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
-
We live in a capitalist society where the country's resources are used to benefit the greedy elite, and when those resources run scarce, those who are not part of the elite, are fighting their corners, trying to keep hold of their patch... to the point where some are saying that they couldn't give a f*ck if people end up living in shoe boxes by the side of the road.
That scares me.
Some will end up out on the streets, some will end up in prison.
That scares me.
Did they deserve it? Possibly. But we are ALL part of the problem. We all live in this society & we all contribute to how it is run.
"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of their expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credit, until their debt becomes unbearable.
The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism"
Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 18670 -
Well nobody should go to prison for bankruptcy, that is just stupid IMO.
So someone spent money and can't pay it back, money is only a system we use to replace bartering FFS.0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »We live in a capitalist society where the country's resources are used to benefit the greedy elite, and when those resources run scarce, those who are not part of the elite, are fighting their corners, trying to keep hold of their patch... to the point where some are saying that they couldn't give a f*ck if people end up living in shoe boxes by the side of the road.
And what’s wrong with that, of course some people are thinking like that, why should the sensible people that weren't greedy, had 3 - 4 credit cards, loans, the fancy car, overpriced home and the other one he / she rented out.
I know of a family that is more or less all of the above, for years myself and friends said it wouldn't last and that they were living way beyond their means, it ended up to the point where they began to look down at us and distanced themselves from us because we weren't of the same "class". Now they're in a financial mess, do either myself or friends feel sorry for them, "no", we tried to help but we just got shunted off and treated like second class people.
You have to take reasonability for your actions and consequences, you can't go through life thinking that at the sight of any problem you will be bailed out, it just doesn't work that way nor should it.
Such is the nature of life, people going on about how we can't make these people homeless, why not help the already homeless in this country that have nowhere to go. At least for the vast majority of these people that thought the boom would never end, they will be able to afford to rent.starbelgrade wrote: »Some will end up out on the streets, some will end up in prison.
That scares me.
starbelgrade wrote: »Did they deserve it? Possibly. But we are ALL part of the problem. We all live in this society & we all contribute to how it is run.
We are not all part of the problem, in the governments eyes we are certainly all part of the solution but you cannot say that all of the people in this country are the cause of the problem. Not everyone voted FF, not everyone lived beyond their means and fuelled the property bubble.....
starbelgrade wrote: »The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks
The banks are already screwed, how is writing off a huge percentage of the debt with the introduction of this scheme going to help.0 -
And what’s wrong with that, of course some people are thinking like that, why should the sensible people that weren't greedy, had 3 - 4 credit cards, loans, the fancy car, overpriced home and the other one he / she rented out.
I know of a family that is more or less all of the above, for years myself and friends said it wouldn't last and that they were living way beyond their means, it ended up to the point where they began to look down at us and distanced themselves from us because we weren't of the same "class". Now they're in a financial mess, do either myself or friends feel sorry for them, "no", we tried to help but we just got shunted off and treated like second class people.
You have to take reasonability for your actions and consequences, you can't go through life thinking that at the sight of any problem you will be bailed out, it just doesn't work that way nor should it.
Such is the nature of life, people going on about how we can't make these people homeless, why not help the already homeless in this country that have nowhere to go. At least for the vast majority of these people that thought the boom would never end, they will be able to afford to rent.
We are not all part of the problem, in the governments eyes we are certainly all part of the solution but you cannot say that all of the people in this country are the cause of the problem. Not everyone voted FF, not everyone lived beyond their means and fuelled the property bubble.....
The banks are already screwed, how is writing off a huge percentage of the debt with the introduction of this scheme going to help.
Ok with about 20% of Irish houses are empty (last figure I heard, probably higher now), I don't think we should need to make anyone homeless regardless of situation.
People should be made accountable for their mistakes but not to the point where they are living on the streets or starving. That doesn't help anyone.0 -
And what’s wrong with that, of course some people are thinking like that, why should the sensible people that weren't greedy, had 3 - 4 credit cards, loans, the fancy car, overpriced home and the other one he / she rented out.
I know of a family that is more or less all of the above, for years myself and friends said it wouldn't last and that they were living way beyond their means, it ended up to the point where they began to look down at us and distanced themselves from us because we weren't of the same "class". Now they're in a financial mess, do either myself or friends feel sorry for them, "no", we tried to help but we just got shunted off and treated like second class people.
You have to take reasonability for your actions and consequences, you can't go through life thinking that at the sight of any problem you will be bailed out, it just doesn't work that way nor should it.
Such is the nature of life, people going on about how we can't make these people homeless, why not help the already homeless in this country that have nowhere to go. At least for the vast majority of these people that thought the boom would never end, they will be able to afford to rent.
We are not all part of the problem, in the governments eyes we are certainly all part of the solution but you cannot say that all of the people in this country are the cause of the problem. Not everyone voted FF, not everyone lived beyond their means and fuelled the property bubble.....
The banks are already screwed, how is writing off a huge percentage of the debt with the introduction of this scheme going to help.
It makes no difference whatsoever who took out the loans, who owes money, who has to re-pay it or even who voted who into the government. The responsiblity to get us out of the mire is a collective one. It simply has to be. Otherwise, history will repeat itself.0 -
Advertisement
-
This should not happen at all costs. No way.:mad:
Some of these people who are in huge amount of debt should sue their mortgage broker, bank, solicitor for giving them the loans in the first place, especially the 100% sub prime mortgages. I would take a test case on your behalf for free!!!;)0 -
Ab roller plus wrote: »This should not happen at all costs. No way.:mad:
Some of these people who are in huge amount of debt should sue their mortgage broker, bank, solicitor for giving them the loans in the first place, especially the 100% sub prime mortgages. I would take a test case on your behalf for free!!!;)
Alan Shore - is that you?
0 -
I don't have an issue with a scheme that writes off debt on a family home(assuming conditions warrant it).0
-
I don't have an issue with a scheme that writes off debt on a family home(assuming conditions warrant it).
I agree to an extent - no-one's asking for the whole debt to be written off. Just the part that will stop families being made homeless & banks writing off huge amounts of debt that will have to be re-embursed by taxes.
A bit of decency & commonn sense goes a long way.0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »Otherwise, history will repeat itself.
History is going to repeat itself if they go down this route.
People need to learn the hard way that there's no magic bailout,..if you fcuk up you pay the consequences...
Simply put..if you cannot afford to repay your mortage either sell the house or have the bank repossess it.Then apply for a council house.
It's high time Irish people stopped buying into this home owning hysteria.
Insteadgo for long term rentals etc like nearly every other European country.
But of course the government want to save their buddies in the banks and developers.
Then they want to earn all the lovely dosh from taxes on houses etc so it's one big fúckin merrygoround..:mad:0 -
Advertisement
-
Why should people with large mortgages get part written off ?
I have a young family and I rent - if I cant pay my rent, are the government going to step in and help me - not on your life.
If someone has gotten up to their neck in debt with credit cards and mortgage repayments,why do they suddenly become a special case and everyone has to help them ?
Its tough for anyone who bought in the last few years, but everyone must have seem that property was over-inflated. The people that are in trouble are the same people that got credit union loans to make the deposit part of their mortgage and bought a new car every 2 years. I dont have much sympathy for these people.0 -
Why should people with large mortgages get part written off ?
I have a young family and I rent - if I cant pay my rent, are the government going to step in and help me - not on your life.
If someone has gotten up to their neck in debt with credit cards and mortgage repayments,why do they suddenly become a special case and everyone has to help them ?
Its tough for anyone who bought in the last few years, but everyone must have seem that property was over-inflated. The people that are in trouble are the same people that got credit union loans to make the deposit part of their mortgage and bought a new car every 2 years. I dont have much sympathy for these people.
I would agree to a certain extent - yes it was obvious that the market prices for properties were inflated and those who bought in the last years of the Up are now in negative equity. Agreed there are those who over extended with multiple credit cards and loans from family, banks and credit unions, but would it not make more sense for NAMA or some other such vehicle to take on the mortgages for families that need somewhere to live, chuck the rest of the unsold properties into the market so we have honest property pricing and then mop up the banks and developers?
While over-extending, even in a boom is not to be recommended there are some who could be considered as victims - much like those who were sold sub-prime mortgages in the states. I find it difficult to consider the banks and developers as victims in this fiasco but that is what NAMA is treating them as.
The concept of bailing out those who instigated and propogated this crime is what sticks in many peoples craws. The banks threw money at people and encouraged the take up of credit cards. Is it any wonder people over became over-extended?
Writing off the banks debts will probably not result in them learning their lesson. As soon as another method to make profit on the backs of customers and consumers debts is devised they will be back in their sordid little business again.
So in case you missed it here's the plan - NAMA takes on the overpriced mortgages. Property values plummet to their natural level but now that doesn't matter for existing mortgage holders. Those who now need homes can buy at real property prices (starting at 2-3 x salary). The banks get their mortgage money back via NAMA. The developers can apply after the mortgage holders for what's left.
