How poor are the poor, really?

ntlbell

Blangis wrote: »

Blangis wrote: »

Anyone who bought property during the last ten years was an aspirational idiot. They caused the housing bubble by driving up prices and they caused the financial crisis by borrowing more than they could afford to pay back. Now it is time for them to take some pain, and because they caused the above situation, they should take more pain than anyone else.

Wrong, if they bought a property they could comfortably afford, based on 2/3 x's their wage stress tested against interest hikes if a couple a job loss etc and could still lead the lifestyle they wanted to lead with plenty of head room then no they were not an idiot.

Blangis wrote: »

And who exactly are these scapegoats? People like me, who you have a cartoonish idea of, based on stuff like Ross O'Carroll Kelly.

people like you? you have a 75k job what about the people with no job? that have taken huge pay cuts AND all the levy's? cop on to yourself lad

Blangis wrote: »

What I am trying to get you to see is that everybody contributed to the bubble, you included. When your rent increased, as it surely did several times over the past number of years, did you refuse to pay, and move to a cheaper area? Of course you didn't. Like everyone else, you wanted a certain life and were prepared to pay whatever that cost.

you seem to know a hell of a lot about what people did and what people didn't do, everyone is taken a hit EVERYONE some are losing their jobs and losing their homes, you, you have to play less golf....sigh

af_thefragile

This thread reminds me one of Bill Hicks jokes.
Bill's walking down the street one day in New York when a homeless person stops him and asks for change. Bill refuses and so in disgust the homeless person remarks out to him "you don't know know what's it like to be homeless!!".
To which Bill responses "Yes, I do. Thats why I work!!".


This is the state of most people in this country. They're sitting on their asses complaining all day about their lowered pays and increasingly ****ty jobs while no one can be bothered to do anything about it!.
Who pays the price?
Yup, the one's who bothered to go to university to work hard and get a proper high skilled professional job so that they could make a decent living.

Thoie

ntlbell has mentioned stress testing a number of times, and people don't seem to be picking up on it, but it's worth repeating.

If, when doing your household budgets, you cannot manage if things change by any reasonable amount, you're doing it wrong.

I wouldn't normally discuss my own finances in public, but here's an example. Bear in mind I don't earn anywhere near €75k. I bought my own place a few years back. I looked at what I could afford at the time, and then bought somewhere marginally cheaper, to protect myself against rises of interest rates, taxes, etc. I switched to a tracker mortgage at a good rate within a few months of moving house, because I saw the value in them. When interest rates started to fall, I continued putting away the original mortgage amount to help soften the blow when they inevitably rise again. I put some other money away in savings every month, but could put away more. I pretty much spend the rest of my take home pay on things I like and am accustomed to.

However, I can recognise exactly what my luxuries are. My take home pay will have dropped quite a bit with the new budget, and without having to do any sums, I know exactly what changes I'll have to make. These are all relatively minor changes that won't affect my standard of living greatly, but they're changes that I will have to make. If I continue spending the way I currently do, I'd end up in debt. Last year I was jobless for a period of time, and at that point I had to make a lot of severe adjustments, but due to being fiscally responsible originally, I didn't lose my home or starve. The income was not what I was used to, but between savings and social welfare I managed. The biggest upset during that period was a €500 plumbing disaster, which made things really financially tough for a few weeks, but I managed.

Now I have a new job, paying more than the last one. I've resumed my previous spending habits (because I like my lifestyle), but I still keep an eye on what my luxuries are, so that I know what can be dropped if the worst happens. The recent tax changes will not pin me to my collar, because I know where to make the changes.

Blangis, I've done my best throughout this thread to steer the conversation away from your personal finances. However it's coming across from your posts that you don't know where to make the changes, or how to separate the things that you want from the things that you need. You've mentioned that you have children - consider what you're teaching them about financial responsibility if you are unable to manage your own budget. If you find the new tax regime is going to leave you in debt every month, I suggest you sit down with the family and discuss where cuts can be made.

Blangis

ntlbell wrote: »

No, he should have rented in finglas.

But he didn't, and that is the point. He bought in Finglas, and his better off counterpart bought in Ranelagh.

gurramok

Blangis wrote: »

But he didn't, and that is the point. He bought in Finglas, and his better off counterpart bought in Ranelagh.

Why couldn't the better off counterpart buy in Finglas too?

And why couldn't the better off counterpart rent in either Finglas or Ranelagh?

Het-Field

Today, while having luch at my Aunt's house,a young woman with two children came to the door. They were well kept, and polite, but she was looking for food. She was not worried whether we gave her money, or physical food, it was clear that she was in need of being fed, and that she wanted to ensure that the young chidren were looked after.

I had noticed, that during the cletic tiger times, even the poor who called to the door were more pickey with what they accepted. The majority of the time, if you didnt give them money, they would look at you as though you had two heads. Furthermore, they would be guaranteed to ask you for more, and you would virtually have to close the door in their face.

Today really made me sad. In combination with the scene of hundred of people queing at the Capuchian Friary looking for food parcels, I am beginning to think that the poor are getting poorer. It is the first time in years that people have come to the door looking for food, without having a list of things which they wanted.

It is possible that we are hitting rock bottom, and this will only exacerbate in conjunction with the crisis. Today's knock on the door certainly put Brian Cowen's gripe with Conor Casbys artistic talents in perspective.

Blangis

There have been 200 plus wasted posts, because people are getting worked up over the details of the examples I am giving rather than addressing the point I am making, which is as follows, as clear as I can make it:

Person A makes 100k per annum. Person B makes 50k.
House X is a 1,000 square foot 3 bed semi in Ranelagh. House Y is a 1,000 square foot 3 bed semi in Finglas.

During the boom, Person A bought House X, and Person B bought House Y. According to the posters on this thread, Person A should have bought House Y instead of House X, and Person B should not have bought a house at all.

So the verdict is that A & B are both guilty of the same offence.

Now it comes to sentencing and making restitution. Let's imagine a scale of restitution from 1 -10 where 1 is deprivation so mild that nobody would notice it, from the poorest person in the world to Warren Buffett; and 10 is taking everything you have away.

The government have sentenced A to a Grade 4 punishment, and B to a Grade 2 punishment, even though they committed the same offence.

So, this is either right, or not right. My position is that it is not right, but the posters on this thread believe that it is right. They say that A should have been more prudent than B. And why? Because:

• More is expected of A.
• A has more responsibility to the state than B
• A has less right to enjoy the lifestyle of his choice than B
• A's chosen lifestyle is less acceptable to The Plain People of Ireland than B's.

All of the above have either been said straight out or implied on this thread, and I disagree with all of them.

gurramok

Person A could of bought house Y OR could have rented X or Y until the house was within his means.

Its rather easy to understand, its called being financial responsible.

Soldie

gurramok wrote: »

Person A could of bought house Y OR could have rented X or Y until the house was within his means.

Its rather easy to understand, its called being financial responsible.

I'm not sure if I'm living within my means - is there somewhere I can check this?

gurramok

Soldie wrote: »

I'm not sure if I'm living within my means - is there somewhere I can check this?

Have enough disposable income after 'bills', especially housing costs?

Thoie

Soldie wrote: »

I'm not sure if I'm living within my means - is there somewhere I can check this?

Yes, at the end of the month, see how much cash you have, and compare it to your current debts. Don't count other assets such as investments/property in your "cash" as the value of these is variable. If you have more cash than debt, or they precisely balance out, you are living within your means.

Thoie

Blangis wrote: »

Person A makes 100k per annum. Person B makes 50k.
House X is a 1,000 square foot 3 bed semi in Ranelagh. House Y is a 1,000 square foot 3 bed semi in Finglas.

During the boom, Person A bought House X, and Person B bought House Y. According to the posters on this thread, Person A should have bought House Y instead of House X, and Person B should not have bought a house at all.

No. It's been said numerous times that anyone should have bought whatever house they want, as long as their payments could withstand reasonable stress - generally 2-3% based on monthly mortgage payments being no more than approx 30% of takehome pay. If anyone overextended themselves to such a point that their finances fail this stress test, then they were financially irresponsible.

Blangis wrote: »

The government have sentenced A to a Grade 4 punishment, and B to a Grade 2 punishment, even though they committed the same offence.

So, this is either right, or not right. My position is that it is not right, but the posters on this thread believe that it is right. They say that A should have been more prudent than B. And why? Because:

• More is expected of A.
• A has more responsibility to the state than B
• A has less right to enjoy the lifestyle of his choice than B
• A's chosen lifestyle is less acceptable to The Plain People of Ireland than B's.

All of the above have either been said straight out or implied on this thread, and I disagree with all of them.

Taxes are not a punishment. No-one has committed an offence, though some people were stupid and financially irresponsible (including the man in the street, the government and the banks). Your third and fourth points are wrong, if you assume that both A and B acted like responsible adults. Everyone has the right to enjoy any lifestyle he can afford out of his takehome pay. If your takehome pay reduces for any reason, then your lifestyle has to adjust. If you lose your job tomorrow, your will have to adjust your lifestyle. If your company mandates 10% pay cuts, you will have to adjust your lifestyle. If taxes are increased, everyone has to adjust their lifestyle.

ntlbell

Blangis wrote: »

But he didn't, and that is the point. He bought in Finglas, and his better off counterpart bought in Ranelagh.

what's the point? that you and "him" both made bad financial decisions and probably put more research into picking what iron to hit a golf ball with than you did in researching when you bought your over priced property?

gurramok

And have a read of Het-Field's post and be glad you are not in the queue for food parcels at the Capuchin Friary.

There are more people worse off and appreciate what you have.