2,000 people destroyed Ireland

NewDubliner

lmimmfn wrote: »

and ohh the irony will probably be rebought by the original developers for 25% of what they originally recieved a loan on it for

I'll give you some more irony....some of the properties/site in NAMA were probably sold by the government to the private sector as it tried to raise the billion it needed for the decentralisation scam.

bonkey

dragonsgates wrote: »

Why are we all paying for the debts of 2,000 people. 100 of these are responsible for 55 billion of the debt.

When you owe your bank a hundred grand, you take your bank manager to lunch.

When you owe them a hundred million, they take you to lunch.

lmimmfn

NewDubliner wrote: »

I'll give you some more irony....some of the properties/site in NAMA were probably sold by the government to the private sector as it tried to raise the billion it needed for the decentralisation scam.

lol, thats most likely what happened, whats the odds on brown envelopes and what not for 'special' Nama deals for developers? current Nama legislation doesnt even require them to say what was sold, and for how much, only the balance sheet at the end of the year, that in itself is a disaster waiting to happen.

NewDubliner

lmimmfn wrote: »

lol, thats most likely what happened, whats the odds on brown envelopes and what not for 'special' Nama deals for developers? current Nama legislation doesnt even require them to say what was sold, and for how much, only the balance sheet at the end of the year, that in itself is a disaster waiting to happen.

See my other post, €315 million spent so far and not a lot to show for it. Parlon was flogging state property all over the place (to fund wheezes like moving departments offices into their ministers constituencies) and boasting about how much he was getting for it....now it looks like that chicken has come home to roost.

johnnyskeleton

ixoy wrote: »

We're paying for this because we have to, otherwise the banks will collapse and our economy will be really screwed. Morally it's repugnant but in reality it's a necessity. Let's just say they won't be on Christmas Card list.

No alternative to NAMA eh? Few things:

1) there are several mooted alternatives to NAMA

2) even if a NAMA time organisation is needed, the only reason it focuses on particular bad debts is because the people who hold such bad debts are owed one by our politicians. Otherwise, if NAMA really was about fixing the banks, it would include personal unsecured debt etc

3) There is a world of a difference between saying that all banks will collapse never to be replaced and saying that these particular banks will collapses. I see nothing wrong with these particular banks collapsing, in fact it's quite healthy in a capitalist society to allow unsuccessful businesses to fail

4) our economy is already screwed, NAMA is only transferring the problems from private hands (more particularly the 4000 or so private hands that the OP referred to) into public hands which is a decision that your children's children could still be paying off

5) for the above reasons, I don't see why it is necessary or even desirable for us to relieve the debts of builders/developers/speculators (and that is what will ultimately happen with NAMA) and equally I don't see why it is necessary to keep the current banks alive. In fact, the current banks will become even more reckless if we bail them out, such is called moral hazard.

johnnyskeleton

jmayo wrote: »

Some have suggested that the 60 odd billion be diverted to cut ordinary people's mortgages and I have veheminently opposed this type of claptrap.

Which would be payable to everyone with a mortgage, even if they are not in NE/ arrears, but not to people that don't have mortgages.

The only bailout that is fair and reasonable is to give the €60bn equally to every person who currently pays or will pay tax in Ireland, or roughly €30k each. That will alleviate the burden on ordinary people's mortgages by giving them a €30k boost, and it will also ensures that those who don't have a mortgage can afford a nice little deposit to buy a house (or whatever they want).

The easiest way to distribute this bailout is not to send them all a cheque because that would be open to fraud/theft etc. The best way to distribute it is to simply not borrow it in the first place.

That's the kind of bailout we as taxpayers should be looking for.

AlekSmart

1mimmfn posted...

Its ok to want somewhere to live, there was always the rental market available, no-one was stuck, and this concept of deserving your own house is outdated, its a priviledge not a basic necessity.

Aside from a small number of posters knocking around boards.ie few appear willing to countenance this differentiation between Privilege and Basic Necessity.

And in a very simple way,that reluctance will ensure that the rest of mainland Europe will have managed a somewhat smoother recovery than whatever will pass for it as Gaeilge.

Why oh Why was our entire financial system allowed to funnel such unfeasible amounts of money through such a small number of individuals into ONE single area of development ?

Worse still,why oh why,is NAMA,as a state agency seriously skewed towards trying to refloat this quite obviously unseaworthy ship ?

The simple answer is to take that "Rental Market",reform and support it`s expansion by using whatever funds (NAMA like) to invite developer/managers into the business with far longer term returns and with solid State Backed guarantees for Landlord AND Tenant.

