Get you debts written off!

AARRRGH

Daithinski wrote: »

Its too simplistic to say people weren't "forced" with all that was being said and more importantly unsaid, there was only one way 95% of people were going to act and that was to buy a house if they could.

In fairness, the average adult should be wise enough to know you have to disregard advice from experts whose livelihood relies on you taking their advice...

For example, you wouldn't believe what a used car sales man tells you about the cars he sells, so why should you believe a bank's economist about the mortgages he sells?

The problem was people were naive and didn't do any independent research. Obviously if you only listen to the sales people you're going to be screwed over. Surely most adults should know that.

dresden8

AARRRGH wrote: »

Surely most adults should know that.

You'd be surprised how little most adults know.

_Kooli_

Look at this for a post.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63016091&postcount=366

His brother has 2 houses and wont sell one of them. He wants the tax payer to increase his dole payments so he can keep the 2 houses.
And bumming off his parents to boot.

This is the kind of person who is abusing the system.

MysticalRain

dresden8 wrote: »

You'd be surprised how little most adults know.

As PT Barnum famously said: there's one born every minute.

I would have become a property developer or banker myself if I had known it was that easy to swindle people out of their hard-earned cash.

thebman

MysticalRain wrote: »

As PT Barnum famously said: there's one born every minute.

I would have become a property developer or banker myself if I had known it was that easy to swindle people out of their hard-earned cash.

Yeah well most of those people weren't exactly financial geniuses either and are now bankrupt from riding the property boom roller coaster and blowing all the cash thinking the ride would never end.

MysticalRain

thebman wrote: »

Yeah well most of those people weren't exactly financial geniuses either and are now bankrupt from riding the property boom roller coaster and blowing all the cash thinking the ride would never end.

They certainly weren't geniuses. The bankers were only slightly less stupid than the people they were hawking their loans to. But then again the bankers seem to be doing pretty well at the moment despite all that's happened, and any developer who didn't go completely nuts will have squirreled away a nice little nest egg for himself and his family.

dresden8

thebman wrote: »

Yeah well most of those people weren't exactly financial geniuses either and are now bankrupt from riding the property boom roller coaster and blowing all the cash thinking the ride would never end.

MysticalRain wrote: »

They certainly weren't geniuses. The bankers were only slightly less stupid than the people they were hawking their loans to. But then again the bankers seem to be doing pretty well at the moment despite all that's happened, and any developer who didn't go completely nuts will have squirreled away a nice little nest egg for himself and his family.

Indeed.

Many developers are not bankrupt. Their companies are.

Liam Carroll doesn't seem to need the help of the Simon Community just yet.

Update on this:

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern has said the Government is looking at a package of measures to help homeowners struggling to make mortgage repayments.

Mr Ahern said there are some legal difficulties but the Government is determined to assist people who are in financial trouble.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ahern-govt-looking-to-help-struggling-homeowners-434800.html#ixzz0XEr1NDSR

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/plans-to-help-struggling-mortgage-holders-welcomed-444496.html

Reports that the Government is to put plans in place to help mortgage holders struggling to make their repayments have been welcomed

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan is to bring proposals to Cabinet shortly and it is hoped an expert group on the issue would then be up and running within weeks.

It has now been designated a "priority matter" for the Government.

Welcoming the development, Noelene Blackwell of the Free Legal Advice Centre however said the Government needs to go further and change the law to help these people.

"If you run a small business and you get into trouble there is legislation there," Ms Blackwell said.

"There are structures there that allow you to announce you have huge debt and you need some system for getting out of it.

"There is no significant system for individuals. What is there is antiquated."

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/wheres-my-bailout-how-to-break-chains-of-negative-equity-1943913.html

^^ Multigenerational mortgages

thebman

It has now been designated a "priority matter" for the Government.

FF = we need to buy votes to get the next election.

newkidonblock

What about this scenario

Joe Bloggs used to employ 30 people, owned his mansion, big car etc

Due to the downturn in business he has had to close his business and let everyone go

As he had given personal guarantees on bank boorrowings his house has now beem repossessed but the bank havnt sold it and still want him to repay the loan in full

What should Joe do next, leave the country or try and get back on his feet but knowing that every penny he earns will go to pay his creditors, or go on the dole???

There are hundreds of Joes out there...

MaceFace

newkidonblock wrote: »

What about this scenario

Joe Bloggs used to employ 30 people, owned his mansion, big car etc

Due to the downturn in business he has had to close his business and let everyone go

As he had given personal guarantees on bank boorrowings his house has now beem repossessed but the bank havnt sold it and still want him to repay the loan in full

What should Joe do next, leave the country or try and get back on his feet but knowing that every penny he earns will go to pay his creditors, or go on the dole???

There are hundreds of Joes out there...

It was Joe who decided to bet his house that his company would not fail. He made that choice himself. No one else.
So, yes, repossess the house. How else do people learn about consequences of their actions?
If he is "bailed out", who actually pays this bailout? Me and You - thats who, and I will be angry as hell if my taxes or my bank charges go to people who overstretched themselves in the boom.
I do have sympathy for these people, but why should I be the one to pay for this?

fontanalis

newkidonblock wrote: »

What about this scenario

Joe Bloggs used to employ 30 people, owned his mansion, big car etc

Due to the downturn in business he has had to close his business and let everyone go

As he had given personal guarantees on bank boorrowings his house has now beem repossessed but the bank havnt sold it and still want him to repay the loan in full

What should Joe do next, leave the country or try and get back on his feet but knowing that every penny he earns will go to pay his creditors, or go on the dole???

There are hundreds of Joes out there...

You mean a business built on credit or connections which lets face it is Ireland in a nutshell.

newkidonblock

MaceFace wrote: »

It was Joe who decided to bet his house that his company would not fail. He made that choice himself. No one else.
So, yes, repossess the house. How else do people learn about consequences of their actions?
If he is "bailed out", who actually pays this bailout? Me and You - thats who, and I will be angry as hell if my taxes or my bank charges go to people who overstretched themselves in the boom.
I do have sympathy for these people, but why should I be the one to pay for this?

But you didnt answer the question posed
What should Joe do next, leave the country or try and get back on his feet but knowing that every penny he earns will go to pay his creditors, or go on the dole???

barochoc

All I know is, I'm out of here ASAP. I've a few things holding me back but hope to be free by the end of this year. May be the summer if lucky.

This is & always was a Banana Republic. Very few countries are on par with us for corruption. Only those under dictatorships or third world.

David McWilliams had been warning the government for years. He was shouting off the roof tops that it was all going to go bang! He was telling us we were up over our heads & that we couldn't sustain the growth any longer because the majority of this was in construction.

Over 300,000 houses are standing empty around the country. There's a mega surplus. Property is not going to recover & it will never reach the ridiculous highs of 2007 again. Negative equity is here to stay!

Bertie got out just before the bang. He handed Biffo a timebomb. FF destroyed this country & I know what will happen next election. The same plonkers who voted them last time will do so again.

Like I said, I'm out of here. Spain looks a lot better to me. Well the economy doesn't really look better but the standard of living is superior. The quality of life is light years away from here. Sun, sun & more sun. That will make up for lots of the everyday bull that life throws at you.

I'm tired of complaining, I'm just going to do something about it. I'm not going to sit here & have this government fleece me, double tax me & throw more crap at me while giving me the fingers behind the tinted windows of their chauffeur driven cars after a fill of pints in the Dail bar.

MaceFace

newkidonblock wrote: »

But you didnt answer the question posed
What should Joe do next, leave the country or try and get back on his feet but knowing that every penny he earns will go to pay his creditors, or go on the dole???

I don't care what he does. Its his life, but just don't expect me to payoff his personal debts.

newkidonblock

MaceFace wrote: »

I don't care what he does. Its his life, but just don't expect me to payoff his personal debts.

But if he goes on the dole YOU WILL

If he leaves the country YOU WILL

However if he can have a structured agreement whereby he pays off an amount he can afford out of future earnings for a fixed period he may stay, paying tax meaning YOU WONT PAY AS MUCH

Now what about his employee Mandy Bloggs, a single mother, who after losing her job is also about to lose her house. If she recieves help YOU WILL PAY but if she recieves no help she will end up in state housing and on social welfare therefore YOU WILL PAY MORE

MaceFace

newkidonblock wrote: »

But if he goes on the dole YOU WILL

If he leaves the country YOU WILL

However if he can have a structured agreement whereby he pays off an amount he can afford out of future earnings for a fixed period he may stay, paying tax meaning YOU WONT PAY AS MUCH

Now what about his employee Mandy Bloggs, a single mother, who after losing her job is also about to lose her house. If she recieves help YOU WILL PAY but if she recieves no help she will end up in state housing and on social welfare therefore YOU WILL PAY MORE

As I said, I don't care what he does. It is his choice.
There are already consequences of this talk of bailing out people who are in debt: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2010/0204/1224263729056.html

It is about doing what is right, and bailing out people who overstretched themselves so they could live in Dublin, or have a big house is just as bad as bailing out the developers who overstretched themselves just the same.

BrownianMotion

newkidonblock wrote: »

But if he goes on the dole YOU WILL

If he leaves the country YOU WILL

However if he can have a structured agreement whereby he pays off an amount he can afford out of future earnings for a fixed period he may stay, paying tax meaning YOU WONT PAY AS MUCH

Now what about his employee Mandy Bloggs, a single mother, who after losing her job is also about to lose her house. If she recieves help YOU WILL PAY but if she recieves no help she will end up in state housing and on social welfare therefore YOU WILL PAY MORE

Before you introduce us to the rest of the Bloggs family, other than writing in CAPS can you provide some backup for your claim that the taxpayer will pay more by not bailing out financially illiterate individuals?

You are also missing the considerable point that it is the moral hazard here that is important. By rewarding irresponsible behaviour like this it sets a dangerous precedent and will have serious social consequences. Maceface's link demonstrates this perfectly.

fontanalis

newkidonblock wrote: »

But you didnt answer the question posed
What should Joe do next, leave the country or try and get back on his feet but knowing that every penny he earns will go to pay his creditors, or go on the dole???

So he shouldn't pay his bills, and do you think his workforce numbers from the peak was sustainable?

baaaa

BrownianMotion wrote: »

You are also missing the considerable point that it is the moral hazard here that is important. By rewarding irresponsible behaviour like this it sets a dangerous precedent and will have serious social consequences. Maceface's link demonstrates this perfectly.

Tbh there's probably a far greater moral hazard in bailing out the banks than bailing out the most indebited homeowners.
If we all put our heads down and pay what we "owe" the banks then we're just walking our kids into the same scenario in 30 years time.
The banks lent people money to buy houses and then destroyed the housing market by manipulating it with cheap,easy credit.

BrownianMotion

baaaa wrote: »

Tbh there's probably a far greater moral hazard in bailing out the banks than bailing out the most indebited homeowners.
If we all put our heads down and pay what we "owe" the banks then we're just walking our kids into the same scenario in 30 years time.
The banks lent people money to buy houses and then destroyed the housing market by manipulating it with cheap,easy credit.

Oh I completely agree. Two wrongs don't make a right however.

baaaa

BrownianMotion wrote: »

Oh I completely agree. Two wrongs don't make a right however.

What makes a right?

BrownianMotion

baaaa wrote: »

What makes a right?

A 'right' is made when taxpayer money is used to provide services for the people who pay those taxes rather than used to bail out reckless individuals/institutions.

You have a different view?

ballinatray

Deleted User wrote: »

Take a look at the range of incomes of the people who will avail of this

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1859

I enjoyed that attachment in your thread..I am not an economist but I blame Gov in its entirity...Read my thread Title.." Gov responsible for collapse of economy"

Drumpot

ballinatray wrote: »

I enjoyed that attachment in your thread..I am not an economist but I blame Gov in its entirity...Read my thread Title.." Gov responsible for collapse of economy"

Who is responsible for putting the government in power ?

Let me put this another way . . If I give the keys to my child to drive my car (before I am fully sure that they are responsible) and they right it off, is it my fault, their fault or perhaps a bit of both ?

On a differant point, from reading some of the comments on this thread (and indeed much of the ignorant comments from many posters on this site) it Never ceases to amaze me how delusional the majority of people in this country are . . voting in morally bankrupt (JOD, lawlor, FF, FG) people is going to get us where we are . . People dont demand much from their T.Ds in terms of moral and ethical standards (had this debate elsewhere).

That aside I am heavily in debt and dont think I should be bailed out. I dont think the banks should be bailed out either but understand that its a necessary evil . .

But to the smug gits who talk of how "responsible" they were by not buying at the peak, be thankful that you were'nt moving house around the time the peak was hit. . Most of you were either lucky or probably not in a position to buy (its easy to forget that online boards are where people get on their high horse with fictitious morals to poke at people just to prove their point).

Hundreds of thousands believed that house prices were going to continue to rise. They had to weigh up the risks of buying v not buying. Young familys, young couples and even expanding families needed to buy or upscale. Young people starting work thought they would never get on the property ladder if they didnt buy.

To assume all these people were reckless is ignorant/smug/naieve & simply highlights how self obsessed, self interested unempathetic the people in this country have become. . Me me me me me . . Screw you . . Its your fault . .. Its the governments fault. . Its the builders fault. . its the banks fault . . But not mine . . Everybody who has a vote has a responsibility to the way this country is run (or run down) . . Neither our government or opposition has been anything worth singing about for a long time and theres only one section of society that can be blamed for giving them the keys to the family car or to be a passenger. . .

newkidonblock

BrownianMotion wrote: »

Before you introduce us to the rest of the Bloggs family, other than writing in CAPS can you provide some backup for your claim that the taxpayer will pay more by not bailing out financially illiterate individuals?

You are also missing the considerable point that it is the moral hazard here that is important. By rewarding irresponsible behaviour like this it sets a dangerous precedent and will have serious social consequences. Maceface's link demonstrates this perfectly.

My point is simply that the insolvent person who has lost thier house etc, if they can not have a legal limit put on how far the banks / creditors can chase them have no incentive to try and get back on their feet and earn a living.

For example; House reposessed and sold at a shortfall of 300K
Car reposessed and sold at shortfall of 5K

Now if Joe is to be persued indefinitely for this money he would be mad to ever try and get a well paid job / overtime etc as any money he earns over the bare minimum could have to be paid over to his creditors.

As the taxpayer is the biggest shareholder in the main banks at this stage it means the taxpayer is bearing this.

If however Joe is given a legal way out by paying say €100 pw for 5 years as a full and final settlement (or it could be higher or lower based on his earnings potential earnings) at least Joe has a reason to try and get b ack on his feet instead of going on social welfare which he will get, loom for state housing etc which will cost the state and the taxpayer more.

It is not a case of bailing out someone as actually giving them an incentive to try and get their life back on track.

If Joe leaves the country as some here would prefer, the banks will never get paid anything and as the taxpayer basically owns the banks thats you and me.

As for the use of CAPS thier is nothing wrong with highlighting parts of a statement in CAPS and this is normal in the business world. Sorry if you find it offensive.

newkidonblock

fontanalis wrote: »

So he shouldn't pay his bills, and do you think his workforce numbers from the peak was sustainable?

Reality says he cant pay his bills.

You can not get blood from a stone.

What is your opinion on Budget Travel - where there staff in unsustainable jobs?

I would say obviously because the internet put them out of business, hardly the fault of the management who ran a very successful business for amny years, emoployed loads of people who now have mortgages, no jobs, and may lose their homes. Maybe Budget should have closed a year earlier and let all their staff go instead of trying to keep their business and staff going.

Ray Treacy travel closed and paid all thier creditors and gave the reason that he could no longer make a profit due to the internet, but was not prepared to lose the money he had made over the years. I believe he had 3 staff members who lost their jobs, now I have no idea if they have mortgages etc, but if they do and now lose their homes is that their fault, and after they lose their home they continue to be persued.

The references to Budget and Ray Treacy are purely to make the point of buisnesses closing and the effects they have on 3rd parties, I have no knowledge of any of their staff etc.

newkidonblock

MaceFace wrote: »

As I said, I don't care what he does. It is his choice.
There are already consequences of this talk of bailing out people who are in debt: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2010/0204/1224263729056.html

It is about doing what is right, and bailing out people who overstretched themselves so they could live in Dublin, or have a big house is just as bad as bailing out the developers who overstretched themselves just the same.

How is having your house repossessed being bailed out.

fontanalis

newkidonblock wrote: »

Reality says he cant pay his bills.

You can not get blood from a stone.

What is your opinion on Budget Travel - where there staff in unsustainable jobs?

I would say obviously because the internet put them out of business, hardly the fault of the management who ran a very successful business for amny years, emoployed loads of people who now have mortgages, no jobs, and may lose their homes. Maybe Budget should have closed a year earlier and let all their staff go instead of trying to keep their business and staff going.

Ray Treacy travel closed and paid all thier creditors and gave the reason that he could no longer make a profit due to the internet, but was not prepared to lose the money he had made over the years. I believe he had 3 staff members who lost their jobs, now I have no idea if they have mortgages etc, but if they do and now lose their homes is that their fault, and after they lose their home they continue to be persued.

The references to Budget and Ray Treacy are purely to make the point of buisnesses closing and the effects they have on 3rd parties, I have no knowledge of any of their staff etc.

What are you even proposing for someone in the situation you mentioned? Give him money so his staff can be paid to do nothing? Alot of people were employed during the bubble who will not work in construction again in Ireland, if things were so good how could someone be left with unpaid bills?