If you put people into current market value housing at least they have a roof over their heads and those who have yet to buy can buy at affordable rates.
Next - legislate so that the banks can never offer more than 3 x salary for more than 25 years.
Tax second homes. Double tax third homes - this applies whether the property is within the state or not.
Tax professional landlords as if they were PAYE - 40%
This won't happen so in the meantime get yourself set up as a developer - take out a loan to buy your own property - default and get it taken over by NAMA. Default again.0 -
If you accept the fact that the Banks were reckless in their lending policies then I don't think you can logically argue against an IVA type of arrangement being introduced. The blame has to lie with either the banks for giving the money, the consumer for taking it or (as is my opinion) both equally.
An IVA type agreement would not cover secured loans, so mortgages would never fall within the re-mit of such agreements, with this in mind I think the discussion on the thread about repossessions is off topic. I someone had secured a personal loan against the family home, then this personal loan would not be governed by an IVA.
For an IVA to be agreed, the owners of 75% of the total debt would have to agree to the new proposal, so the banks would turn it down if they did not want to write down the loan. The reality is that in many cases and IVA is resorted to where there is little to no chance of the full amount being recovered and some of something is better than all of nothing.
The tax payer would not pick up the tab, the lending institution would so this argument is null and void. There is a fear that the costs to lenders would be passed on to the consumer in the guise of higher charges and fees - this would have to be monitored.
My own feeling is that it would force the institutions to consider future applications much more closely and for all those who say that Banks have been reckless - is this a bad thing? I think not.0 -
I would agree to a certain extent - yes it was obvious that the market prices for properties were inflated and those who bought in the last years of the Up are now in negative equity. Agreed there are those who over extended with multiple credit cards and loans from family, banks and credit unions, but would it not make more sense for NAMA or some other such vehicle to take on the mortgages for families that need somewhere to live, chuck the rest of the unsold properties into the market so we have honest property pricing and then mop up the banks and developers?
How would this make any sense? The mortgage passing to NAMA does nothing to improve the lot of the mortgage holder, they still owe the full amount - they just owe it to NAMA and not the bank.While over-extending, even in a boom is not to be recommended there are some who could be considered as victims - much like those who were sold sub-prime mortgages in the states. I find it difficult to consider the banks and developers as victims in this fiasco but that is what NAMA is treating them as.
Whether or not the Developers are treated as victims will fully depend on how hard NAMA pursues them - this has yet to be seen. If past FF performance is used as an indicator, it may well turn out that they are indeed treadted as victims, but with an impending change in government, they may well get the roasting they deserve. The Banks are being treated as victims, and this I do not agree with, but we need a fully functioning banking system. I do not agree with your assertion that those who took out sub-prime mortgages were victims - you have to take responsibility for your own actions. If you took a NINJA loan, you were a chancer - maybe an optimistic chancer, but a chancer nonetheless.The concept of bailing out those who instigated and propogated this crime is what sticks in many peoples craws. The banks threw money at people and encouraged the take up of credit cards. Is it any wonder people over became over-extended?
Again, you seem to be saying that people had no choice but to accept the credit cards and loans being offered - poppycock.Writing off the banks debts will probably not result in them learning their lesson. As soon as another method to make profit on the backs of customers and consumers debts is devised they will be back in their sordid little business again.
The make it stick on the ICB for 5 or 10 years so they will get no more credit, sending them to an overcrowded prison will not be much more beneficial and will mean that the tax payer picks up the tab. Fining them obviously won't work and you can't get blood from a turnip.So in case you missed it here's the plan - NAMA takes on the overpriced mortgages.
Bearing in mind my first comment, please explain how this will help - will NAMA just allow the punter to keep the house for free?Property values plummet to their natural level but now that doesn't matter for existing mortgage holders.
How? and Why not? respectivelyThose who now need homes can buy at real property prices (starting at 2-3 x salary). The banks get their mortgage money back via NAMA. The developers can apply after the mortgage holders for what's left.
Have I missed a large number of steps to get to this point?If you put people into current market value housing at least they have a roof over their heads and those who have yet to buy can buy at affordable rates.
As above0 -
Long Onion wrote: »
As above
Dear Long Onion,
Maybe my view is a little simplistic so I'll try again - BTW I don't like my comments being taken out of context, it makes responding difficult.
The way I see it NAMA is designed to maintain property prices where they are, free up loans for developers to continue their business and protect the banks from future shocks. I don't see that working.
Getting the economy moving is what is needed and that means getting the majority of the people who generate the real wealth that is sucked up by the rich elite back to a position where they can start spending again.