Sadly,we never really bought into the "Greater Good" as a principle and most likely now...never will

lmimmfn

AlekSmart wrote: »

1mimmfn posted...

Aside from a small number of posters knocking around boards.ie few appear willing to countenance this differentiation between Privilege and Basic Necessity.

Not only that, the perception was that you had to own more than one property to be keeping up with the jones's

AlekSmart wrote: »

Why oh Why was our entire financial system allowed to funnel such unfeasible amounts of money through such a small number of individuals into ONE single area of development ?

Seriously though its the peoples fault, noone gave a damn about Ireland as a nation, everyone just wanted to screw the next guy, offload their property with a huge profit so they could rebuy a larger property with more cash and expect to make more selling that( obviously fuelling the whole problem ).

AlekSmart wrote: »

Worse still,why oh why,is NAMA,as a state agency seriously skewed towards trying to refloat this quite obviously unseaworthy ship ?

I totally agree and on top of that Nama will keep the value of properties fictionally high for the forseeable future as the market is stagnent and will remain so with the perception of large tax increases in decembers budget which will further erode the ability of anyone looking for a mortgage.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The simple answer is to take that "Rental Market",reform and support it`s expansion by using whatever funds (NAMA like) to invite developer/managers into the business with far longer term returns and with solid State Backed guarantees for Landlord AND Tenant.

Exactly perception of it being your absolute right to own property is completely outdated, you get what you can afford and no more. Thank god the day of idiotic 100% mortgages is over. If anyone had any sense they would have been renting until the property prices decreased to something actually viable for your average person.

Last place i rented the landlord put the house on the market( June 2008 ) for 310,000Euro, 8 weeks later he was trying to flog it for 265,000EUR, complete insanity.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Sadly,we never really bought into the "Greater Good" as a principle and most likely now...never will

Did we feck, it was all about f***ing over the next guy for as much cash as you could get, its embarressing to think thats in essence what we are as a nation( i cant paint everyone with the same brush but the majority ), on top of that loads complain about the politicians and whoever and corruption and everyone would just milk the system in the same way.

Ive hated Ireland in the past 10 years as a nation, no respect for money, people running around with flash new cars year after year, buying 2,3 or 4 houses( and enjoying boasting about it ), several foreign holidays a year, buying bull$hit expensive handbags and crap, spending 1000's of euros on christmas pressies for the kids, grrrrrrrrrrr i could go on.

ronbyrne2005

Banking crisis will in probably cost no more than a one off hit of 30billion , a lot but not 55 or 90 billion.
The budget deficit is 25billion EVERY YEAR unless expenditure falls or taxes rise. Even after rest world recovers we will be short 10-15billion a year on current income and expenditure levels.

Amhran Nua

Tipp Man wrote: »

but for me the original post was trying to say that 2000 people had caused this mess but i think that you need to dig a little deeper and when you do you see that a lot of people in this country were living beyond there means on borrowed money.

It should be fairly easy to track the volume of mortgages sold in the period 2001 to 2006, what, around 300,000 or so? Thats less than 10% of the population.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It should be fairly easy to track the volume of mortgages sold in the period 2001 to 2006, what, around 300,000 or so? Thats less than 10% of the population.

In 1998 it was impossible to get rental property in Dublin close to whereever you worked, i moved there in September '98 and people were queuing outside residences from 8am to get to rent them, so your years are wrong. This all started around '98 and ended in 2008( april would be my best guess of when things felt they were changing quickly ).

I dunno where you got the 300,000 mortgages( i would agree that 300,000 new mortgages would probably be correct but that it wouldnt included previous mortgage extensions for trading up ), also many would have consolidated several mortgages into 1 thus the count wouldnt tally to actual number of houses as it wouldnt be a 1:1 ratio.
On top of that 300,000 mortgages does not equate to 10% of the population, a lot will be married and a lot will have families. Most likely you are taking minimum 600,000 people involved and maximum 1 million, now youre taking 20-25% of the population involved in the housing nonsense of the past 10+ years.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

On top of that 300,000 mortgages does not equate to 10% of the population, a lot will be married and a lot will have families.

Thats the number it affected, not the number that took out mortgages. Also there would have been a significant portion of those mortgages for investment purposes (40% in 2006) so you can assume a lot of people had more than one mortgage. The actual number is probably in the region of 15% of the population, which is still a very far cry from "the majority". The shared guilt stuff doesn't wash at all in my opinion.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Thats the number it affected, not the number that took out mortgages. Also there would have been a significant portion of those mortgages for investment purposes (40% in 2006) so you can assume a lot of people had more than one mortgage. The actual number is probably in the region of 15% of the population, which is still a very far cry from "the majority". The shared guilt stuff doesn't wash at all in my opinion.

Please post a link to your information that that was the total number affected? as i find that extremely hard to believe.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

Please post a link to your information that that was the total number affected? as i find that extremely hard to believe.

"a lot will be married and a lot will have families" = total number affected. The children didn't take out mortgages and aren't responsible.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

"a lot will be married and a lot will have families" = total number affected. The children didn't take out mortgages and aren't responsible.

Im not on about that you stated that 300,000 people were affected, where are you getting this information from?

wobzilla1

dragonsgates wrote: »

2,000 people destroyed Ireland

I think there's a fair amount more than 2000 africans in ireland

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

Im not on about that you stated that 300,000 people were affected, where are you getting this information from?

Ah I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Lets start again.
Q: Are the majority responsible for this problem?
A: No they are not since the number of mortgages taken out over the course of the boom is considerably less than 50% of the population no matter how you cut it.

Long Onion

wobzilla1 wrote: »

I think there's a fair amount more than 2000 africans in ireland

Seriously classy, our country needs more people like you:rolleyes:

People who post drivel like this are responsible for the fact that some people can't be arsed trying to rescue the country from the morass we are now in. Go back to the stone from whence you crawled you idiot.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Lets start again.
Q: Are the majority responsible for this problem?
A: No they are not since the number of mortgages taken out over the course of the boom is considerably less than 50% of the population no matter how you cut it.

ok fair enough but you cant state figures without a source or that theyre youre best guess, i dont mean to be a twat, but it should be stated.

It would need to be analysed with proper figures from the banks. A very large proportion of the population is involved in the spending splurge and it didnt include just mortgages but remortgaging, splurging or new cars, several holidays and nonsense like that.
In 2006 25% of the population were aged 25-40( http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=76966 ), those are the ones who will be mostly affected by this crisis in ireland( excluding pension funds which is an international problem ) for the simple fact that they will have high loan to value ratios for those with mortgages but also those who didnt have mortgages would have spent/loaned money for other things

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

It would need to be analysed with proper figures from the banks. A very large proportion of the population is involved in the spending splurge and it didnt include just mortgages but remortgaging, splurging or new cars, several holidays and nonsense like that.

I wouldn't be too bothered by short term unsecured debt, credit cards and so on, it would be very unusual for people to go bankrupt over something like that, so I'm focusing on the mortgage/top up loans as being the problem as it were.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I wouldn't be too bothered by short term unsecured debt, credit cards and so on, it would be very unusual for people to go bankrupt over something like that, so I'm focusing on the mortgage/top up loans as being the problem as it were.

oh i agree, but there are a lot of 30,000 euro cars from 2008 and before knocking about that is a long term debt.

What we are both discussing is that 0 analysis has been done by the politicians on the population and how many famalies/individuals are affected by the current crisis through mortgages/long term loans and a split between those made redundant in the past year and those still in employment. How the hell can they bring out tax policies/Nama when they dont even know the state of the country.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

How the hell can they bring out tax policies/Nama when they dont even know the state of the country.

They can't, assuming they care about the well being of the country. Flying blind like that you could do a lot more harm than good. Working from the assumption that they couldn't care less, however, it all starts to make a bit more sense.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

They can't, assuming they care about the well being of the country. Flying blind like that you could do a lot more harm than good. Working from the assumption that they couldn't care less, however, it all starts to make a bit more sense.

exactly, back to square one of them not having any clue how to fix the problem and being pressurised by bond holders and investors and the banks themselves to solve the problem to save their cash and not the economy or the peoples cash.

Liamario

I struggle to have sympathy for mortgagees who went to sub prime lenders to get mortgages. They clearly couldn't pay their mortgages- they knew that and the lenders knew that.

lmimmfn

Liamario wrote: »

I struggle to have sympathy for mortgagees who went to sub prime lenders to get mortgages. They clearly couldn't pay their mortgages- they knew that and the lenders knew that.

agree totally, you take a mortgage you take a risk, its your risk and upto you to finance it and noone else, if you paid to much thats your problem.

callig

dragonsgates wrote: »

Before chaos and riots break out I have 1 question.

Why are we all paying for the debts of 2,000 people. 100 of these are responsible for 55 billion of the debt.



Sorry let me be clear.

90 billion of our bank debt is owed by 2,000 people.

100 of these owe 55 billion Euro to the banks.

What is the source for these figures?

Scofflaw

wobzilla1 wrote: »

I think there's a fair amount more than 2000 africans in ireland

There's certainly at least one poster who's surplus to requirements in this forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw