again though, there's other factors involved in this. Moderate price growth was needed, in terms of reducing household debt (which should lead to extra spending capacity) and reducing bank NPLs (which should lead to extra lending capacity).

    There is a definite lack of supply at present though.


  • Options
    #3
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    No. I think you have a limited understand of the sequence of events.

    If there's anything to apologise to renters for it's not tackling the supply issue. Again though, there's other factors involved in this. Moderate price growth was needed, in terms of reducing household debt (which should lead to extra spending capacity) and reducing bank NPLs (which should lead to extra lending capacity).

    There is a definite lack of supply at present though.
    It will please you to know I understand the sequence of events perfectly.

    There are 300,000 mortgages in arrears in this country. Now, instead of the government borrowing billions in our name and using the money to do all kinds of shady deals to transfer the personal debt of the defaulters onto the shoulders of the first time buyers, here is what I suggest:

    Flog the 300,000 properties in mortgage arrears on the open market for whatever price the market will support. The first time buyers will find the cost of buying a house will suddenly be within their grasp. In fact, the first time buyers will easily be able to out bid the defaulters in an open unprotected market because the defaulters will still have the balance on their old mortgage to pay.

    That of course is assuming the government does not intend to tax the younger generation to pay other people`s mortgages.


  • Options
    #4
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    It will please you to know I understand the sequence of events perfectly.

    How humble of you.


  • Options
    #5
    touts
    Registered Users Posts: 6,437 ✭✭✭touts


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    After the crash of 2008, the government not only bailed out the banks but also the people who foolishly bought properties they could not afford. The government then used borrowed billions to re-inflate the economy and by proxy - house prices and rents. This policy is now enslaving the next generation with taxes to pay for the debt. The foolish who over borrowed got to keep their houses at the tax payers expense and they quickly put up the rent on the poor young people who have since joined the labour force.

    The government is using the money it borrowed (using taxable young people as collateral) to keep property out of the reach of young people and in the hands of stupid people who over borrowed in the past, - including the very landlords who are now ripping off the young. Consequently, should this government apologize to the young people.

    When did the bail out of people with mortgages happen? I certainly didn't get one and neither did anyone I know. You think you are enslaved with tax? Try having a house in 50% negative equity that you will never be able to sell AND being enslaved to pay the same taxes. If you think you have it so bloody tough having to rent for a couple of extra years you can have my house and mortgage.


  • Options
    #6
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    It will please you to know I understand the sequence of events perfectly.

    There are 300,000 mortgages in arrears in this country. Now, instead of the government borrowing billions in our name and using the money to do all kinds of shady deals to transfer the personal debt of the defaulters onto the shoulders of the first time buyers, here is what I suggest:

    Flog the 300,000 properties in mortgage arrears on the open market for whatever price the market will support. The first time buyers will find the cost of buying a house will suddenly be within their grasp. In fact, the first time buyers will easily be able to out bid the defaulters in an open unprotected market because the defaulters will still have the balance on their old mortgage to pay.

    That of course is assuming the government does not intend to tax the younger generation to pay other people`s mortgages.

    There are NOT 300,000 mortgages in arrears.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Voltex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Voltex


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    After the crash of 2008, the government not only bailed out the banks but also the people who foolishly bought properties they could not afford. The government then used borrowed billions to re-inflate the economy and by proxy - house prices and rents. This policy is now enslaving the next generation with taxes to pay for the debt. The foolish who over borrowed got to keep their houses at the tax payers expense and they quickly put up the rent on the poor young people who have since joined the labour force.

    The government is using the money it borrowed (using taxable young people as collateral) to keep property out of the reach of young people and in the hands of stupid people who over borrowed in the past, - including the very landlords who are now ripping off the young. Consequently, should this government apologize to the young people.
    TBH I have no idea how anyone would/could go about educating you to some fundamental economics, the dynamics of the free market system, home truths and common sense.
    My suggestion to you OP is to read up on the subject, ignore the populist tripe, read some more..and then form an opinion.


  • Options
    #8
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    touts wrote: »
    When did the bail out of people with mortgages happen? I certainly didn't get one and neither did anyone I know. You think you are enslaved with tax? Try having a house in 50% negative equity that you will never be able to sell AND being enslaved to pay the same taxes. If you think you have it so bloody tough having to rent for a couple of extra years you can have my house and mortgage.

    If you have a house which is in negative equity it is because of a decision you made. Because there were 300,000 mortgages in arrears, the government decided to help the stupid who over borrowed by embarking on all kinds of shenanigans from bank bailouts, to debt forgiveness, to requiring the banks to do deals with the indebted, to three year bankruptcy arrangements etc, etc, etc. All this costs tens of billions.

    Added to that, instead of mass evictions of the stupid, the stupid got to stay in the bailed out banks houses and the poor and totally blameless young people who had nothing to do with the nuttiness of the naughties get handed the bill. This is not right.

    The young are being screwed every which way. They pay for the aforementioned shenanigans so the stupid don`t have to be evicted. And , because the stupid have not been evicted they pay more to rent and more to buy a house than would otherwise be the case.

    I just think the government ought to apologize to the young people and admit that they were sold out and for the rest of their lives they will be paying for mortgages which other people took out during the naughties.


  • Options
    #9
    Lau2976
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Lau2976


    realitykeeper wrote: »

    Added to that, instead of mass evictions of the stupid, the stupid got to stay in the bailed out banks houses and the poor and totally blameless young people who had nothing to do with the nuttiness of the naughties get handed the bill. This is not right.

    Isn't that the point of a socialist welfare state?


  • Options
    #10
    jsd1004
    Registered Users Posts: 712 ✭✭✭jsd1004


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    If you have a house which is in negative equity it is because of a decision you made. Because there were 300,000 mortgages in arrears, the government decided to help the stupid who over borrowed by embarking on all kinds of shenanigans from bank bailouts, to debt forgiveness, to requiring the banks to do deals with the indebted, to three year bankruptcy arrangements etc, etc, etc. All this costs tens of billions.

    Added to that, instead of mass evictions of the stupid, the stupid got to stay in the bailed out banks houses and the poor and totally blameless young people who had nothing to do with the nuttiness of the naughties get handed the bill. This is not right.

    The young are being screwed every which way. They pay for the aforementioned shenanigans so the stupid don`t have to be evicted. And , because the stupid have not been evicted they pay more to rent and more to buy a house than would otherwise be the case.

    I just think the government ought to apologize to the young people and admit that they were sold out and for the rest of their lives they will be paying for mortgages which other people took out during the naughties.

    I guess you are right. People who borrowed over their heads made a mistake but they were aided and abetted by the elected government. You have to decide if you agree with the current democratic process. Its a bit like the situation in Europe. The prudent borrowers in Europe (IE Germany) are not happy with the flippant attitude to debt that (we and you by default) have regarding our debt. They rightly so are saying why do we have to pay for the foolishness of other countries. Is this right?


  • Options
    #11
    Voltex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Voltex


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    If you have a house which is in negative equity it is because of a decision you made. Because there were 300,000 mortgages in arrears, the government decided to help the stupid who over borrowed by embarking on all kinds of shenanigans from bank bailouts, to debt forgiveness, to requiring the banks to do deals with the indebted, to three year bankruptcy arrangements etc, etc, etc. All this costs tens of billions.

    Added to that, instead of mass evictions of the stupid, the stupid got to stay in the bailed out banks houses and the poor and totally blameless young people who had nothing to do with the nuttiness of the naughties get handed the bill. This is not right.

    The young are being screwed every which way. They pay for the aforementioned shenanigans so the stupid don`t have to be evicted. And , because the stupid have not been evicted they pay more to rent and more to buy a house than would otherwise be the case.

    I just think the government ought to apologize to the young people and admit that they were sold out and for the rest of their lives they will be paying for mortgages which other people took out during the naughties.
    This thread is a windup...maybe even by the Sinn Fein/Provo happy lot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Voltex wrote: »
    This thread is a windup...maybe even by the Sinn Fein/Provo happy lot.
    Au contraire, I am not a Sinn Fein supporter. I just think (for the aforementioned reasons) that the government ought to apologize to renters and young people who have difficulty with high rent and over priced houses.


  • Options
    #13
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    It will please you to know I understand the sequence of events perfectly.

    There are 300,000 mortgages in arrears in this country.


    Where did the 300,000 figure come from?

    A quick google gives this

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/more-than-90000-mortgages-still-in-arrears-307336.html


  • Options
    #14
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Maybe I missed it, but IF there are 300,000 mortgages in arrears and you sell those properties - where do those 300,000 household go?


  • Options
    #15
    delthedriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,958 ✭✭✭delthedriver


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Au contraire, I am not a Sinn Fein supporter. I just think (for the aforementioned reasons) that the government ought to apologize to renters and young people who have difficulty with high rent and over priced houses.

    The Government have nothing to apologise for here. It is simple economics. The law of Supply and demand.


    Sorry OP , I think someone is winding you up !:)


  • Options
    #16
    aido79
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 5,374 Mod ✭✭✭✭aido79


    This thread sounds like something from Waterford Whispers..


  • Options
    #17
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    timetogo wrote: »
    Where did the 300,000 figure come from?

    A quick google gives this

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/more-than-90000-mortgages-still-in-arrears-307336.html
    If there are fewer than 300,000 it is only because of the debt deals, mortgage extensions, etc which were done - all of which had to be subsidized at great expense by next generation of tax payer. Where is this governments shame.


  • Options
    #18
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    If there are fewer than 300,000 it is only because of the debt deals, mortgage extensions, etc which were done - all of which had to be subsidized at great expense by next generation of tax payer. Where is this governments shame.

    So we're agreed that there are less than 300,000. Maybe your knowledge isn't that perfect.

    I have a mortgage. Ive been working my ass off to pay it like everybody i know. How do I get get one of these debt deals or free extensions you speak of?


  • Options
    #19
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Maybe I missed it, but IF there are 300,000 mortgages in arrears and you sell those properties - where do those 300,000 household go?
    Go ask them, its their problem. If they rent, they will come in at the bottom of the pile because they will have the balance of their old mortgage to pay so young people will be able to out bid them both in the rental market and the housing market. Stupidity has a price and to be fair it is the stupid who should be the ones to pay it.


  • Options
    #20
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    delthedriver wrote: »
    The Government have nothing to apologise for here. It is simple economics. The law of Supply and demand.


    Sorry OP , I think someone is winding you up !:)
    You obviously didn`t read the previous thread. I am all in favour of the law of supply and demand, I am opposed to protectionism.


  • Options
    #21
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    timetogo wrote: »
    How do I get get one of these debt deals or free extensions you speak of?
    Sorry, I have no intention of helping you get a debt deal which my generation will have to pay for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,072 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Op, sounds like you want a socialist state with a fascist leader. Good luck with that.
    Back in the real world real people are trying to deal with real problems as best they can.

    To say someone consciously decided to create a negative equity situation shows a marked lack of a grasp on reality and a total revisionism of what actually happened.


  • Options
    #23
    yipeeeee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,605 ✭✭✭yipeeeee


    I think the idiots who took out mortgages and can't pay them back should apologize.

    It's always someone elses fault, sick of this whining nation.


  • Options
    #24
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Op, sounds like you want a socialist state with a fascist leader. Good luck with that.
    Back in the real world real people are trying to deal with real problems as best they can.

    To say someone consciously decided to create a negative equity situation shows a marked lack of a grasp on reality and a total revisionism of what actually happened.
    What makes you think I want a socialist state?
    Consciously or otherwise, those in negative equity are in negative equity because of their decision. If the government were to bail out anyone (and I am not saying it should) then how about Sean Quinn? At least he did a lot of good for this country.


  • Options
    #25
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,072 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    What makes you think I want a socialist state?
    Consciously or otherwise, those in negative equity are in negative equity because of their decision. If the government were to bail out anyone (and I am not saying it should) then how about Sean Quinn? At least he did a lot of good for this country.

    Absolute rubbish.

    So the electrician married to the teacher who bought in 2007 who had two good wages and bought in the area they grew up in are at fault for the constitution crash that cost him his job and cost her savage cuts. Leading them to having one wage to pay for a debt the banks sourced in the basis of two?

    I've seen first hand how the banks operated consistently in those years between 2000 and 2007 and I would firmly place the majority of the blame for the current situation at their door. I would apportion a good section of the remaining debt on patrick neary and his office for disgraceful derogation of their statutory duty (110% mortgages anyone,?) which he had never been challanged on. And the rest of the blame I would place on the hands of purchasers who, with the full knowledge of banks and brokers 'cooked the books' in order to obtain larger mortgages.
    To those ordinary people who didn't try to pull a fast one and were only putting aroof over their and their families head, I apportion no blame and I offer the most sympathy because they have to deal with issues caused by the negative equity PLUS all the extra taxes and increases brought upon us by fianna fails policies.

    Younger people entering the market now may have to rent in the short time, but what better way to figure out how to survive in a salary. The housing supply will return to acceptable levels eventually, but we really really need to make definitive policies to get us away from these boom bust cycles that we have experienced.
    The problems in the short term in regard to rent rates are a supply issue. The cost of providing a housing unit currently is prohibitive, thus the lack of supply. So that's what had to be tackled.


  • Options
    #26
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Go ask them, its their problem. If they rent, they will come in at the bottom of the pile because they will have the balance of their old mortgage to pay so young people will be able to out bid them both in the rental market and the housing market. Stupidity has a price and to be fair it is the stupid who should be the ones to pay it.

    So you think it's a good idea to toss 300,000 people out of their homes!

    The social disruption alone - as people move to find affordable housing, or seek income supports etc would wreck the country!


  • Options
    #27
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    You obviously didn`t read the previous thread. I am all in favour of the law of supply and demand, I am opposed to protectionism.

    I don't think you understand what 'protectionism' is, plus I don't think you appreciate inertia and inelasticity in the context of supply and demand as that concept applies to something like housing.


  • Options
    #28
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Jawgap wrote: »
    So you think it's a good idea to toss 300,000 people out of their homes!

    The social disruption alone - as people move to find affordable housing, or seek income supports etc would wreck the country!
    We are talking about houses not "homes". The houses do not belong to the defaulters, they belong to the bailed out banks. Handled efficiently, the entire transition of replacing defaulters with first time buyers could by done in a matter of weeks. There is absolutely no reason for income support to increase, the defaulting community`s ability to pay would determine the cost of their rent.


  • Options
    #29
    Jack the Box
    Site Banned Posts: 30 ✭Jack the Box


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    We are talking about houses not "homes". The houses do not belong to the defaulters, they belong to the bailed out banks. Handled efficiently, the entire transition of replacing defaulters with first time buyers could by done in a matter of weeks. There is absolutely no reason for income support to increase, the defaulting community`s ability to pay would determine the cost of their rent.

    Love the username btw ! Keep it real man ! Lol


  • Options
    #30
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    We are talking about houses not "homes". The houses do not belong to the defaulters, they belong to the bailed out banks. Handled efficiently, the entire transition of replacing defaulters with first time buyers could by done in a matter of weeks. There is absolutely no reason for income support to increase, the defaulting community`s ability to pay would determine the cost of their rent.

    That is rubbish. The houses belong to the householders unless they have been repossessed, which they haven't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    We are talking about houses not "homes". The houses do not belong to the defaulters, they belong to the bailed out banks. Handled efficiently, the entire transition of replacing defaulters with first time buyers could by done in a matter of weeks. There is absolutely no reason for income support to increase, the defaulting community`s ability to pay would determine the cost of their rent.

    Are there 300,000 first time buyers available and capable of getting a mortgage?

    Also, where's all the rental stock going to come from?

    And what's to stop someone speculating and making huge profits? Get a few first time buyers as your 'front' people, buy up a load of housing stock then rent it out?


Advertisement