Get you debts written off!

Amhran Nua

thebman wrote: »

Unfortunately the state is bankrupt, its too late to get started. Even if it wasn't too late, the government are incapable of managing us out of the crisis.

They are but some people are trying to organise to put a competent government in place. There is still time to turn this around, we have a lot of assets that have been left fallow while the unicorn of the property market was pursued by those in charge.

Its not hopeless by a long shot.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

They are but some people are trying to organise to put a competent government in place. There is still time to turn this around, we have a lot of assets that have been left fallow while the unicorn of the property market was pursued by those in charge.

Its not hopeless by a long shot.

hmm, id like to think its not, however in 6 months time( by my own reckoning ) Nama will be completely irreversable, so unless you've loads of cash under the matress?

bonkey

Sniff.

All this talk of emigration being the better option...it reminds me of the good ol' 80s.

Ironically, shoulder-pads are back in fashion.

Somewhat on-topic...I haven't looked at the details, but it seems that what the government are describing is a variant of personal bankruptcy.

lmimmfn

bonkey wrote: »

Somewhat on-topic...I haven't looked at the details, but it seems that what the government are describing is a variant of personal bankruptcy.

It is, but with bankruptcy someone has to pay, usually its the creditors and investors however the creditors are the banks in this case and who's propping them up? oh yeah, we are!!!!! so us suckers who didnt want to get ripped off with the stupid housing prices can get shafted more on tax to 'help' out idiots who bought yet we still have f**k all?????????????

I say feck them, their problem, if they default and their property gets reposessed well then maybe they should have though of that when they bough and not fuelled the nonsense?

Id prefer to give my tax money to dole heads than to those who overstretched, a lesson in cop on will do them good.

Not only that, helping those idiots who cant pay means the property market will be artifically propped up( no repossession=market stays artificially high ) meaning again those of us who saw house prices as insane during the boom get doubly shafted and they'll still remain stupidly high.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

hmm, id like to think its not, however in 6 months time( by my own reckoning ) Nama will be completely irreversable, so unless you've loads of cash under the matress?

No I don't. But then again its not impossible to repatriate those monies the banks have accumulated through NAMA and similar initiatives (Anglo I'm looking at you). In fact, its quite doable I'd say. We might not get all of it but enough to make a difference. A sufficiently determined government could undo almost all of the damage.

bonkey

lmimmfn wrote: »

It is, but with bankruptcy someone has to pay, usually its the creditors and investors however the creditors are the banks in this case and who's propping them up? oh yeah, we are!!!!! so us suckers who didnt want to get ripped off with the stupid housing prices can get shafted more on tax to 'help' out idiots who bought yet we still have f**k all?????????????

I say feck them, their problem, if they default and their property gets reposessed well then maybe they should have though of that when they bough and not fuelled the nonsense?

I've now taken the time to read TFA, and I'm curious that your attitude (and that of everyone else protesting here seems to completely overlook this part of it:

generally the banks receive more money from the process than they would if the individual formally went bankrupt.

If that claim is accurate, then what you're basically saying is that you want the irresponsible feckers to lose everything and you're willing to pay more for the satisfaction then you otherwise would.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No I don't. But then again its not impossible to repatriate those monies the banks have accumulated through NAMA and similar initiatives (Anglo I'm looking at you). In fact, its quite doable I'd say. We might not get all of it but enough to make a difference. A sufficiently determined government could undo almost all of the damage.

i like your enthusiasm, i really do, but what youre saying there is what the current government are exactly trying to do and which has a high potential of failure for the fact that its being combined with the current irish climate( high cost of PS, higher taxes resulting in less consumer spending resulting in even more of a deflation of the economy ).

Its good to hear that they said( yesterday, link on the irish times ) this decembers budget will focus on current government expenditure rather than taxing income, but i dont believe it especially longterm when they lose money on Nama.

Amhran Nua

lmimmfn wrote: »

i like your enthusiasm, i really do, but what youre saying there is what the current government are exactly trying to do

Unless they are talking about nationalisation they aren't saying what I'm saying. Not that there aren't other routes, but when Nobel prize winning economists call the goverment scheme "criminal" its time for the lads to take a long hard look in the mirror.

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Unless they are talking about nationalisation they aren't saying what I'm saying. Not that there aren't other routes, but when Nobel prize winning economists call the goverment scheme "criminal" its time for the lads to take a long hard look in the mirror.

Nationalisation NEEDS to be done at/before the point of the movement of the loans to Nama, otherwise the shareprice of the banks will skyrocket, the bank will be completely liquid and it will be illegal( without new legislation which would make no sense as it would apply for a one off only ) to nationalise the banks in those circumstances.

Seriously and im not trying to be harsh, if youre taking the politics seriously( and i really hope you are, so please dont take what i say in a bad way ) then you need an absolutely clear aganda. You can gain some insight from folk here on whats currently the most important things that need sorting and in which order, people will disagree and what not but you can gain some insight.

hiorta

The UK has got itself into a similar position where they stand on their heads to get those who self-inflicted their financial disaster back into circulation.

Of course all the latter have learned is that they can get away with it and instead of becoming responsible people they just have to repeat the process time and again.
This is the recipé for utter disaster, culminating in a cant-trust-anyone society, which encourages a dog eat dog mentality which in turn escalates criminality.
This will only compound the current mess a divide an already demoralised population - or is that the real purpose?

lmimmfn

hiorta wrote: »

The UK has got itself into a similar position where they stand on their heads to get those who self-inflicted their financial disaster back into circulation.

Of course all the latter have learned is that they can get away with it and instead of becoming responsible people they just have to repeat the process time and again.
This is the recipé for utter disaster, culminating in a cant-trust-anyone society, which encourages a dog eat dog mentality which in turn escalates criminality.
This will only compound the current mess a divide an already demoralised population - or is that the real purpose?

yep, noone in the public sector takes responsibility for anything and neither do the TD's.

Again, noone in politics in ireland has any balls or vision, they just rehash the same crap in a different form and produce policies to suit themselves and their mates.

johnnyskeleton

peasant wrote: »

hang on ...hang on ...

So the hard working young family that just about managed to buy an overprized carboard box in the arsehole of nowhere and now can't pay for it due to losing one (or two!) incomes gets a re-negotiaton of their repayment terms so that they don't and up in the street (instead their grandchildren will be paying off the mortgage) ...

but all the smug fucckers who maxxed out on 15 credit cards to buy three new cars and five flat screen TV's get to keep their glitter and walk away grinning even more smugly?

You MUST be kiddin' me :mad:

In terms of the overall cost v. liklihood of repayment, it makes more sense to do it for private debt.

But don't play those gawd damn emotional heartstrings, we both know that the people who bought those shoeboxes were also those who maxed out their credit cards - both against the prudent advice.

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's kind of the point - you've lost your ability to hold your debt permanently over Joe's head

"Hold it over his head", as though I'm somehow punishing him, like Iago demanding my pound of flesh?

Let's be realistic - on the one hand there is an optional debt forgiveness whereby I say that I personally will settle for less in the current climate - that's my choice. But allow a situation whereby people who are in debt can call the shots, when in that case I simply won't lend any money at all.

At a time when we are trying to get institutions to lend, that's not a good message. And it's even worse when we take a situation whereby the creditor is actually a physical human being who has worked hard for the money, and not some nameless faceless bank who is trying to destroy ordinary joe soap's lives for some unknown invidious reason.

lmimmfn

bonkey wrote: »

I've now taken the time to read TFA, and I'm curious that your attitude (and that of everyone else protesting here seems to completely overlook this part of it:

generally the banks receive more money from the process than they would if the individual formally went bankrupt.

If that claim is accurate, then what you're basically saying is that you want the irresponsible feckers to lose everything and you're willing to pay more for the satisfaction then you otherwise would.

sorry i missed your post earlier, no, im not out on some self gratification mission. This whole problem was caused by consumers, those who chose to pay exhorbitant prices for property fueled the problem and took those mortgages with consideration for their circumstances and did so based on their perception of the future of the economy.

Its capitalism, things dont work out, you fail, you lose your property, but you still have the rental market to fall back on, not nice but hey i dont make the rules for capitalism, but if you gamble you weigh the consequences.

