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
Get you debts written off!
Options
Comments
-
The banking system started collapsing in 2007. By February, 2008, Northern Rock was taken under State ownership.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
As I keep pointing out, this line of argument completely ignores that if this system works like it did in England, it costs whoever is funding it less then not having the system would have.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
So if this is going to **** you over, not having this is going to **** you over a bit more...unless you can show why the evidence isn't applicable.
I'm sorry...I don't see the relevance. Could you explain why this is a good/bad thing in terms of what you're trying to say?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
Indeed. Things were working in the good times. They can't possibly go wrong. That's why there is no credit crunch, no collapse of banks, nor of the property market.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.
Allow me to refer you back to TFA: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.
The programme also commits to examining ways of giving those in arrears on their mortgage repayments more flexibility in dealing with the banks. Interest roll-ups, extended credit terms or reduced interest rates will all be looked at for those struggling to keep their homes.
It seems that this scheme is designed to help make your "fine" temporary solution work even better.
Hold on...in only the previous point, you're arguing that allowing people to just keep up with interest payments is fine. Now your'e saying they need to lose their houses. You can't have both.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.
IVAs, even if legally created, are Voluntary. It requires that both debtor and creditors agree. The banks can tll the government to **** off with their ideas if they like. Of course, they're not likely to, given that they stand to lose less money by getting on board.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.
Either which way, if you're opposed to the idea, surely you'd be only too happy to see the banks tell the government (and debtors) to go **** themnselves, and - as a taxpayer - to stump up the cash to cover the extra losses that arise.
Based on what evidence?7. This encourages more reckless spending.
Picking arbitrary numbers here....as someone paying for NAMA, what you're saying is that you'd rather that the bank you'r ecovering recover 300,000 from a 1m loan rather than recover 400,000 from the loan....but that if you weren't paying for it...you'd be all on to support the banks taking that extra 100,000.Dont get me wrong if we didnt have Nama id be 100% behind this
How does that work? Surely, as the person paying for every penny that the banks don't recover, you want them to recover every penny they can?0 -
Yep but the credit crunch didnt come into full swing until Q3/Q4 in 2008.The banking system started collapsing in 2007. By February, 2007, Northern Rock was taken under State ownership.
its nothing like the uk, in the uk the creditors fund it in ireland the PAYE would have to fund it. Also IVA repossessions are up this quarter on q4 last year in the uk. It doesnt have to cost me a cent if this isint implement, mortgage holders default, house gets repossessed, house up for auction then the rest of us who have cop on can grab a house a decent price, the bank will be happy as the loan is paid and the previous homeowner can now rent and reflect on overstretching, everyones happy and the nutty house prices in this country deflate. Good for all involved.As I keep pointing out, this line of argument completely ignores that if this system works like it did in England, it costs whoever is funding it less then not having the system would have.
No its not going to f*** me over if not implemented, we can buy the houses at auction.So if this is going to **** you over, not having this is going to **** you over a bit more...unless you can show why the evidence isn't applicable.
I dont get you? IVA term period in the uk is 5 years, you must agree with the creditors to pay off a % of the total loan in that time, generally 40% is expected for approval. Therefore in the case i explained the IVA recipient would have a 2000Euro mortgage a month on a property with 300,000euro still owing on it. You shorten the mortgage period!!!!!!!!I'm sorry...I don't see the relevance. Could you explain why this is a good/bad thing in terms of what you're trying to say?
Everyones greed f***ed it up, i wasnt greedy so not my problem. On top of that again its social patches for wreckless spending, affecting mainly those who didnt spend wrecklessly.Indeed. Things were working in the good times. They can't possibly go wrong. That's why there is no credit crunch, no collapse of banks, nor of the property market.
Its not needed.Allow me to refer you back to TFA:
The programme also commits to examining ways of giving those in arrears on their mortgage repayments more flexibility in dealing with the banks. Interest roll-ups, extended credit terms or reduced interest rates will all be looked at for those struggling to keep their homes.
It seems that this scheme is designed to help make your "fine" temporary solution work even better.
no, i said temporary measures to allow them to at least finance the interest rate that the bank has to pay, besides reposessions occur also with IVA's.Hold on...in only the previous point, you're arguing that allowing people to just keep up with interest payments is fine. Now your'e saying they need to lose their houses. You can't have both.
and are run by private companies as the go between of the debtor and the creditor. The banks cannot tell the government anything if its in Nama legislation. Dont you worry the banks wont lose a cent, if loads default they will moan to the government and we can save their asses again.IVAs, even if legally created, are Voluntary. It requires that both debtor and creditors agree. The banks can tll the government to **** off with their ideas if they like. Of course, they're not likely to, given that they stand to lose less money by getting on board.
If its not implemented there are 0 losses( or a very small amount on each asset which the bank has to take ), assets are sold and people buy them up as ive stated above. There are loads of us on the sideline waiting to snap up this cheap property acquired under foolishness by the debtor.Either which way, if you're opposed to the idea, surely you'd be only too happy to see the banks tell the government (and debtors) to go **** themnselves, and - as a taxpayer - to stump up the cash to cover the extra losses that arise.
based on the evidence that its another remove the capitalist risk, if there is no risk involved and you can do this it will encourage people to get themselves higher into debt with an easy option out.Based on what evidence?
according to the IVA website IVA's cover mortgages.Go for it.
Don't forget to get an [url=[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/John/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/John/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png[/IMG]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62509456&postcount=9]unsecured[/url] mortgage, though....y'know...one where they don't use the house itself as security on the mortgage.0 -
I might be missing something here, but if people can write off some of the debts they owe to the financial institutions because they can't now afford to pay the full amount, what exactly is the problem?
In a lot of cases, all it means is that the banks won't get paid the ridiculous amounts of interest back & that money won't be wasted on court cases, house repossessions & in some cases, jail sentences.0 -
The money has to come from somewhere, i.e. the creditors lose out which is the banks which means us taxpayers have to prop up the banks more, on top of that whats wrong with a person losing their house because they cant pay when they overextended themselves are 100% directly the cause of the housing bubble in the first place( by paying loads for a crappy house not worth half the money ).starbelgrade wrote: »I might be missing something here, but if people can write off some of the debts they owe to the financial institutions because they can't now afford to pay the full amount, what exactly is the problem?
In a lot of cases, all it means is that the banks won't get paid the ridiculous amounts of interest back & that money won't be wasted on court cases, house repossessions & in some cases, jail sentences.
If the mortgages werent taken out in the first place there wouldnt have been a stupid crazy housing bubble and we wouldnt be in the situation we are in, those involved should pay the price and know better next time.
Its just another way for the cute hoor to milk the system more.
Put it like this, normally if you cant pay your mortgage you get your house reposessed, its sold at auction by the banks and they only try and get back the remaining loan value. So the banks come out 100% ok, the previous owners of course lose their house. With this solution, the homeowners get to keep their home and just pay 40% of the remaining debt off, therefore the banks lose 60% as they have no house to auction, and means that house prices will not drop and be kept artifically high as the merket will remain stagnant.0 -
The money has to come from somewhere, i.e. the creditors lose out which is the banks which means us taxpayers have to prop up the banks more, on top of that whats wrong with a person losing their house because they cant pay when they overextended themselves are 100% directly the cause of the housing bubble in the first place( by paying loads for a crappy house not worth half the money ).
If the mortgages werent taken out in the first place there wouldnt have been a stupid crazy housing bubble and we wouldnt be in the situation we are in, those involved should pay the price and know better next time.
Its just another way for the cute hoor to milk the system more.
Put it like this, normally if you cant pay your mortgage you get your house reposessed, its sold at auction by the banks and they only try and get back the remaining loan value. So the banks come out 100% ok, the previous owners of course lose their house. With this solution, the homeowners get to keep their home and just pay 40% of the remaining debt off, therefore the banks lose 60% as they have no house to auction.
The expression "we the taxpayer" is kind of assuming that those who have big debts are not also taxpayers. Also, saying that these people are also those who "directly caused the housing bubble in the first place", is not strictly true... there were a lot of other factors involved in it - namely the developers who sat on zoned land & artificially inflated their prices, the government who allowed crazy zoning, planning & tax breaks and the banks who gave stupid amounts of credit to anyone who sought it (& even sometimes to people who didn't, with their "pre-approved" loan schemes).
Yes, those who bought houses during the boom, contributed to the mess, but seeing as they are now also caught out badly now, it seems a bit disingenuous to call them "cute hoors".
Also the logic in your last paragraph is flawed. Most of the people who are now in trouble are those who bought property in the last few years - at severly inflated prices. If a bank were to reposses a house that cost €250k in 2006, they would at auction, get at best €150k if they were lucky enough to get a buyer. Now, if you consider, that the full cost of the mortgage to the buyer is in the region of €400k over the full period, 40% of that is €200k which is €50k more than the bank would get at auction.
It also means that an ordinary family does not get turfed out of their now, almost worthless home.
Look, I'm not saying that I entirely agree with the idea of IVAs, but I also think that there is a lot more things that can be done than directing anger at people who got caught up in a property bubble & ultimately got caught out when the bubble burst.
These people are in trouble now, because they lost their jobs or businesses due to the recesssion. Some people have already lost their homes, many are facing court cases & there are also some who are now in prison over unpaid debts. Yes, they f*cked up, yes, they got carried away, but they are still people. Let's not forget that.0 -
Advertisement
-
ok, so "we the taxpayer" who thought the house prices were nuts, have 0 debt, are renting and have been for years, have 0 property have to bail these guys out?starbelgrade wrote: »The expression "we the taxpayer" is kind of assuming that those who have big debts are not also taxpayers. Also, saying that these people are also those who "directly caused the housing bubble in the first place", is not strictly true... there were a lot of other factors involved in it - namely the developers who sat on zoned land & artificially inflated their prices, the government who allowed crazy zoning, planning & tax breaks and the banks who gave stupid amounts of credit to anyone who sought it (& even sometimes to people who didn't, with their "pre-approved" loan schemes).
Yes the developers contributed, but its a consumer market based on supply and demand, there was plenty of supply, theres no excuse that people got conned into getting stupidly high mortgages and they've noone to blame but themselves, they could have rented.
At the end of the day its consumer driven.
No i ment the guys who just milk the system, i do feel sorry for families that lose their houses but at the end of the day they shouldnt have taken on insane mortgages.starbelgrade wrote: »Yes, those who bought houses during the boom, contributed to the mess, but seeing as they are now also caught out badly now, it seems a bit disingenuous to call them "cute hoors".
Exactly, so why did they buy at insane prices?starbelgrade wrote: »Also the logic in your last paragraph is flawed. Most of the people who are now in trouble are those who bought property in the last few years - at severly inflated prices.
you cant state the full cost of the mortgage, the bank borrows the money at their inter bank trading rate not the rate given to the home owner, also if the money is paid off early then the interest on the remaining years isint incurred, so borrowing 250k 3 years ago would amount to maybe 275k now, theyve also been paying off some of that money( probably 40k in 3 years ) making the value of the laon 235k, if it gets 150k at auction, thats a loss of 85kstarbelgrade wrote: »If a bank were to reposses a house that cost €250k in 2006, they would at auction, get at best €150k if they were lucky enough to get a buyer. Now, if you consider, that the full cost of the mortgage to the buyer is in the region of €400k over the full period, 40% of that is €200k which is €50k more than the bank would get at auction.
whats wrong with that? a house is a priviledge not an entitlement, they can join the rental market like the rest of us.starbelgrade wrote: »It also means that an ordinary family does not get turfed out of their now, almost worthless home.
Well all im saying is they fueled the problem, if theyre stuck now thats not my issue there are the standard measures in place and that have always been in place to sort this out. Just because people lose their home because they took out crazy credit that they can no longer afford is their own personal issue. Yes i feel sorry for families, but there is feck all wrong with renting.starbelgrade wrote: »Look, I'm not saying that I entirely agree with the idea of IVAs, but I also think that there is a lot more things that can be done than directing anger at people who got caught up in a property bubble & ultimately got caught out when the bubble burst.
I realise that, however look at the problems us taxpayers and the small percentage of us that are still working( which will decrease further ) are already facing with Nama, increased taxes to pay for more unemployment, a stupidly high paid public service.starbelgrade wrote: »These people are in trouble now, because they lost their jobs or businesses due to the recesssion. Some people have already lost their homes, many are facing court cases & there are also some who are now in prison over unpaid debts. Yes, they f*cked up, yes, they got carried away, but they are still people. Let's not forget that.
This CANNOT go on, its fine at the moment but give it 2 or 3 years and your average employee losing 20-25% of their current take home pay on taxes to fund all this
We do not need another crazy scheme to further burden us, also theyre trying to get legislation into Nama to prevent banks reposessing so easily, that should be good enough in the short term.
There have been very few reposessions already for the simple fact that the banks are holding out until Nama is passed till the start the repossession craze.
Theyre people yes but they made a bad choice for which they now have to pay for, not the rest of us who have feck all already and are already in for years and years of hardship to fund everything else.
Its alright saying ah sure we need to help the others, well feck me lets get this straight, theyre homeowners, im not, so i have to pay for them? er that logic is insane.
Look at last years budget for a 3 billion defecit we got taxed more, cost me ~180 euro a month, now we have Nama for at least 70billion!!!!!!!( that includes the interest ) and now we have another hairbrain scheme to f*** us further, ARRRGGGHHHHHHH
F***ING HELL WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE REAL WORLD ( not aimed at anyone in particular, im just venting )0 -
Put it like this, normally if you cant pay your mortgage you get your house reposessed, its sold at auction by the banks and they only try and get back the remaining loan value. So the banks come out 100% ok, the previous owners of course lose their house. With this solution, the homeowners get to keep their home and just pay 40% of the remaining debt off, therefore the banks lose 60% as they have no house to auction, and means that house prices will not drop and be kept artifically high as the merket will remain stagnant.
If this is the way it's supposed to work I would have a major problem with it. This would remove the moral hazard for home owners.
For example, if someone bought a €1 miilion home last year on a street that you wanted to live on, defaulted, came to an agreement and had to pay €400k off and got to keep the house, I imagine they would ultimately see this as a great deal. No more mortgage and a house at a fraction of the original cost. I'm not belittling the stress, strain and mental anguish of defaulting on repayments and have great sympathy for people who find themselves in that position, but several years down the road having your home paid off at a fraction of the price would be quite nice.
The problem is you didn't bid €1 million for the house at the time because you didn't want to stretch yourself and thus were outbid. This person then had their debts cleared and got to live in the house you wanted at a knockdown price. At the same time you the prudent person who didn't soak up all that credit to buy a home would be no better off as the housing market would effectively be propped up.
As mentioned above, owning a home is a priviledge not a right. Defaulting on a debt should not be rewarded with the item of concern (unless its life or death). If you fail to repay the loans on your car or house then they should ultimately be repossessed and not subject to debt forgiveness. Public transport and renting is always there.0 -
As we bought agree, a house repossesed & sold at auction, will still cost the banks (& the taxpayers) money. If the full cost of the mortgage to the buyer is reduced (regardless of the market value of the loan), the banks still stand to make money over the full term, instead of making a loss, or sitting on an empty property in the hope that the market recovers.
I agree entirely that people were reckless in their borrowings, that they fuelled the bubble, that bailing them out will cost us all, but the alternative of repossessions & court cases doesn't really look any prettier.0 -
The reality of it is in order for the economy to function people have to have disposable income.
It does us no good to have people saddled with debt and barely making the minimum payments.
It won't help us recover. This is crap but it might be necessary since we can't devalue our currency (which would screw over savers anyway).
The government paid off masses of the public debts with taxes from property and it probably is the fairest thing that they cut down their loan amounts and then introduce a proper property tax which will probabaly happen in the budget.0 -
Public transport is always there.
My workplace is 20 mins drive from my house - the nearest train station is 14km away. At a moderate pace, that's 140 mins. Even at that, there is no train that would get me to the office on time. There are also no footpaths on the road which is full of dangerous bends for both drivers & anyone mad / deperate enough to walk it.
There is a bus service that serves the village. It passes through once a week, on a Wednesday at 11am & drops back at 3pm.
Public transport is not always there.
If I couldn't afford to pay back my car loan due to, for example a downturn in profits from the business & my car was repossesed, I wouldn't be able to go to work. How & who would that help?0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not nice for any family to lose their home but as a previous poster said, "they can join the rental market like the rest of us". I'm renting and myself and my family are quite happy, I chose to rent because I didn't want to have a ridiculously overpriced mortgage to pay off. If this scheme goes ahead, on top of the taxpayer paying for it we will also have to pay for another bank bail out.starbelgrade wrote: »It also means that an ordinary family does not get turfed out of their now, almost worthless home.
The ordinary working people are paying enough as it is without paying to keep the idiots that thought the bubble would never bust in their overpriced homes with their fancy cars, a good reality check is what they need. I've worked hard for years, cleared off my debts (working or not), why should it be any different now, you get yourself into a mess you get yourself out of it, simple as that.0 -
but this scheme will cost more( now i couldnt find the details on the uk scheme whether the 40% required to be paid off was based on the total loaned value or the max acrued over the lifetime of the mortgage, but i would imagine its the former for the simple fact that the loan would only be worth 60% of the total mortgage value of its lifetime ).starbelgrade wrote: »As we bought agree, a house repossesed & sold at auction, will still cost the banks (& the taxpayers) money. If the full cost of the mortgage to the buyer is reduced (regardless of the market value of the loan), the banks still stand to make money over the full term, instead of making a loss, or sitting on an empty property in the hope that the market recovers.
Using that and what i said earlier:
Thats a loss of 85k to the bank, with this scheme the homeowner would pay 94k and the loss would be 141kborrowing 250k 3 years ago would amount to maybe 275k now, theyve also been paying off some of that money( probably 40k in 3 years ) making the value of the laon 235k, if it gets 150k at auction, thats a loss of 85k
This has to happen, seriously, otherwise we will remain in the self perpetuating fictitious economy of insane house prices. If the house prices dont fall and with the lay offs and the the huge tax increases that will come between now and 2020 when Nama is cleared no irish person who isint currently a homeowner will not be able to buy in that period( again im ok with it being a priviledge to own but the market neednt be killed totally and remain fictitious )starbelgrade wrote: »I agree entirely that people were reckless in their borrowings, that they fuelled the bubble, that bailing them out will cost us all, but the alternative of repossessions & court cases doesn't really look any prettier.
Im not trying to be really hardcore as i know there are people involved, im just being a realist., theres no free lunch, especially now.0 -
Thats the thing, car loan, thats a luxury, ive never had a car loan in my life. I have 0 loans, ive had 0 loans for 8 years now other than sticking stuff on my credit card and paying it off before i pay any insane interest rates.starbelgrade wrote: »If I couldn't afford to pay back my car loan due to, for example a downturn in profits from the business & my car was repossesed, I wouldn't be able to go to work. How & who would that help?
If your car gets repossed, get a piece of crap that will tide you over.0 -
Thats the thing, car loan, thats a luxury, ive never had a car loan in my life. I have 0 loans, ive had 0 loans for 8 years now other than sticking stuff on my credit card and paying it off before i pay any insane interest rates.
If your car gets repossed, get a piece of crap that will tide you over.
I don't have a car loan either - it was a hypotechical situation. My point was, is that not everyone can hop on the Luas to get to work, or even, at that pay cash up front for a crap car.
And not everyone who's in trouble now drives a flash car or lives in a €1million mansion in a leafy Dublin suburb.0 -
Get a bicycle, I cycled for years to work, 12 mile a day.starbelgrade wrote: »My workplace is 20 mins drive from my house. If I couldn't afford to pay back my car loan due to, for example a downturn in profits from the business & my car was repossesed, I wouldn't be able to go to work. How & who would that help?0 -
-
Sorry, but you have to be kidding? do you realise that your average worker will have 0, i repeat 0 disposable income in ireland for the next at least 7 years but it may take 11( end of Nama ),yes its will decrease over time but only the rich will have money to spend, the rest of us will be funding a lot of other stuff besides this.The reality of it is in order for the economy to function people have to have disposable income.
I dunno, dont people realise that this country is effectively bankrupt??????? the wake up call is here NOW!!!!0 -
Get a bicycle, I cycled for years to work, 12 mile a day.
Again, I was speaking hypothetically - however, your point only goes to enforce the "me fein" attitude that runs through this thread. If I WERE to cycle to work, it's a 30 mile cycle, half of that along a very dangerous country road with no footpaths, or even the sniff of a cylce lane or hard shoulder.
Not everyone has the luxury of choice.
But getting back on topic - why should we pay for people's debts. I don't think we should. I don't think it should costs us, but if it does - if it stops people ending up out on the streets, if it stops people going to court & going to jail, I think we have to.0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »Again, I was speaking hypothetically - however, your point only goes to enforce the "me fein" attitude that runs through this thread. If I WERE to cycle to work, it's a 30 mile cycle, half of that along a very dangerous country road with no footpaths, or even the sniff of a cylce lane or hard shoulder.
Not everyone has the luxury of choice.
But getting back on topic - why should we pay for people's debts. I don't think we should. I don't think it should costs us, but if it does - if it stops people ending up out on the streets, if it stops people going to court & going to jail, I think we have to.
they can rent cant they?
There have been reposessions in the news but have you heard of anyone doing jail time?0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »My workplace is 20 mins drive from my house - the nearest train station is 14km away. At a moderate pace, that's 140 mins.....
Public transport is not always there.
If I couldn't afford to pay back my car loan due to, for example a downturn in profits from the business & my car was repossesed, I wouldn't be able to go to work. How & who would that help?
I accept the point that not everybody has access to public transport but there is a large percentage of the population living in or near major cities that do. As pointed out you could get rid of the car and get a banger. I'm sure if it could be demonstrated that a car would be necessary for you to meet any outstanding payments then an arrangement could be made to facilitate that.starbelgrade wrote: »And not everyone who's in trouble now drives a flash car or lives in a €1million mansion in a leafy Dublin suburb.
My example of the €1 million house was an extreme example but it highlights the potential windfall. I also think the same for someone in a €300k house. Again, people can rent if needs be. Being forced to rent and the associated loss of perceived status seems to be part of the hidden reasoning against repossession. Certainly repossession should be the last option when all other avenues have been exhausted, but keeping the asset after all that should not be the case.0 -
Advertisement
-
no i agree, likewise i need a car as my work is 35 miles from where i live for the simple fact that my wife has to travel in the other direction so where we live is the best current solution. However i could take the only bus that serves the route to work but that means i cant work late which i like to have the option of doing as i work late on a regular basis.starbelgrade wrote: »I don't have a car loan either - it was a hypotechical situation. My point was, is that not everyone can hop on the Luas to get to work, or even, at that pay cash up front for a crap car.
If the worst came to the worst id get a motorbike and make do with that. Those who dont have the option of buying a crappy car to tide them over shouldnt even have a mortgage in the first place and wont be able to make their payments regardless of this scheme.
And not everyone contributed to this $hit in the first place. They are liable, the knew the consequences that existed when they took those loans and those should remain.starbelgrade wrote: »And not everyone who's in trouble now drives a flash car or lives in a €1million mansion in a leafy Dublin suburb.
Ive already said its cheaper for the bank to auction off the property than the cost of this scheme0 -
Deleted User wrote: »they can rent cant they?
There have been reposessions in the news but have you heard of anyone doing jail time?
In 2008, 257 people were jailed for non-payment of loans, 201 in 2007 and 194 in 2006.
Ireland is one of the few countries left in the world where you can be jailed for non-payment of debts. Surely cutting part of the amounts outstanding is a better solution than this?0 -
"Me fein" attitude, I'm not the only person with the view I have. This scheme will the bankrupt the country even more and the ordinary worker can't afford to pay out anymore, on top of that you have a budget coming that will screw us even more, talks of water rates coming, bin charges going up etc...starbelgrade wrote: »Again, I was speaking hypothetically - however, your point only goes to enforce the "me fein" attitude that runs through this thread. If I WERE to cycle to work, it's a 30 mile cycle, half of that along a very dangerous country road with no footpaths, or even the sniff of a cylce lane or hard shoulder.
Not everyone has the luxury of choice.
But getting back on topic - why should we pay for people's debts. I don't think we should. I don't think it should costs us, but if it does - if it stops people ending up out on the streets, if it stops people going to court & going to jail, I think we have to.
As for "Not everyone has the luxury of choice", I lived near 40 mile away from my work, I had no car and relied on buses, taxies and lifts, so I decided to move closer. You always have a choice.
What is wrong with this country is "greed", people had it too good for too long and now that the **** has hit the fan they don't want to lose / give up any / all their of luxuries. Life will always have its up's and downs, to think otherwise is very naive, people need to grow up.0 -
Ive already said its cheaper for the bank to auction off the property than the cost of this scheme
But it's not. If a €250k mortgage costs the buyer €400k over the term, and 40% is knocked off, they still pay back €240. The bank loses €35 on the market value of the credit at the time, but that's better than losing €125 if it goes to auction.0 -
Exactly, people need to wake up from the bubble theyre in. The country is absolutely f***ed and noone wants to give anything up, theres no respect for money in this country whatsoever and the attitude of my problem should become everyone elses is an absolute disgrace.What is wrong with this country is "greed", people had it too good for too long and now that the **** has hit the fan they don't want to lose / give up any / all their of luxuries. Life will always have its up's and downs, to think otherwise is very naive, people need to grow up.
No thats not how it works, e.g. depending on your mortgage/agreement with the bank some mortgages you can pay off the remainder at any time you like( this DOES NOT include the total interest that would have been acrued over the lifetime of the mortgate ). You can take out a mortgage tomorrow for 250k and pay it back the next day for 250.5k or whatever it will be. Resolving the remainder is via IVA would only be on the original sum borrowed not the total acrued over the lifetime of the mortgage.starbelgrade wrote: »But it's not. If a €250k mortgage costs the buyer €400k over the term, and 40% is knocked off, they still pay back €240. The bank loses €35 on the market value of the credit at the time, but that's better than losing €125 if it goes to auction.
Put it like this, if you take your total acrued value then with the IVA system in the uk you have 5 years to pay off a minimum of the mortgage remainder, in the case of a 400k morthgage if say 370k was still owing that means they must pay ~150k back in that 5 year period, so they have to pay 2.5 k per month?
A mortgage acrues interest as you pay, just because you take a 250k mortgage doesnt mean you owe the bank 400k, you can pay it off sooner( if thats been agreed with the bank ) in which case you only pay the difference between total acrued interest + total value of the mortgage - what was paid already.0 -
I swear to fúcking god..if this bull**** comes in I'm taking out a loan for every fcukin thing I can think off.. apply for tons of credit's, car loan..DB9 anyone?, mortage and the bank can go fúck themselves when they try to get me to repay.
I stayed off the properly ladder, stayed within my means and watched as every other tom, dick and harry splashed out on money they didn't have on big fancy houses.
Well i don't give a fúck what people think...I want anyone who can't repay their mortages to have their houses repossessed...they can rent or live in a fúckin shoebox at the side of the street for all i care.:mad:0 -
"Me fein" attitude, I'm not the only person with the view I have.
Lots of people voted FF back into power in the last general election. Just because people agree with you, doesn't make it right.
Look, my point is that it makes little sense - economically, or even morally - to turf people out of their homes just because you can, or to criminalise people & throw them into jail because they were stupid enough to live on credit at inflated interest rates.
If we are to make people accountable for this mess, the accountabilty should be systemic.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »:mad: all your doing is taking someone elses disposable income and giving it to others
To be fair, I'm not doing anything like that because its not my scheme
0 -
Advertisement
-
no the acountability is down to the individual. Just because the banks are getting bailed doesnt make it a free for all me too thing.starbelgrade wrote: »If we are to make people accountable for this mess, the accountabilty should be systemic.
The taxpayer will be bled dry with everything currently happening never mind this.
If 60,000 availed of this scheme with a loss in loan value of 100,000 for each one, thats 6billion!!!!! thats conservative at least, based on aprils tax increase, then for me this would cost me 5000euro, that for me is an insane amount of money( when i spend around 150-170euro a week excluding 50 euro petrol for work travel and rent ) and thats just a minimum cost guess0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement