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
Morgan Kelly calls for debt forgiveness for struggling mortgage holders
Options
Comments
-
Unfortunately, not one word of that makes debt forgiveness a good idea.
I'm not saying it is or isn't a good idea... I'm also not advocating debt forgiveness, I'm just saying we need to do something. My original point was on how people jump on here and say things like I'll stop paying my bins, mortgage etc... Yet when it comes to the crunch nothing gets done.0 -
Debt forgiveness could always be a scheme to pay off a persons negative equity only. I know I for one bought a house for my family to live in, not to make a profit.
Maybe if you agreed to enter the scheme the government buys the negative equity. So if you bought a house for 200k and have 180k left to pay and its now worth 150k then 30k is bought from you. If however you sell the house in 3-4 years time and the house is now valued at over 150k then the government takes any money over.
This would prevent the argument of people making a profit from this. It would also not matter if you have made improvements to the house. Once you enter the scheme you agree to the value at the time of agreement.
This forgiveness of the negative equity could help kick start the housing market as people could then sell up if they wanted and move on, It would also help people with large mortgages handle their debts if they have lost their jobs or are on jobs with alot less money. tThis would onviously be on a case by case basis depending on circumstance but anyone could apply and be judged. The govenment could also agree that the first time buyers tax relief is to be left alone0 -
boogerballs wrote: »1. Banks are not lending to small business, individuals, mortgage applicants etc..
And your idea to get lending going is to force banks to take on enormous losses by simply writing off debt?
Irish banks are then supposed to go onto international markets and attract investment in a country where debts may simply be nullified but the assets they were used to secure retained?I'm not saying it is or isn't a good idea... I'm also not advocating debt forgiveness, I'm just saying we need to do something.
In other words you're not prepared to defend the idea in any way but are prepared to call for it to be implemented anyway.
I'm not saying giving me a €1bn is good or bad idea, I'm just saying we need to do something.0 -
Isn't the whole point to stabilize the banks once and for all. Instead of them claimiing to have assets worth a particular amount that nobody believes we get to the point where we know how much assets they actually have with a more stable revenue. No point in them claiming they have mortgages worth X when they actually are only worth Y. As people speculate the difference between X and Y we have a huge problem with the value of banks.And your idea to get lending going is to force banks to take on enormous losses by simply writing off debt?
Irish banks are then supposed to go onto international markets and attract investment in a country where debts may simply be nullified but the assets they were used to secure retained?
In other words you're not prepared to defend the idea in any way but are prepared to call for it to be implemented anyway.
I'm not saying giving me a €1bn is good or bad idea, I'm just saying we need to do something.
On top of that Y is decreasing constantly as people can't keep their payments up. If we make the banks stable and keep people in their homes along with increasing disposable income we would get from those who would not have to spend so much on their mortgages.
Those without mortgage would gain by getting cheaper rents and increased job opportunities. Small business would get loans as the banks would be able to get investment and borrow on even terms without the uncertainty there at the moment.
Not sure it would work like that but that is the principle. People here don't seem to be arguing the merits of the idea just they don't like it as it means other people may benefit and they don't feel they will to the same extent. . It isn't meant to save the people who bought 2nd homes as investments.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »No point in them claiming they have mortgages worth X when they actually are only worth Y. As people speculate the difference between X and Y we have a huge problem with the value of banks.
On top of that Y is decreasing constantly as people can't keep their payments up. If we make the banks stable and keep people in their homes along with increasing disposable income we would get from those who would not have to spend so much on their mortgages.
How are you going to define which mortgages aren't really worth X? On the basis of someone claiming they can no longer afford X?Those without mortgage would gain by getting cheaper rents and increased job opportunities. Small business would get loans as the banks would be able to get investment and borrow on even terms without the uncertainty there at the moment.
So...people with mortgages benefit by getting to keep the house they couldn't afford. Those without mortgages benefit by...getting to continue paying rent and owning nothing. A major advantage of renting versus buying is that one is a short length contract allowing you to move and renegotiate easily while the other is a long term fixed contract. Debt forgiveness transfers the major advantage of renting to mortgage holders without transferring any of the risks (I doubt that, for example, in the future mortgages will be arbitrarily increased on the basis the holders can afford to pay more).
Even if we do accept smaller rents as a benefit, that can only happen if you're willing to apply debt forgiveness to investment mortgages.
This sounds a lot like the "begrudgery" argument.Not sure it would work like that but that is the principle. People here don't seem to be arguing the merits of the idea just they don't like it as it means other people may benefit and they don't feel they will to the same extent. . It isn't meant to save the people who bought 2nd homes as investments.
Once you establish that buying a house is something that always works out regardless of whether it's sensible or you can afford it then how do you ever stop people from being irrational in future? You might as well buy that one bed apartment for 500k, why not? If you get in trouble we'll just write off the difference!
Debt forgiveness as a principle simply cannot work. You cannot run a country that way.
Bankruptcy is a common solution to this problem all over the world and there's absolutely no reason why we can't modernise our laws and employ it here. If people really can't afford their mortgage then fine they can lose the house and spend a few years rebuilding their finances and credit rating.0 -
Advertisement
-
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0822/1224302808105.html
I've a lot of time for Morgan Kelly, but in this case I don't agree, at least not without extensive revisions to any plan that even resembles such actions as debt forgiveness.
It's not that I don't think plans need to be put in place for those genuinely struggling/going under. It's a moral minefield (for starters) giving those who bought around the peak a get out of jail free like card, while others who are only barely keeping their head above water get nothing, or as an earlier poster put it - it's a can of worms.0 -
How are you going to define which mortgages aren't really worth X? On the basis of someone claiming they can no longer afford X?
So...people with mortgages benefit by getting to keep the house they couldn't afford. Those without mortgages benefit by...getting to continue paying rent and owning nothing. A major advantage of renting versus buying is that one is a short length contract allowing you to move and renegotiate easily while the other is a long term fixed contract. Debt forgiveness transfers the major advantage of renting to mortgage holders without transferring any of the risks (I doubt that, for example, in the future mortgages will be arbitrarily increased on the basis the holders can afford to pay more).
Even if we do accept smaller rents as a benefit, that can only happen if you're willing to apply debt forgiveness to investment mortgages.
This sounds a lot like the "begrudgery" argument.
Once you establish that buying a house is something that always works out regardless of whether it's sensible or you can afford it then how do you ever stop people from being irrational in future? You might as well buy that one bed apartment for 500k, why not? If you get in trouble we'll just write off the difference!
Debt forgiveness as a principle simply cannot work. You cannot run a country that way.
Bankruptcy is a common solution to this problem all over the world and there's absolutely no reason why we can't modernise our laws and employ it here. If people really can't afford their mortgage then fine they can lose the house and spend a few years rebuilding their finances and credit rating.
Very well said!0 -
First off I don't know if it would work or is a good idea. I was pointing out people didn't seem to be discussing the actual idea.How are you going to define which mortgages aren't really worth X? On the basis of someone claiming they can no longer afford X?
From what I understand he is talking about allowing people default and go bankrupt without the mortgage following them. He then appears to be suggesting that mortgages would be devalued and not just those struggling would get a reduction. The exact details didn't seem to be stated so without that detail criticizing it and saying it is not possible seems to be an overreaction.
I think you are missing a huge factor here. People didn't simply take out mortgages they couldn't afford the economy world wide has tanked, very different. All well and good to say people should have made allowances for time out of work but when it goes beyond a year and your partner is on 50% less than they were. That is not what most people plan for. This is not transferring the risk it is dealing with a very real problem. People weren't planing on this solution it may simply be required. If your view isn't begrudging I really don't know what is. This is not an individual plan it is a suggestion to save the economy.So...people with mortgages benefit by getting to keep the house they couldn't afford. Those without mortgages benefit by...getting to continue paying rent and owning nothing. A major advantage of renting versus buying is that one is a short length contract allowing you to move and renegotiate easily while the other is a long term fixed contract. Debt forgiveness transfers the major advantage of renting to mortgage holders without transferring any of the risks (I doubt that, for example, in the future mortgages will be arbitrarily increased on the basis the holders can afford to pay more).Even if we do accept smaller rents as a benefit, that can only happen if you're willing to apply debt forgiveness to investment mortgages.
That isn't true. You really are not thinking about the market holistically.
This sounds a lot like the "begrudgery" argument.
You can put that label on it but is simple you are complaining about how it wouldn't be fair to those who didn't buy. What has fair got to do with it. No matter whether you bought or not you benefited from the money being spent
That is half rant half begrudgery. Somebody is going to loose and somebody is going to win. This is not just about mortgage holders but about stabalising the banks and the economy. It is an extraordinary measure. Why are you bothered about teaching people a lesson? That is resentment at the suggestion.Once you establish that buying a house is something that always works out regardless of whether it's sensible or you can afford it then how do you ever stop people from being irrational in future? You might as well buy that one bed apartment for 500k, why not? If you get in trouble we'll just write off the difference!
Debt forgiveness as a principle simply cannot work. You cannot run a country that way.
Bankruptcy is a common solution to this problem all over the world and there's absolutely no reason why we can't modernise our laws and employ it here. If people really can't afford their mortgage then fine they can lose the house and spend a few years rebuilding their finances and credit rating.
I don't know if it would work but I am not angry about the concept and you certainly are. That is not a rational thought out response you have some moral objection and don't care about a solution that offends it. No surprise some people will agree but it doesn't make it a reasonable well thought out response.
Lets get something clear all those who didn't buy would have nowhere to live if there hadn't been a building boom. Rents would be massively higher than they are. Quality would be much worse. The type of place you could rent would not be as varied nor would there be so many locations to choose from. Anybody renting has benefited whether they admit it or not.0 -
Leaving all begrudgery aside, socialising individual losses on that level would be setting an extraordinary precedent and a remarkable statement of our society.
That is, socialising it at the cost of the credit available to the state, financed by the raped taxpayer.
I, for one, believe in personal responsibility and suffering the consequences of ones actions to the extent that if this debt forgiveness happened, I don't think I could in right mind remain living in that type of state.
Do we all get a bike too?0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »I think you are missing a huge factor here. People didn't simply take out mortgages they couldn't afford the economy world wide has tanked, very different.
Nope. People took out mortgages they couldn't afford and the world wide economy tanked. Not so different after all. We're dealing with multiple problems simultaneously, you can't simply organise such that one is a direct result of the other.
People took out 35 year mortgages handing over 40-50% of their joint income with partners for 1 bedroom apartments. This was completely and utter madness and totally unaffordable by any metric.
They did this because property always goes up in value. They did it because rent is "dead money". They did it because if they didn't buy now they were afraid they'd never be able to afford a one bedroom apartment.
They also did it because they didn't expect to actually live in that 1 bedroom apartment. They bought into the idea of a "starter home" where you bizarrely buy a property you only plan to live in for a few years.If your view isn't begrudging I really don't know what is. This is not an individual plan it is a suggestion to save the economy.
Then you don't know what begrudging is so you should stop using it.
It's "a suggestion to save the economy" which transfers wealth and money to a chunk of the population purely because they acted irrationality. It rewards that irrationality with properties they couldn't and can't afford. People who acted rationally are left without property and with the bill for the others.This sounds a lot like the "begrudgery" argument.That is half rant half begrudgery.
Mmmhmmm.This is not just about mortgage holders but about stabalising the banks and the economy. It is an extraordinary measure. Why are you bothered about teaching people a lesson?
The world works a certain way. The ways in which doesn't work are endless. One of the ways it doesn't work is when people that act without regard for consequence are protected from those consequences by those that did. You simply increase the population of people acting without consequence, you make irrationality a rational choice.
I note that again you have completely failed to defend the proposal. Instead you've declared it's necessary and should be done regardless of whether it's a good idea and that anyone in opposition to this is a "begrudger".
This is precisely the sort of irrational and hard headed approach that got us into this mess in the first place. I suggest you read the Housing Bubble Bursting and see what people were saying at the time. You know, stuff likeWell, all the talk and stats doesn't phase me. Subject to a very generous helping hand from my local bank manager, I'm going back into the market here to get an investment property. I heard the dire predictions and 'it can't go higher' 5 and 10 years back, from people who had no intention of buying a property, and how wrong they were then. Of course, that is not to say the gains will be as big, or indeed that the market is immune from adjusting, but if you keep saying the sky will fall for the next billion years some day it may happen. I'm just trying to make a few quid before then...0 -
Advertisement
-
This has happened but to suggest everybody who took out a mortgage and are now in trouble did this is just simply not true.Nope. People took out mortgages they couldn't afford and the world wide economy tanked. Not so different after all. We're dealing with multiple problems simultaneously, you can't simply organise such that one is a direct result of the other.
I know somebody who took out a mortgage for 30% of their combined salary. He lost his job in his 2nd year of unemployment and his wife is on 60% of her wages now. They now have a daughter. Negative equity and struggling to pay the mortgage and live a life. These people paid taxes buying the house and large amounts of income tax.
You are assuming everybody in trouble was an idiot. That was not the case.
You are making the argument about morals and what you think is right. I don't know if this would work just pointing out you are making it about what is fair regardless of the consequences. Where are all these people going to live and who will pay? Is it much cheaper to keep these people in their houses rather than have them with rent allowance.
You are talking about cutting your nose off despite your face. You don't have a solution because what you are suggesting will cost more money the way I see it.
Try exploring the idea rather than dismissing it off hand with out thinking about it is all I am saying. All this talk about how people will act if this is done is wildly hypothetical as far as I am concerned. You seem to suggest people knew this would happen and it has it is only a suggestion which we know won't actual happen.0 -
You see these are the peope that matter, they're the *good middle class people* and you can recognise that they're *good* people because they wear nicer clothes and live in nice neighbourhoods, I propose that money should be diverted from the social welfare to help these, better people, because lets face it they are more valuable to this country.0
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »I know somebody who took out a mortgage for 30% of their combined salary. He lost his job in his 2nd year of unemployment and his wife is on 60% of her wages now. They now have a daughter. Negative equity and struggling to pay the mortgage and live a life. These people paid taxes buying the house and large amounts of income tax.
You are assuming everybody in trouble was an idiot. That was not the case.
Sounds like they had substantial cash/earnings.
All they had to do, was not buy.
They would now have no debt and the ability to mobilise for employment and the savings to finance it.
That sounds remarkably idiotic to me.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »I know somebody who took out a mortgage for 30% of their combined salary. He lost his job in his 2nd year of unemployment and his wife is on 60% of her wages now. They now have a daughter. Negative equity and struggling to pay the mortgage and live a life. These people paid taxes buying the house and large amounts of income tax.
As your unemployed friend will have found out by now, welfare assistance first ensures you exhaust your own resources before the States stepping in with support. You consume assets such as shares and savings - then your means are considered sufficiently low to warrant state support.
Would you agree that this couple might first 'exhaust' the resource of (let's say) a "4 bed house in a nice area" before the notion of debt forgiveness should even come into play? Some such would be made possible by a scheme which allows a person to carry their negative equity with them to a new property. Their 'downgrading' their residence by some proportion or other would alleviate their debt and be on a par with normal methods of welfare assessment.Where are all these people going to live and who will pay? Is it much cheaper to keep these people in their houses rather than have them with rent allowance.