To do that we need the property market to correct itself. NAMA will not do that.
My proposal is that the banks forclose on the developer loans and the unsold properties get dumped on the market. This will devalue all properties mortgaged and free alike and those who are in severe negative equity due to purchasing at the wrong time should be protected. NAMA takes on the mortgages and pursues repayment over a longer period at reduced interest in a manner that means only those who refuse to pay something get evicted.
The remaining unsold properties are then available to real purchases - those who intent to live in them as primary homes - at realistic prices. New mortgages are such that they are affordable and the holders have a reasonable level of disposable income after mortgage payments.
Anyone buying more than one home - whether for holiday, investment or rental purposes is taxed so that multiple property ownership will not lead to property inflation. If you can afford a second holiday property well and good but future housing bubbles should be prevented.
This will also free up loans to the over-extended to clear their credit cards and get rid of them. Commercial rentals will become unrealistic and can be revised down - this should reduce retail prices but imo won't have much effect as commercial rents are an excuse for high retail prices, not a reason.
In very simplistic terms let the property market fall to it's natural value, protect family homes as best as possible and then mop up the rest. The banks and developers made huge profits during the boom, they can afford to take the pain now.
Respectfully,
F. U.
(That's Festus Unger in case you take offence)0 -
Dear Long Onion,
Maybe my view is a little simplistic so I'll try again - BTW I don't like my comments being taken out of context, it makes responding difficult.
Sorry, but I find that it's the easiest way to adress the points raised. I was not saying that your view was simplistic, I was merely saying that I could not follow your logic as laid out.The way I see it NAMA is designed to maintain property prices where they are, free up loans for developers to continue their business and protect the banks from future shocks. I don't see that working.
I would believe that you are mistaken on this issue. NAMA is designed to restore capital back to the banking system so it can lend mone out to the wider economy again. The loans are not to be freed up just for developers but for the population at large. We have to hope that property prices clim again over the next 10 years if we are to avoid large losses to the tax payer, whether or not this will be the case is a seperate issue. The developers will (apparently) be pursued for those debts anyway.Getting the economy moving is what is needed and that means getting the majority of the people who generate the real wealth that is sucked up by the rich elite back to a position where they can start spending again.
I do not agree with your view here which I regard as outmoded marxism. Though the economy does need to get moving once more.To do that we need the property market to correct itself. NAMA will not do that.
Everyone assumes that for Ireland to return to growth, we have to fix the property market - if this is true, have we learned nothing? There are many other areas of the economy which have the potential for growth, if we ignore these areas, we will be backe here again in another 30 years.My proposal is that the banks forclose on the developer loans and the unsold properties get dumped on the market. This will devalue all properties mortgaged and free alike and those who are in severe negative equity due to purchasing at the wrong time should be protected. NAMA takes on the mortgages and pursues repayment over a longer period at reduced interest in a manner that means only those who refuse to pay something get evicted.
Then we are back to the situation where the banks are on the verge of collapse as there is no capital available for them, remember, these are develomnets that are unfinished and unoccupied so there are no residential mortgages on them, the banks would have to write of the billion lent. When the property is finished (which would require more developers and banks to lend cash which they now do not have because they have foreclosed on the developers) and brought to market it will further oush down the price of property, increasing the level of negaitve equity. You are saying that NAMA should now buy these mortgages off the bank (I am assuming that you suggest full book value - which will be a vast overpayment) and arranges more suitable terms with the homeowner. So even those well off can pay as little as they feel? This would mean that NAMA would be around forever as many of these mortgages are already over 35 years, do we push it to 50 and take their pensions? Do we drop the interest rates and overpay even more for the loans or do we buy the loans at a discount from the banks that now have no capital because they foreclosed on the developers loans?The remaining unsold properties are then available to real purchases - those who intent to live in them as primary homes - at realistic prices. New mortgages are such that they are affordable and the holders have a reasonable level of disposable income after mortgage payments.
This would be nice, but for reasons outlined above, cannot be forcedAnyone buying more than one home - whether for holiday, investment or rental purposes is taxed so that multiple property ownership will not lead to property inflation. If you can afford a second holiday property well and good but future housing bubbles should be prevented.
I see your point but do not agree, rental markets are needed, there has to be commercial viability for this to be soThis will also free up loans to the over-extended to clear their credit cards and get rid of them. Commercial rentals will become unrealistic and can be revised down - this should reduce retail prices but imo won't have much effect as commercial rents are an excuse for high retail prices, not a reason.
Again, I disagree with this, you are assuming that the overextended will use the money freed up on mortgage payments to clear their credit cards and not for other purposes, perhaps this may happen in some cases. Commercial rents could do with falling - no argument there.In very simplistic terms let the property market fall to it's natural value, protect family homes as best as possible and then mop up the rest. The banks and developers made huge profits during the boom, they can afford to take the pain now.
I don't think they can take the pain, this is the whole problem. Feck the developers, they can paddle their own canoes. The banks do not have any money to lend, so they will collapse, this is why NAMA was proposed in the first place, even if you hate the idea, there still needs to be an alternative be it a 'good bank', nationalisation etc etc.Respectfully,F. U.
(That's Festus Unger in case you take offence)
I take no offence though note that you have not signed off like this in any other post on the thread. I care not what your surname may be.
Respectfully A.H.O.L.E
(That's A Happily Oblivious Lacklustre Economist in case you take offence)0 -
Long Onion wrote: »
I do not agree with your view here which I regard as outmoded marxism. Though the economy does need to get moving once more.
The people are the economy, don't be so dismissive because he used the word elitist which is a mistake IMO as they are people too and part of the economy.Everyone assumes that for Ireland to return to growth, we have to fix the property market - if this is true, have we learned nothing? There are many other areas of the economy which have the potential for growth, if we ignore these areas, we will be backe here again in another 30 years.
Actually more like 5 years I'd say since we have complete oversupply. A great reason NAMA won't work.Then we are back to the situation where the banks are on the verge of collapse as there is no capital available for them, remember, these are develomnets that are unfinished and unoccupied so there are no residential mortgages on them, the banks would have to write of the billion lent. When the property is finished (which would require more developers and banks to lend cash which they now do not have because they have foreclosed on the developers) and brought to market it will further oush down the price of property, increasing the level of negaitve equity. You are saying that NAMA should now buy these mortgages off the bank
NAMA already is proposing to buy unfinished developments. There is no choice on what goes into NAMA either.
I see your point but do not agree, rental markets are needed, there has to be commercial viability for this to be so
The market will decide what that viability is. People won't get into a market with no money in it so it will arrive at a resting point similar to the taxi industry (if it was properly regulated to actually allow competition).0 -
None taken A.H.o.l.e,
However the concept of releasing money to be loaned again while the property market is kept artificially high is imo going to lead us into NAMA-2.
Not to mention the fact that NAMA is design to assist those that where the main contributors to the problem while leaving those with negative equity dealing with over-priced mortgages (and those with no debts) with increased taxes and levies.
Your argument is a little like saying that the heroin addict is the cause of the drug problem not the supplier or dealer. How about we try to solve the drug problem by buy up all the drugs from the drug dealers and not releasing them to the addicts?
We don't do that - we treat the suppliers as criminals, addicts who break the law as criminals and help those that want to come off it.
Freeing up cash for loans is sweeping under the carpet the fact that credit caused the problem and if the credit is not controlled in the future we more than likely will find ourselves in the same place again and again and again.
And again your incoherent response methodology is difficult to deal with but I would suggest that you read Keynes in regards to bad and good banks, particularly where he mentions that a good bank is one that takes the pain instead of find a way to elevate itself away from it.
This is the big problem with NAMA - there are other ways to do this - they might be better or worse - but we are not hearing of solutions that help and protect the workforce. All we hear of are methods to help the banks and developers. Feck them - the banks canoes are bigger than the developers and they can paddle just as fast. They banks might be on the verge of collapse but that is their fault, not ours. They make the rules, we play by them. Why should the rules be changed? If we default we take it up the ahole. Why can the same rule not be applied to the banks?
If the banks are to fail why should we prevent it. Would if not be better to have them sold to a reputable stable bank rather than bail them out to make the same mistakes again?
FU0 -
The people are the economy, don't be so dismissive because he used the word elitist which is a mistake IMO as they are people too and part of the economy.
A clarification is perhaps in order. I did not mean to tar the rich few as elitist and I used the term "elite" , not "elitist", where I probably should have use "the few". It is a fact that wealth generally follows the Pareto rule and wealth generated by the many winds up in the hands of the few.
The elite tend to see themselves as being above everyone else and not subject to the normal rules so I stand corrected. There are very few rich people in Ireland who would consider themselves "elite".
I may also have been driven by a sight of the chauffeur driven Maybach outside the Treasury Building which of course while a rich mans car the person inside could not be accused of being a member of the elite.
With appreciation,
FU0 -
Arguably you were gambling though when you decided to dabble in funds that depend on stocks and shares that are known to rise and fall..This country is turning more and more into a badly run circus everyday :mad:
Like many other sensible people in this country I worked my arse off for years, was sensible with my money, got myself a PRB fund that is now 90% gone :mad:,
You risked it,you lost it.
You could have put it in the post office.
Do you think the country can afford 200 euro plus dole payments?I didn't / don't live beyond my means, no debts, and now on top of the government asking me to bail out the banks, building developers, a budget that will no doubt see my taxes go up and new ones come in, water rates, welfare cuts etc...
No penny of your money would be going into this "debts wrote off" scheme.I'm now been asked to bail out all the idiots that lived way beyond their means and thought the boom would never end, the wannbe yuppies with their overpriced houses, second homes they rent out, BM's and Mercs that now find themselves shopping in Aldi & Lidl every week, what a joke.
If it's like the UK one,it's just a mechanism for ensuring a final agreement between parties.
As for the banks,would you prefer another 20,000 bank workers thrown on the dole and all our banking decisions to go via the London hq's of the remaining British based banks ?
That would be a one way road to a basket case economy.
I resemble that remark!It's true what I've been told for years about this country, "the rich get rich and the poorer get poorer, if you're not rich and a crook you will be walked all over".
There are plenty of people here getting rich through the sweat of their brow and not from being crooked.
In all societies some people will end up more fortunate than others either through pure luck or just hard work or a combination.
Theres no need for the cynical negativity.0 -
Advertisement
-
None taken A.H.o.l.e,
However the concept of releasing money to be loaned again while the property market is kept artificially high is imo going to lead us into NAMA-2.Not to mention the fact that NAMA is design to assist those that where the main contributors to the problem while leaving those with negative equity dealing with over-priced mortgages (and those with no debts) with increased taxes and levies.Your argument is a little like saying that the heroin addict is the cause of the drug problem not the supplier or dealer. How about we try to solve the drug problem by buy up all the drugs from the drug dealers and not releasing them to the addicts?We don't do that - we treat the suppliers as criminals, addicts who break the law as criminals and help those that want to come off it.
I agree that property prices need to re-align themselves, but I do not follow your logic. You seem to be suggesting that post-NAMA there will be no property for sale. This is not the case, the property is currently on the open market and will remain to be. The problem is that no-one is willing to purchase it as there is not an easy source of finance available, there will be no more nor no less property for sale with or without NAMA.
I do not fully agree with your reductionist argument comparing a home buyer to a heroin addict either, to follow through the logic of your argument would be to conclude that we are addicted to credit and unable to make a retional decision for ourselves as to when it is prudent to accept and decline offers, were this true there would not be one unaffected household in the country.Freeing up cash for loans is sweeping under the carpet the fact that credit caused the problem and if the credit is not controlled in the future we more than likely will find ourselves in the same place again and again and again.
Again, your argument seems to be advancing the position that credit is an evil that can be dispensed with, the fact is that in a modern economy it is a very necessary facility (you may of course disagree with the fundamentals of western economies, but this is a theoretical stance and one divorced from the instant issue) lines of credit are very necessary in an economy such as our own. Even the success of the micro-banking experiments in India have shown this to be the case.And again your incoherent response methodology is difficult to deal with but I would suggest that you read Keynes in regards to bad and good banks, particularly where he mentions that a good bank is one that takes the pain instead of find a way to elevate itself away from it.
I am sorry that you find my methodology incoherent, I am merely dealing with each of your points in the order (and, indeed, in the context, in which they are being raised. I find that this also helps other readers to keep track of the balance of the debate. Feel free to quote my post in which case it will show up in the text box free from the excerpts of your own post. I have no issue with the idea of a good bank, nor did I say that I did. I merely mentioned it as a way to indicate the fact that all alternatives posed to date have taken, as a given, the fact that a functioning banking system is a pre-requisite for our economy.This is the big problem with NAMA - there are other ways to do this - they might be better or worse - but we are not hearing of solutions that help and protect the workforce. All we hear of are methods to help the banks and developers. Feck them - the banks canoes are bigger than the developers and they can paddle just as fast. They banks might be on the verge of collapse but that is their fault, not ours. They make the rules, we play by them. Why should the rules be changed? If we default we take it up the ahole. Why can the same rule not be applied to the banks?