Of theyre bailed out via some personal bankruptcy concerning only thier homes then they default on creditors and that money needs to be paid by someone else, i.e. US the taxpayer, and no under no circumstances do i agree with that, especially for those of us who were carefull and didnt but in times of property costing stupid money, now i( who have ownership of 0 property or home ) have to bail out some fecker who f***ed up? no thanks.

Their problem, thats life and life goes on, anyone who has personal debt that they cant pay should undergo the same laws that have been in place for years, i.e. you can always claim personal bankruptcy but youll never get a loan again and may be taken to court and face imprisonment( in the sense of having huge credit card bills and not paying anything back and refusing to do so in court ).

peasant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But don't play those gawd damn emotional heartstrings, we both know that the people who bought those shoeboxes were also those who maxed out their credit cards - both against the prudent advice.

Yepp ..but on the credit cards they can declare this new and improved bancruptcy and walk away ...on a mortgage they probably won't be allowed to, it'll just be stretched and deferred to the next generation.

And to my knowledge there actually ARE people who "just" bought the overpriced house and didn't splurge on anything else. Because despite the old "they should have rented if they couldn't afford to buy" mantra ...with no control on rents and no protection for tennants, buying is actually "safer", especially if you're trying to provide a stable base for a growing family.

thebman

lmimmfn wrote: »

i like your enthusiasm, i really do, but what youre saying there is what the current government are exactly trying to do and which has a high potential of failure for the fact that its being combined with the current irish climate( high cost of PS, higher taxes resulting in less consumer spending resulting in even more of a deflation of the economy ).

Its good to hear that they said( yesterday, link on the irish times ) this decembers budget will focus on current government expenditure rather than taxing income, but i dont believe it especially longterm when they lose money on Nama.

Basically means stealth tax increases and income tax won't be changed I imagine. They have to change the tax base to things that will get more revenue.

House purchase was a once off purchase and the biggest of peoples lives so they'll put a property tax on and some other taxes like water charges and claim they aren't increasing tax.

lmimmfn

thebman wrote: »

Basically means stealth tax increases and income tax won't be changed I imagine. They have to change the tax base to things that will get more revenue.

House purchase was a once off purchase and the biggest of peoples lives so they'll put a property tax on and some other taxes like water charges and claim they aren't increasing tax.

well actually im guessing an increase on stealth taxes also, its insane if they introduce a property tax for the simple reason that those with more than 1 property and suffering a lot already( doesnt affect me, just saying ), also there will be a tonne more green taxes coming as well as water rates, heating tax( coal/gas etc. ) and petrol/diesel tax and no doubt a few more.

peasant wrote: »

And to my knowledge there actually ARE people who "just" bought the overpriced house and didn't splurge on anything else. Because despite the old "they should have rented if they couldn't afford to buy" mantra ...with no control on rents and no protection for tennants, buying is actually "safer", especially if you're trying to provide a stable base for a growing family.

that IS their problem, NOONE and i repeat NOONE asked or forced them to buy, they bought with the normal risk that comes with buying and they deal with the consequences( otherwise we'd all be buying like idiots ). Rents were reasonable enough even in dublin( but required you lived well outside the city, not only that any sane person couldnt even afford to buy in the city ).

Yes its safer to buy with a family and what not and sometimes even cheaper, however house ownership is a priviledge NOT a necessity. They could have rented, if they lose their house they can still rent, its capitalism.

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's kind of the point - you've lost your ability to hold your debt permanently over Joe's head

"Hold it over his head", as though I'm somehow punishing him, like Iago demanding my pound of flesh?

Let's be realistic - on the one hand there is an optional debt forgiveness whereby I say that I personally will settle for less in the current climate - that's my choice. But allow a situation whereby people who are in debt can call the shots, when in that case I simply won't lend any money at all.

At a time when we are trying to get institutions to lend, that's not a good message. And it's even worse when we take a situation whereby the creditor is actually a physical human being who has worked hard for the money, and not some nameless faceless bank who is trying to destroy ordinary joe soap's lives for some unknown invidious reason.

Well, no, really all you're losing as a creditor is the ability to not stick to an agreed debt reduction. The process of reduction is one of arbitration, the aim being to ensure that all creditors get paid most of what they are owed - not much different from your current ability to negotiate with your debtor - the main difference is that if the reduced repayment is agreed under this mechanism, it's legally binding, which gives the debtor peace of mind. Currently, like it or not, there's no legal weight to any agreement you come to with a creditor - you're liable, legally, for the full debt, and any arrangement is non-binding.

Plus, as bonkey has pointed out, the creditors are likely to get more under this arrangement, not less:

bonkey wrote:

I've now taken the time to read TFA, and I'm curious that your attitude (and that of everyone else protesting here seems to completely overlook this part of it:

generally the banks receive more money from the process than they would if the individual formally went bankrupt.

If that claim is accurate, then what you're basically saying is that you want the irresponsible feckers to lose everything and you're willing to pay more for the satisfaction then you otherwise would.

It strikes me, given the complete absence of response to bonkey's post, that this thread isn't actually about the proposed mechanism at all, but rather an opportunity for people to complain about the fecklessness of (other) people in debt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

lmimmfn wrote: »

under no circumstances do i agree with that, especially for those of us who were carefull and didnt but in times of property costing stupid money, now i( who have ownership of 0 property or home ) have to bail out some fecker who f***ed up? no thanks.

These people have debts they can't meet. Either which way, they cost of whatever they don't meet falls onto whoever loaned them the money. As a taxpayer bailing out the banks under NAMA, this means that the less money the banks get back, the more you pay. The more money the banks get back, the less you pay.

So if under no circumstances do you agree that you should pay at all, your objection isn't to this scheme at all, but rather that you ahve to bail the banks out in the first place. Your objections against this scheme would, therefore, be misplaced.

If, on the other hand, you accept that you will be bailing out the banks one way or another, then your objective is to minimise your costs, right? The evidence in the UK suggests that this scheme will result in the banks recovering more money (i.e. it will cost you less) then otherwise.

Their problem, thats life and life goes on, anyone who has personal debt that they cant pay should undergo the same laws that have been in place for years, i.e. you can always claim personal bankruptcy but youll never get a loan again and may be taken to court and face imprisonment( in the sense of having huge credit card bills and not paying anything back and refusing to do so in court ).

This is mostly irrelevant to the point I was making.

If, as a taxpayer, your objective is to minimise the bailout costs of the banks, opposing this scheme seems to be 100% the wrong way to go.

If, on the other hand, you want to see those who got over their heads get theirs, then thats fair enough...but you should be aware (and accept) that you - as a taxpayer - will pay more to see them lose their houses and possibly face jail then you would to take the more compassionate approach.

See them get whats coming to them....or minimise your own costs. That's pretty-much what it boils down to if the evidence from the UK is accurate and applicable.

peasant

bonkey wrote: »

the more compassionate approach.

compassionate ...me arse !

This system just makes shure that those who always get fuccked get fuccked properly and by everybody ...wouldn't want to leave anyone out, now would we.

sorry ...but I just need to vent a bit ....

I don't care how much economic sense NAMA makes or doesn't make, I don't really care if it is actually cheaper in the long run to let the private splurgers get away with a benevolent bancruptcy ...I'm just fed up. Royally.

I ...and many others in this country ...was sensible. I lived within my means. I did not buy things I could not afford. I did not speculate in property, I have no debts.

More importantly ...I didn't get rich either, I have no fancy car, no fancy house or flashy gizmos. Instead I had to suffer ridiculously high prices for anything I did buy, paid out of a modest income.
I had to watch everybody overtake me on the prosperity ladder, grinning smugly at me while they were doing so. I didn't mind, I was happy and content with what I had.

I do however mind, that as these smug feckers come tumbling down, I'm the one that's supposed to cushion their fall. Not only could they grin at me on the way up ...they can now take me from behind on the way down. Bankers, builders, profiteers and feckless spenders ...the whole procession takes a grab at my back pocket as they pass.

That sucks. Big time.
It simply isn't fair. Not at all.

And what really, really stinks is the fact that in this dictatorship of the greedy masses (aka Irish Democracy) there will be no exemptions made for the sensible and modest few. We will not be given an opt out clause, never mind a reward for being prudent ...nope ...we have no choice but to accept the majority decision ....and the feckless majority has decided that once again the prudent few will get fuccked.

That starts from the top down with our so called leaders splurging on my money, it continues with the arrogant bankers and builders and it stops at Pat down the road who now expects me to help him pay off his beemer and his two flat screen TV's.

Bastards!

lucky-colm

well i feel like some tit

ihave not read all of this thread but i did read the first page and that is enough to enrage me:mad:

my wife and i are busting our arses trying to pay of debt, house mortage, car loan, van loan, credit cards and two credit union loans for good measure. these debts were amassed during the boom times when as a self employed builder i was making quite a bit of money. i over borrowed but i didnt see this as the money coming in was greater than the money going out. now iam like every other builder broke. the money that has to be repaid every month is more than we can afford, but to keep our good credit rating we struggle and make the payments.


this country is a joke me and my wife kill ourselves working so as we can repay our loans, we have never went whining to anyone or looked for help to repay our debt," its our debt so its our problem". but again the good honest hard working people of this country will suffer for trying to do the right thing and the wasters and chancers will get bailed out:mad:


upon reading this thread my new attitude is to pack it all in go on the dole and apply for this new scheme to get 75% of our debt written off.

lmimmfn

peasant wrote: »

compassionate ...me arse !

I agree 110% with your comments( just didnt quote it all )

bonkey wrote: »

These people have debts they can't meet. Either which way, they cost of whatever they don't meet falls onto whoever loaned them the money. As a taxpayer bailing out the banks under NAMA, this means that the less money the banks get back, the more you pay. The more money the banks get back, the less you pay.

They got into debt they cannot afford, the is their problem and solely their problem. Yes were paying for the bank bailout and therefore we could be stumping up the money, however the scheme is ridiculis, a better scheme would be to allow them to only have to pay the interest per month until they get back on their feet or to allow them to extend the lifetime of their debt by 10 years( in the case of mortgages ), no more than standard banking policy if you cant meet your repayments.

On the point of 'the more money the banks get back, the less you pay", well thats the problem, i pay and shareholders and bondholders gain, completely at my expense.

bonkey wrote: »

If, on the other hand, you accept that you will be bailing out the banks one way or another, then your objective is to minimise your costs, right? The evidence in the UK suggests that this scheme will result in the banks recovering more money (i.e. it will cost you less) then otherwise.

yes, exactly, fundamentally though the banks shouldnt be profiteering on this

bonkey wrote: »

If, as a taxpayer, your objective is to minimise the bailout costs of the banks, opposing this scheme seems to be 100% the wrong way to go.

No, the standard alternatives to being unable to pay the full monthly loan requirement in the banking sector apply. Worst case scenario( and much as i hate Name ) reposess the houses and put them in Nama and auction them.

bonkey wrote: »

If, on the other hand, you want to see those who got over their heads get theirs, then thats fair enough...but you should be aware (and accept) that you - as a taxpayer - will pay more to see them lose their houses and possibly face jail then you would to take the more compassionate approach.

No, i just believe that if people overextended themselves then they were aware of the consequences when they took their loans, regardless of their situation if houses have to be reposessed ot arrangements made with those holding the loans then so be it. The banks only need the interest to be paid monthly to get over this hurdle.

bonkey wrote: »

See them get whats coming to them....or minimise your own costs. That's pretty-much what it boils down to if the evidence from the UK is accurate and applicable.

Those options are not mutually exclusive

hellboy99

lucky-colm wrote: »

upon reading this thread my new attitude is to pack it all in go on the dole and apply for this new scheme to get 75% of our debt written off.

Think I'll join you.

Obviously being a sensible person that works hard, doesn't build up a mountain of debt etc... will get you nowhere in this country :mad:

This scheme is like a game of monopoly where you get a "get out of jail card" and when you lose the game due to your bad finances, don't worry about it, they will be cleared and you can start all over again :rolleyes:

There's an old saying, "you learn from your mistakes", that doesn't apply on this occasion. Is it any wonder this country is in a mess, it's run by and full of muppets that are irresponsible, haven't a clue and will never learn, it can only get worse.

bonkey

lmimmfn wrote: »

They got into debt they cannot afford, the is their problem and solely their problem.

I'm willing to bet that its not solely their problem. I'm willing to bet, in fact, that most of the disagreement with the proposal here from all involved is that the banks will lose out, and - due to the bailout - you as a taxpayer will lose out.

however the scheme is ridiculis,

Again, let me refer back to the line from teh article which is what I based my question on.

A scheme of this nature already set up, has shown that the debtors are typically better off under this scheme then by the bankruptcy alternative.

Every single poster who has taken exception with my stance seems to be ignoring exactly this point, which is entirely what my stance is based on.

Forcing someone into bankruptcy is biting off your nose to spite your face if you end off poorer as a result. It might be galling to see people avoid the full reprecussion of the debt they have incurred, but as I've been trying to say, its a question of whether it is more important to you that htey get whats coming to them, or htat the banks recover as much money as possible (thus minimising the money the taxpayer has to stump up).

a better scheme would be to allow them to only have to pay the interest per month until they get back on their feet or to allow them to extend the lifetime of their debt by 10 years( in the case of mortgages ), no more than standard banking policy if you cant meet your repayments.

A better scheme, based on what?

This scheme is being proposed based on evidence that shows it works then what we currently have in place.

You're proposing something that you say is better then what we have in place....but aren't pointing to evidence to support your claim.

From a strictly financial perspective, there's the scheme with evidence supporting its efficacy, and there's the scheme without any such evidence.

Unless you can show that such schemes work, it would seem that what you're saying is that you want the banks to take more risk, potentially ending up even worse off, based on your hunch of what is better...and the driving motivation still seems to be that any idea of letting debtors off the hook just galls too much to accept it.

On the point of 'the more money the banks get back, the less you pay", well thats the problem, i pay and shareholders and bondholders gain, completely at my expense.

THat's not the problem with this scheme proposal. That's the problem with NAMA. It is a problem that has no place on this thread.

yes, exactly, fundamentally though the banks shouldnt be profiteering on this

Profiteering would be forcing someone to remain in debt for an indeterminate amount of their future, rather than declaring bankruptcy. Allowing someone to avoid bankruptcy, still cancel their debt, and ending up with more money because of it is nor profiteering. Its loss-minimisation.

Worst case scenario( and much as i hate Name ) reposess the houses and put them in Nama and auction them.

This is bankruptcy...and as a worst case scenario, the evidence in the UK shows that you end up with less money then by taking the proposed scheme.

It still remains the worst-case scenario, incidentally. If no agreement can be reached, then this is still what happens.

So again...other than making sure the debtor gets whats coming to them, I can't see any financial reason to oppose them an option that is better for the creditor and better for the debtor.

The banks only need the interest to be paid monthly to get over this hurdle.

Bankrupcy is generally a situation where this obligation cannot be met...where the debtor cannot "tread water".

So you have a choice...you can force them to accept ever-oncreasing debt, based on missed interest payments, or you can cut your losses. Cutting losses typically means bankruptcy, house seizure, and all the rest. The evidence in the UK shows that the new proposal means less losses to cut. Other than that you don't get to see the debtor lose their house...how is it a bad thing?

Those options are not mutually exclusive

Only if you ignore the evidence which shows that this scheme results in a better rate of return then the bankruptcy alternative.

bonkey

hellboy99 wrote: »

This scheme is like a game of monopoly where you get a "get out of jail card" and when you lose the game due to your bad finances, don't worry about it, they will be cleared and you can start all over again :rolleyes:

You can start all over again....with an absolutely horrendous credit-rating.

There's an old saying, "you learn from your mistakes", that doesn't apply on this occasion.

Why not? The banks aren't likely to treat someone who took this new option much (if any) better in terms of future credit then someone who declared bankruptcy.

hellboy99

bonkey wrote: »

You can start all over again....with an absolutely horrendous credit-rating.

Why not? The banks aren't likely to treat someone who took this new option much (if any) better in terms of future credit then someone who declared bankruptcy.

Most probably have bad credit ratings already, honestly I don't care about what their future credit rating may be, they got themselves into the mess there in and I'm not bailing them out.

lmimmfn

bonkey wrote: »

I'm willing to bet that its not solely their problem. I'm willing to bet, in fact, that most of the disagreement with the proposal here from all involved is that the banks will lose out, and - due to the bailout - you as a taxpayer will lose out.


Again, let me refer back to the line from teh article which is what I based my question on.

A scheme of this nature already set up, has shown that the debtors are typically better off under this scheme then by the bankruptcy alternative.

Every single poster who has taken exception with my stance seems to be ignoring exactly this point, which is entirely what my stance is based on.

Forcing someone into bankruptcy is biting off your nose to spite your face if you end off poorer as a result. It might be galling to see people avoid the full reprecussion of the debt they have incurred, but as I've been trying to say, its a question of whether it is more important to you that htey get whats coming to them, or htat the banks recover as much money as possible (thus minimising the money the taxpayer has to stump up).


A better scheme, based on what?

This scheme is being proposed based on evidence that shows it works then what we currently have in place.

You're proposing something that you say is better then what we have in place....but aren't pointing to evidence to support your claim.

From a strictly financial perspective, there's the scheme with evidence supporting its efficacy, and there's the scheme without any such evidence.

Unless you can show that such schemes work, it would seem that what you're saying is that you want the banks to take more risk, potentially ending up even worse off, based on your hunch of what is better...and the driving motivation still seems to be that any idea of letting debtors off the hook just galls too much to accept it.


THat's not the problem with this scheme proposal. That's the problem with NAMA. It is a problem that has no place on this thread.


Profiteering would be forcing someone to remain in debt for an indeterminate amount of their future, rather than declaring bankruptcy. Allowing someone to avoid bankruptcy, still cancel their debt, and ending up with more money because of it is nor profiteering. Its loss-minimisation.


This is bankruptcy...and as a worst case scenario, the evidence in the UK shows that you end up with less money then by taking the proposed scheme.

It still remains the worst-case scenario, incidentally. If no agreement can be reached, then this is still what happens.

So again...other than making sure the debtor gets whats coming to them, I can't see any financial reason to oppose them an option that is better for the creditor and better for the debtor.



Bankrupcy is generally a situation where this obligation cannot be met...where the debtor cannot "tread water".

So you have a choice...you can force them to accept ever-oncreasing debt, based on missed interest payments, or you can cut your losses. Cutting losses typically means bankruptcy, house seizure, and all the rest. The evidence in the UK shows that the new proposal means less losses to cut. Other than that you don't get to see the debtor lose their house...how is it a bad thing?


Only if you ignore the evidence which shows that this scheme results in a better rate of return then the bankruptcy alternative.

Ok, this worked last year in the UK, lets look at the differences:
1. The recession ocurred at the end of last year so these figures are based on a sound banking system whereby the rest of the population arent funding this
2. Tax payers in the UK werent funding the scheme, we would be and thats just going to f*** over those of us who didnt fuel the problem and had absolutely nothing to do with the disaster that is the current irish economic situation
3. The term is for 5 years in the uk and the expected total to be paid off is around 40%, so those with 300,000euro still on their mortgage still have to pay 120,000 or 2000euro per month
4. There are loads of statistics on just using current legistation and due process to handle reposessions and unpaid loans as thats whats been in place all along and is fine. Not only that but allowing houseowners to just pay the current bank interest( excluding tracker mortgages ) loan rate for mortgages temporarily is fine as a temporary solution for the simple fact the the banks can pay off their loan interest obligation and therefore they wont lose any money whatsoever and that means we wont lose money.
5. Doing this is going to keep property prices artifically high, houses need to be reposessed if the money doesnt exist to pay for them otherwise the bubble will never go away.
6. This is directly linked to Nama for the simple fact that it needs to be included in Nama legislation otherwise when the banks get all their Nama cash in a few months they can tell the government to f*** off with their ideas.
7. This encourages more reckless spending.

Dont get me wrong if we didnt have Nama id be 100% behind this( because its no skin off my nose is the banks are paying other than it being more difficult to get a mortgage ), however if this does go through im straight out to get a mortgage otherwise im just gonna be a loser for doing the right thing all along. Then i can relax in the confort that no matter what happens it will all be grand.

bonkey wrote: »

You can start all over again....with an absolutely horrendous credit-rating.

That is incorrect, the uk system only means you have a bad credit rating for a year, after which you can ask that the credit rating agencies remove your IVA information from their acconts so after the 6th year everyone can go nuts again and be expected to have the rest of the country bail them out.

Its another socialist patch on capatilism incompetency due to regulatory bodies not doing their job and people being stupid.

AARRRGH

bonkey wrote: »

You can start all over again....with an absolutely horrendous credit-rating.

Credit ratings mean nothing to scumbags.

Tipp Man

lmimmfn wrote: »

Ok, this worked last year in the UK, lets look at the differences:
1. The recession ocurred at the end of last year so these figures are based on a sound banking system whereby the rest of the population arent funding this
2. Tax payers in the UK werent funding the scheme, we would be and thats just going to f*** over those of us who didnt fuel the problem and had absolutely nothing to do with the disaster that is the current irish economic situation
3. The term is for 5 years in the uk and the expected total to be paid off is around 40%, so those with 300,000euro still on their mortgage still have to pay 120,000 or 2000euro per month
4. There are loads of statistics on just using current legistation and due process to handle reposessions and unpaid loans as thats whats been in place all along and is fine. Not only that but allowing houseowners to just pay the current bank interest( excluding tracker mortgages ) loan rate for mortgages temporarily is fine as a temporary solution for the simple fact the the banks can pay off their loan interest obligation and therefore they wont lose any money whatsoever and that means we wont lose money.
5. Doing this is going to keep property prices artifically high, houses need to be reposessed if the money doesnt exist to pay for them otherwise the bubble will never go away.
6. This is directly linked to Nama for the simple fact that it needs to be included in Nama legislation otherwise when the banks get all their Nama cash in a few months they can tell the government to f*** off with their ideas.
7. This encourages more reckless spending.

Dont get me wrong if we didnt have Nama id be 100% behind this( because its no skin off my nose is the banks are paying other than it being more difficult to get a mortgage ), however if this does go through im straight out to get a mortgage otherwise im just gonna be a loser for doing the right thing all along. Then i can relax in the confort that no matter what happens it will all be grand.


That is incorrect, the uk system only means you have a bad credit rating for a year, after which you can ask that the credit rating agencies remove your IVA information from their acconts so after the 6th year everyone can go nuts again and be expected to have the rest of the country bail them out.

Its another socialist patch on capatilism incompetency due to regulatory bodies not doing their job and people being stupid.

I agree wholehearedly with almost everything you say and it makes my blood boil that people who went nuts spending cash could now have their debts written off, ethically and morally this is possibly 1 of the worst proposals i have ever seen in this country and how Bonkey or anyone could possibly try to defend it is beyond me. I have personally borrowed money in the last 5 years (tiny amount compared to most) but the thought of not paying it back would never ever cross my mind, it is my debt so my responsibility.

I can understand people advocating that the banks need to be more flexible in their demands from people who's circumstances have dramatically changed but people need to repay in full what they borrow, that is the way it has to be, otherwise the whole idea of lending/borrowing collapses completly.

But that's what this country is full of, people who take take take (along with their sympatisers) and then the idiots who are left picking up the tab

peasant

bonkey wrote: »

So again...other than making sure the debtor gets whats coming to them, I can't see any financial reason to oppose them an option that is better for the creditor and better for the debtor.

You know what? To hell with financial reasons !

According to financial reasoning you were declared a mug if you didn't jump on the property ladder

According to financial reasoning you were just as much of a mug if you didn't avail of cheap credit

Financial reasoning beheld it to be a good thing to create "leverages" and "derivatives", creating money out of nothing.

Financial reasons are behind planning desasters, failed policy, wrong tax incentives, backhanders and corruption.

Financial reasons landed us in this heap in the first place.

How about we try something new instead ...or maybe even something old fashioned ...like responsibility and morals?

So you say it's going to cost me more and for financial reaons I should sell out on my morals?
Well here's the rub ...I don't care, I'm not in debt, I can afford it !

Plus I'm used to being fleeced ...being fleeced some more to put an end to this financially motivated irresponsibilty and immorality might just be worth it.