If you consider society a food chain, the person would merely come to settle somewhat lower down on it before being considered for debt forgiveness (which might include the stake taking up a portion of the equity in the persons home). There would be no need for rent allowance since the person would have a mortgage taken out on a more affordable home.0 -
That sounds remarkably idiotic to me.
That's harsh. Naive is probably a better description.
Regardless, everyone can relax. There will be no formal debt forgiveness scheme where someone can live in a house they borrowed 600K on but can now only afford 250K.
I would suggest though, as a solution, that people like those Ray Palmer described who bought during a specific period of madness, should be allowed walk away from the property without the debt following them.
If they choose to remain, they should only be entitled to an extension on the life time of their mortgage or a debt for equity swap on the part they cannot afford.
That may help those that need it, and allow for some social justice aswell.0 -
No I am assuming that a very large proportion of people acted irrationally which is demonstrably true. As a group any "for free" assistance has the effect of incentivising that irrationality.Ray Palmer wrote: »You are assuming everybody in trouble was an idiot. That was not the case.
Your friend should be able to do what people in other Western countries can do - lose the house and go bankrupt. The notion that your friend gets to not pay for the house but keep it anyway is a non-starter.You are making the argument about morals and what you think is right
I haven't discussed morals at all. I've discussed what people did, what they took possession of and whom you are now expecting to pay for those possessions. That is not a moral proposition, we live in a democracy and it's reasonable to discuss whether people should be able to vote themselves things for free paid for by others.You don't have a solution because what you are suggesting will cost more money the way I see it.
So "the way you see it" it would cost more (something you've provided nothing whatsoever to show) therefore I don't have have a solution. That's quite a train of logic.
I have explored the idea. Do you think this is the first time I've heard the debt forgiveness proposal?Try exploring the idea0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »As your unemployed friend will have found out by now, welfare assistance first ensures you exhaust your own resources before the States stepping in with support. You consume assets such as shares and savings - then your means are considered sufficiently low to warrant state support.
Having worked for the social welfare I know a fair amount about the workings of the system. What effectively you are saying is the people who paid for the social welfare system are not entitled to it. This is actually how it works. People who have never worked or paid taxes receive rent,dole, medical card etc...
Not very equitable.
That is one way of doing it.antiskeptic wrote: »Would you agree that this couple might first 'exhaust' the resource of (let's say) a "4 bed house in a nice area" before the notion of debt forgiveness should even come into play? Some such would be made possible by a scheme which allows a person to carry their negative equity with them to a new property. Their 'downgrading' their residence by some proportion or other would alleviate their debt and be on a par with normal methods of welfare assessment.
While the reality of what really happened was the country's debt was transferred onto one group of people. With people not able to afford the debt it returned to the state and has been increased as some companies involved took their fees and left.
What happened to all the stamp duty? did people get anything for that realistically?
If you consider it a food chain then you would see eliminating part of the chain doesn't fix things it makes it worse and unbalanced.antiskeptic wrote: »If you consider society a food chain, the person would merely come to settle somewhat lower down on it before being considered for debt forgiveness (which might include the stake taking up a portion of the equity in the persons home). There would be no need for rent allowance since the person would have a mortgage taken out on a more affordable home.
At present you can't get away from the mortgage so rent allowance is going to be the only route for some people. Anyway part of the idea is to allow this to happen as you described.
@Sharper
You made your points and they are quite obvious a moral stance. You are not exploring the idea here. You have not backed up your view with any values either. It reeks of outrage which I only attribute to resentment and begrudgery. You aren't stating anything new and assume everybody has been completely selfish and stupid but you. I don't accept that idea it's just that simple. I think it is overtly aggressive and not applicable to the majority. We aren't going to agree because you can't discuss it.
I don't even think it will work or happen because there will be too many people who won't accept the idea and you would be that type of person. If it was actually applied in a measure way it might actually work.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Having worked for the social welfare I know a fair amount about the workings of the system. What effectively you are saying is the people who paid for the social welfare system are not entitled to it. This is actually how it works. People who have never worked or paid taxes receive rent,dole, medical card etc...
Not very equitable.
I'm not saying their not entitled to it, it's just that after you've exhausted that which you've contributed into (unemployment benefit) you go onto means tested unemployment assistance.
Since folk who are up to their neck in mortgage debt haven't contributed to a fund designed to support them in times of trouble the idea would be that they go straight to the assistance department. The means tested assitance dept.That is one way of doing it.
It's a way of doing it that takes some account of individuals central role in the financial decisions they were making.While the reality of what really happened was the country's debt was transferred onto one group of people. With people not able to afford the debt it returned to the state and has been increased as some companies involved took their fees and left.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Developer debt was transferred to the taxpayer - some of whom are in trouble with their mortgages, some who are not. Debt forgiveness would appear to shift the burden of those in trouble to those who aren't currently.
So far, all I've suggested is that those whose own decisions lie core to their problems contribute in the first instance by way of asset-degradation. Trading down houses for a start, trading down vehicles if need be.What happened to all the stamp duty? did people get anything for that realistically?
What we got was a government splurge. From a government we voted in.
Stamp duty wasn't intended to bail out people in debt - you might as well point to all the income tax and road tax and tv licence money we pay as if that gave us the right of access to mortgage debt forgiveness.
Debt forgiveness money could only come from other taxpayers. And you can be sure that some of those on the edge would be pushed over had they to contribute to a debt forgiveness fund.If you consider it a food chain then you would see eliminating part of the chain doesn't fix things it makes it worse and unbalanced.
At present you can't get away from the mortgage so rent allowance is going to be the only route for some people. Anyway part of the idea is to allow this to happen as you described.
I don't see how trading down eliminates a part of the chain - perhaps you could elaborate? In proposing debt forgiveness you are assuming the current situation is changed. In proposing contribution by way of downgrading I too am proposing the current situation is changed. I even mentioned it in saying that negative equity would need to be allowed to be transferred during the downgrade in property.
If you went from a large 4 bed in a decent area to a modest 3 bed in a less decent area you could reduce your mortgage by half. Wouldn't that get a lot of people out of trouble without any debt forgiveness being invoked?0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Having worked for the social welfare I know a fair amount about the workings of the system. What effectively you are saying is the people who paid for the social welfare system are not entitled to it. This is actually how it works. People who have never worked or paid taxes receive rent,dole, medical card etc...
Not very equitable.
That is one way of doing it.
While the reality of what really happened was the country's debt was transferred onto one group of people. With people not able to afford the debt it returned to the state and has been increased as some companies involved took their fees and left.
What happened to all the stamp duty? did people get anything for that realistically?
If you consider it a food chain then you would see eliminating part of the chain doesn't fix things it makes it worse and unbalanced.
At present you can't get away from the mortgage so rent allowance is going to be the only route for some people. Anyway part of the idea is to allow this to happen as you described.
@Sharper
You made your points and they are quite obvious a moral stance. You are not exploring the idea here. You have not backed up your view with any values either. It reeks of outrage which I only attribute to resentment and begrudgery. You aren't stating anything new and assume everybody has been completely selfish and stupid but you. I don't accept that idea it's just that simple. I think it is overtly aggressive and not applicable to the majority. We aren't going to agree because you can't discuss it.
I don't even think it will work or happen because there will be too many people who won't accept the idea and you would be that type of person. If it was actually applied in a measure way it might actually work.
It's just not good enough to call anyone who criticises plans to write off peoples debt as begrudgery. It's just lazy and an attempt to denigrate the arguement before it get off the ground.0 -
I call it as I see it but I don't need to over quote. Read the thread and you might see it is explainedfontanalis wrote: »It's just lazy ... .0 -
Advertisement
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »I call it as I see it but I don't need to over quote. Read the thread and you might see it is explained
Me too!0 -
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »Just not very good at it so:p
And you are? If begrudgery is all you got, you're FF level wrong.0 -
- If you cant afford your mortgage get a job
- if you have a job and still cant afford it get a second job
- if you cant get any job, then try and extend the term
- if you still cant afford it with a longer term then try interest only
- if you sitll cant afford it rent it out and rent somewhere smaller and cheaper a shoebox if you have to.
- if you still cant afford it declare yourself bankrupt.
Regards somebody in NE but responsible enough to have though out every possible scenario thart could impact its affordability before signing on the dotted line.
As the slogan says. Lack of forsight on your behalf doesn't constitue an emergency on mine.0 -
Actually you don't. A rule that is in place limits how much you get not based on how much you actually contribute. It is based on stamps. It is extremely unfair on how it is applied.antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not saying their not entitled to it, it's just that after you've exhausted that which you've contributed into (unemployment benefit) you go onto means tested unemployment assistance.
Not sure what you mean here. I know I paid well over 30k on income taxes in one year and was not entitled to a single payment from welfare.antiskeptic wrote: »Since folk who are up to their neck in mortgage debt haven't contributed to a fund designed to support them in times of trouble the idea would be that they go straight to the assistance department. The means tested assitance dept.
Nobody with a mortgage has not contributed or been held accountable. What the suggest is about is about not crucifying them for it. Many elements out of their control have played their part. I don't accept that it was all greed and stupidity. I think it is even unfair to say it was naive. The legislation and government inaction were certainly part of the problem.antiskeptic wrote: »It's a way of doing it that takes some account of individuals central role in the financial decisions they were making.antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not sure what you mean here. Developer debt was transferred to the taxpayer - some of whom are in trouble with their mortgages, some who are not. Debt forgiveness would appear to shift the burden of those in trouble to those who aren't currently.
What I meant was the splurge the government went on was eliminating our national debt. Look back and you will see what happened. The government loans disappeared while the individuals loans increased. It was much more than a property bubble and was also a transfer of debt. The crash is much more than a bursting of the bubble.
I am actually all about personal responsibility. If you look over at the thread where some guy wanted to blame the bank for his friends situation I balked at the idea.
What seems to be a suggestion here is to stabilize bank assets and increase money flow. An update to our bankruptcy laws. It isn't really about costing money either. It about proper valuation and stabilizing the market in Ireland.
People aren't downgrading as it is not possible easily in the current situation if at all. What is happening is people are been blown away. This is the main tax base we are talking about. You do realize the banks aren't giving out money so it isn't possible to downgrade with less income than required for the mortgage and a debt.0 -
-
So, if I buy house today, and can't pay the mortgage, I can has free house?
This has to be the most stupid idea I've seen yet. I see a few people who want the presidents job is saying how great an idea it is... which leads me to believe it's populist nonsense to get them voted.
Sort of like Obama saying he'll shut camp X-Ray straight away, but when he got in, he found out that was a very bad idea, so he left it alone :pac:0 -
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »Actually you don't. A rule that is in place limits how much you get not based on how much you actually contribute. It is based on stamps. It is extremely unfair on how it is applied.
Not sure what you mean here. I know I paid well over 30k on income taxes in one year and was not entitled to a single payment from welfare.
I think you're focusing unnecessarily on the detail of UB/UA and not on the principle involved. There is welfare that is contribution based and welfare that isn't. The welfare that isn't contribution based examines your means in deciding on whether you get welfare and on the level of that welfare.
I'm suggesting a persons house be thrown into the means-mix in the case of a non-contributory system of state support for those in mortgage trouble.Nobody with a mortgage has not contributed or been held accountable. What the suggest is about is about not crucifying them for it. Many elements out of their control have played their part. I don't accept that it was all greed and stupidity. I think it is even unfair to say it was naive. The legislation and government inaction were certainly part of the problem.
I'm not suggesting crucifying them. I'm suggesting they contribute towards the solution of the problem they played a central role in getting themselves into - with the State taking steps to ensure their negative equity can be taken with them as a way of giving legs to the idea.What I meant was the splurge the government went on was eliminating our national debt. Look back and you will see what happened. The government loans disappeared while the individuals loans increased. It was much more than a property bubble and was also a transfer of debt. The crash is much more than a bursting of the bubble.
I recall tax cuts and massive infrastructural projects too. I'm not sure what you mean by transfer of debt - which implies the government paying off national debt necessarily resulted in an increase of personal debt. It didn't - it was the taking out of large mortgages irrespective of the wisdom of doing so that causes folk to get into trouble when the tide went out.
The point remains however: stamp duty wasn't intended to act as a buffer for over-indebtedness anymore that income tax/motor tax/tv licence. There isn't any point in appealing to our having paid it as a undergirding for the argument of debt forgiveness.I am actually all about personal responsibility. If you look over at the thread where some guy wanted to blame the bank for his friends situation I balked at the idea.
Yet you seem to be blaming all and sundry - bar the purchaser - for the predicament they now find themselves in. I'm proposing a system whereby the person is relieved of some of the burden. And relieved of some of the assets they aren't actually able to pay for.
What are you proposing by way of spreading the pain evenly?What seems to be a suggestion here is to stabilize bank assets and increase money flow. An update to our bankruptcy laws. It isn't really about costing money either. It about proper valuation and stabilizing the market in Ireland.
Debt forgiveness comes from the taxpayer. You can tax the taxpayer to stabilize bank assets without forgiving debt.People aren't downgrading as it is not possible easily in the current situation if at all. What is happening is people are been blown away. This is the main tax base we are talking about. You do realize the banks aren't giving out money so it isn't possible to downgrade with less income than required for the mortgage and a debt.
The suggestion (again) was that the State take steps to ensure downgrading is made possible. The 600k house that is now worth 300k is sold and a house worth 150K is purchased. That's a straight off repayment to the bank of 150 and a reduction in mortgage loan for the over stretched purchaser. The negative equity is still theirs at this point and there is still. The bank are in no different a position than before.
It's not all that could be done - as I say, you could also do some debt/equity swapping. And perhaps some debt forgiveness too.
It's just that debt forgiveness strikes me a poor go-to choice.0 -
Advertisement
-
But why should there just be debt forgiveness for those struggling?
Why is that fair?
Would it not be fairer for blanket debt forgiveness? Why should those who have managed their money well (not that I'm blaming anyone who is struggling) not also be assisted?
And what about those of us without mortgages ?
Why should we pay for everyone elses homes ?Raskolnikov wrote: »It's too late for moral hazard alert.
We're already bailed out the banks for making mistakes and allowed most people in these companies to keep their jobs.
We've already written down and forgiven part of the debt that NAMA developers owe.
These people were speculators, and they've been forgiven; so what's the problem in forgiving ordinary homeowners?
Most of us didn't agree with saving certain banks or developers/speculators and we damm well don't now want to go off saving every spendthrift who over borrowed to buy property and God knows what else (e.g cars, second homes, boats, holidays, etc) that they couldn't afford.
Fair enough about not reposessing but writing off others debt has already gone way too far.Wile E. Coyote wrote: »Debt forgiveness will never happen in this country because as a nation of begrudgers we don't want to see someone else benefit where we can't.
Well maybe at last we will use our supposed begruding nature to stop complete madness.Ray Palmer wrote: »Isn't the whole point to stabilize the banks once and for all.
So is there anyone else us taxpayers should bailout just in the name of stabilising the banks ?Ray Palmer wrote: »Those without mortgage would gain by getting cheaper rents and increased job opportunities.
What a crock of sh**.
Rob me today with promises of what I might get tomorrow.
I am tired of being asked to pay for others fook ups.
I don't mind lending a hand to people who suddenyl fall on hard times, but don't fooking ask me to help pay for their poor decisions.
How would you be able to decide who should and should not be covered with this scheme ?
This could only be done on case b case basis.0
Advertisement