I reserve judgement as to whether NAMA will help the developers until we see how hard they are pursued for their debts, I hope that they will have a very rough time of things. As for the banks paddling their own canoes, and being allowed to collapse, I fear that the post Lehman's fall-out would serve as an indicator of the potential pitfalls here. I realise that the banks dug their own grave but I use your own reductionist argument, do we let the foolhardy swimmer, who is cut off by the tide, on the rocks to drown because he should have known better? I would like to think that we are above such line of action.If the banks are to fail why should we prevent it. Would if not be better to have them sold to a reputable stable bank rather than bail them out to make the same mistakes again?
FU
Because of the potential consequences to all of society, especially the workers. I rather think that the banks should be saved from collapse and then regulated to within an inch of their lives for evermore. In the meantime introduce robust consumer focused legislation that allows for the writing off of unsecured personal debt where the cunsumer has acted in good faitah and where the banks can be shown to have breached their own prudent lending criteria.0 -
Long Onion wrote: »I agree that property prices need to re-align themselves, but I do not follow your logic. You seem to be suggesting that post-NAMA there will be no property for sale. This is not the case, the property is currently on the open market and will remain to be. The problem is that no-one is willing to purchase it as there is not an easy source of finance available, there will be no more nor no less property for sale with or without NAMA.
I am not suggesting that there will be no properties for sale post NAMA. I am suggesting that post NAMA the property will still be for sale at the same elevated price. Beneath this will be a desire from the governement that property prices rise so that NAMA is seen to work.
The assertion that no-on is buying because there is no easy source of finance is untrue. No-one is buying because the prices are still too high.
It is entirely possible that property prices will fall further but I believe with NAMA the Government will pull whatever tricks they can to prop up the market.Long Onion wrote: »I do not fully agree with your reductionist argument comparing a home buyer to a heroin addict either, to follow through the logic of your argument would be to conclude that we are addicted to credit and unable to make a retional decision for ourselves as to when it is prudent to accept and decline offers, were this true there would not be one unaffected household in the country.
Wake up and put on a pot of Java! Addicted to credit or not our economy is based on fiat finance. Without debt there is no economy as we no longer link our currencies to gold or any other hard stanard. Whether you have a debt or not everyone in the country is affected by this. Unfortunately some more than others and those with the means to pay more tax are not being actively targeted.Long Onion wrote: »Again, your argument seems to be advancing the position that credit is an evil that can be dispensed with, the fact is that in a modern economy it is a very necessary facility (you may of course disagree with the fundamentals of western economies, but this is a theoretical stance and one divorced from the instant issue) lines of credit are very necessary in an economy such as our own. Even the success of the micro-banking experiments in India have shown this to be the case.
I suppose I could quote the Bible and what it says regarding usury but I don't think that would help. I disagree with fiat economy but that is what we have. I am suggesting that the management of it should change. NAMA is not designed for this - it is design to maintain the credit status quo.Long Onion wrote: »I am sorry that you find my methodology incoherent, I am merely dealing with each of your points in the order (and, indeed, in the context, in which they are being raised. I find that this also helps other readers to keep track of the balance of the debate. Feel free to quote my post in which case it will show up in the text box free from the excerpts of your own post. I have no issue with the idea of a good bank, nor did I say that I did. I merely mentioned it as a way to indicate the fact that all alternatives posed to date have taken, as a given, the fact that a functioning banking system is a pre-requisite for our economy.
Functioning yes. But hte system has become dysfunctional and this is not being addressed adequately.
I don't know why you think we need to keep the Irish banks. They have failed us and should be thrown to the dogs.Long Onion wrote: »I reserve judgement as to whether NAMA will help the developers until we see how hard they are pursued for their debts, I hope that they will have a very rough time of things. As for the banks paddling their own canoes, and being allowed to collapse, I fear that the post Lehman's fall-out would serve as an indicator of the potential pitfalls here. I realise that the banks dug their own grave but I use your own reductionist argument, do we let the foolhardy swimmer, who is cut off by the tide, on the rocks to drown because he should have known better? I would like to think that we are above such line of action.
In the natural world the strong survive - the weak get eaten. Yes we should be above this but in order to do so we need strength. The banks displayed weakness. Maybe a gentle wind down is better - they should not drown but we should be sending them back out until they learn how to swim properly and make their choices with less foolhardyness.Long Onion wrote: »Because of the potential consequences to all of society, especially the workers. I rather think that the banks should be saved from collapse and then regulated to within an inch of their lives for evermore. In the meantime introduce robust consumer focused legislation that allows for the writing off of unsecured personal debt where the cunsumer has acted in good faitah and where the banks can be shown to have breached their own prudent lending criteria.
Wishful thinking - just as my own is.0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »We live in a capitalist society where the country's resources are used to benefit the greedy elite, and when those resources run scarce, those who are not part of the elite, are fighting their corners, trying to keep hold of their patch... to the point where some are saying that they couldn't give a f*ck if people end up living in shoe boxes by the side of the road.
That scares me.
Some will end up out on the streets, some will end up in prison.
That scares me.
Did they deserve it? Possibly. But we are ALL part of the problem. We all live in this society & we all contribute to how it is run.
"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of their expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credit, until their debt becomes unbearable.
The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism"
Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867
We dont have capitalism we have cronyism. Capitalism would have let the banks fail there would be no NAMA and no bail outs for individuals0 -
-
Why would the banks give someone who was capable of paying off 2.5K per month on their mortgage an IVA in the first place? The regular (interest-meeting) minimum payment on a 400k mortgage would be less then that.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?
The point made still stands though. Negative equity can mean that the banks stand to lose money on the sale of the house. If the sale of the house nets what they are owed or more, they still don't necessarily get their hands on all the money, because other debtors will have their shout at it.
Debt restructuring, including write-off can work out to be their least worst option. And, as the name of the scheme suggests, it is a voluntary process...not just from the debtor, but from the creditors as well. If they feel they're better off with another option, they won't go for the IVA. If they feel its the least worst option for them, they can go for it.0 -
And then you can go and plead for an IVA, and the banks can tell you to go **** yourself, take you to court, and have you thrown in jail for non-payment of debt.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.
Thats assuming, of course, that you can con them into loaning you the money in the first place, and don't subsequently get done for fraud.0 -
No problem writing off part of someones debt under strict circumstances when it was the banks but now its the taxpayers who are being asked to cough up. Previously you could argue that the investors in the bank take the risks and take the rewards and losses but not anymore. Totally different ball game now. The rules are changing to suit the losers.
Reform bankruptcy laws but kick them out of the houses they can rent.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »No problem writing off part of someones debt under strict circumstances when it was the banks but now its the taxpayers who are being asked to cough up. Previously you could argue that the investors in the bank take the risks and take the rewards and losses but not anymore. Totally different ball game now. The rules are changing to suit the losers.
Reform bankruptcy laws but kick them out of the houses they can rent.
As pointed out by Long Onion, IVAs have nothing to do with secured loans - so mortgages are not covered by this. I dunno who brought that into the equation on the thread (and I'm guilty of debating it), but it's not really part of the debate.0 -
The same could be said for the overpriced mortgages they can no longer afford to pay off, they took a risk so why shouldn't they lose out, they could of rented.Deleted User wrote: »You risked it,you lost it.
You could have put it in the post office.
Of course we will end up forking out the bill for it with bank bail out number two, do you think we can afford or even want to bail out the banks again due to the massive loss in write off debts.Deleted User wrote: »Do you think the country can afford 200 euro plus dole payments? No penny of your money would be going into this "debts wrote off" scheme.
What's to say that there won't be regardless of what decisions are made.Deleted User wrote: »As for the banks,would you prefer another 20,000 bank workers thrown on the dole.
The way I see it, between this scheme, NAMA, bank bail outs, FAS, the €70,000 HSE bonus etc..... there is absolutely no accountability what so ever in this country, people need to learn from their mistakes, that's the primary problem with this country and as a result look at the mess we are now in.0 -
Advertisement
-
Theres a difference though.The same could be said for the overpriced mortgages they can no longer afford to pay off, they took a risk so why shouldn't they lose out, they could of rented.
You put your money into shares.
You are not borrowing it.
It's a big risk.
The scheme in question has been running in the UK for years.Of course we will end up forking out the bill for it with bank bail out number two, do you think we can afford or even want to bail out the banks again due to the massive loss in write off debts.
It's not for big time borrowers.
I'd go along with you to a different extent.What's to say that there won't be regardless of what decisions are made.
The way I see it, between this scheme, NAMA, bank bail outs, FAS, the €70,000 HSE bonus etc..... there is absolutely no accountability what so ever in this country, people need to learn from their mistakes, that's the primary problem with this country and as a result look at the mess we are now in.
Yes it's people who decide these things.
Greedy people who are 99.9% of the population.
We're all in the same boat internationally in terms of having to restructure banks liabilities.
Ironically this country was in a better starting position to pay for it now as we got our debt so low comparatively thanks in large part to the flood of taxes coming in during the boom.
It would have been lower if we hadn't been so slipshod in terms of being carefull with what we spent.
Keep demanding the oversights that are now being pushed lest when things improve economically we go back to our old ways.
What I was saying was...moaning and groaning about it is a waste.
Positivity not negativity.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement