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
The Week in Politics: Patrick Honahan
Options
Comments
-
What of the people who suddenly find a council estate plonked next to them? What effect would this have on the value of their home, in the long-run? When these housing estates were being planned, I assume they were showcased as homes for professionals, not council housing. Would locals have any right to object here?
I am tempted to write at least five caveats or footnotes, but we will see what happens.0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »What of the people who suddenly find a council estate plonked next to them? What effect would this have on the value of their home, in the long-run? When these housing estates were being planned, I assume they were showcased as homes for professionals, not council housing. Would locals have any right to object here?
I am tempted to write at least five caveats or footnotes, but we will see what happens.
thats another version of why are hardworking taxpayers handing money over to some people who sponge of welfare0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »No, we will not agree to disagree. My saying that something is becoming increasingly difficult to understand is not saying that I do not understand it.
If you want to get pedantic fair enough.....i'd rather discuss the issues - you seem to have difficulty staying on topic when called to explain your point0 -
-
Purchasing a Nintendo Wii is hardly a dumb financial decision.
It is if its adding to a truckload of debt.
It used be a rite-of-passage (almost) that when you started work you went mad with the spending and hammered your (small) credit limit. After a year or two sanity tended to prevail and you got your act together.
For a good while , however, the entire country went on this splurge, hammering their large credit card limits, mortgaging and remortgaging up to the hilt and there wasn't anyone there to cry "halt". It was almost your patriotic duty to buy goods, spend on useless services , "climb the property ladder" and saving (or providing for the future) be damned. New houses were fully furnished and kitted out before people moved in (no living for a few months with cardboard floors and empty rooms).
It was like a mad session - everyone around saying "go on", no barman saying "go home" and now folk are waking up to a terrible morning after.0 -
Advertisement
-
nesf, you really believe this guy will change everything ?
You, and a couple of other posters around here, believe that the way to do it is to bring in a fleet of academics to delve into the reasons for the bankiing meltdown and that they can overhaul the entire system ?
We don't believe that he will change everything. We just can't think of someone better qualified for this position. Would you prefer someone from the Dept. of Finance at the helm which would be traditional?0 -
We don't believe that he will change everything. We just can't think of someone better qualified for this position. Would you prefer someone from the Dept. of Finance at the helm which would be traditional?
It's the typical response from someone who has no reasonable line of approach. They will take your position, push it to its extreme, and then proceed to attack that. I mean, I would be astonished if any of "these other posters" believed that Honohan was going to turn the entire system upside-down. I doubt even Honohan would, if he could. A more reasonable person would see what you and I are actually saying, which is the best man for the job is in the seat, and he is making the right moves to push things in the right direction. Will he accomplish his goals? Only time will tell...0 -
If that's where the state can cheapest provide social housing, yes. My view on social housing would be similar to that of my view of the dole. It's a safety net for the short term, not a lifestyle choice. If you want to live in a particular place, earn enough to live there.
I'd love to live in Greystones, unfortunately I don't earn enough to rent even a modest 3 bedroom there for my family. So, we'll live out in Brittas. It's not the state's job to ensure that everyone has everything they desire.
Jaysus! I thought I was throwing you a rhetorical challenge in order to tease out the limits. So if a family in a Walkinstown three-bed semi lose their main income and as a consequence cannot meet mortgage commitments, you would be happy to relocate them to Carrick-on-Shannon. Never mind that it might entail a second adult in the home having to quit a job, or kids having to lose contact with school and friends, or even with grandparents down the road.
I think I'd favour a somewhat more accommodating social policy.0 -
It is if its adding to a truckload of debt.
It used be a rite-of-passage (almost) that when you started work you went mad with the spending and hammered your (small) credit limit. After a year or two sanity tended to prevail and you got your act together.
For a good while , however, the entire country went on this splurge, hammering their large credit card limits, mortgaging and remortgaging up to the hilt and there wasn't anyone there to cry "halt". It was almost your patriotic duty to buy goods, spend on useless services , "climb the property ladder" and saving (or providing for the future) be damned. New houses were fully furnished and kitted out before people moved in (no living for a few months with cardboard floors and empty rooms).
It was like a mad session - everyone around saying "go on", no barman saying "go home" and now folk are waking up to a terrible morning after.
Exactly and this is one of the things that needs to be examined in depth and hopefully we can figure out some way to discourage people from such credit excesses in future.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »Jaysus! I thought I was throwing you a rhetorical challenge in order to tease out the limits. So if a family in a Walkinstown three-bed semi lose their main income and as a consequence cannot meet mortgage commitments, you would be happy to relocate them to Carrick-on-Shannon. Never mind that it might entail a second adult in the home having to quit a job, or kids having to lose contact with school and friends, or even with grandparents down the road.
I think I'd favour a somewhat more accommodating social policy.
I kinda agree but I do think there needs to be some cost associated with the move from a mortgage to social housing. It would introduce serious moral hazard to "convert" a private mortgaged home into a social housing home with far lower repayments for a family. It would simply encourage people to take out very excessive mortgages in the good time with the knowledge that if it all goes pear shaped then sure won't the Government bail us out and we'll get to keep our home and pay for only a fraction of its cost in the long run.0 -
Advertisement
-
I kinda agree but I do think there needs to be some cost associated with the move from a mortgage to social housing. It would introduce serious moral hazard to "convert" a private mortgaged home into a social housing home with far lower repayments for a family. It would simply encourage people to take out very excessive mortgages in the good time with the knowledge that if it all goes pear shaped then sure won't the Government bail us out and we'll get to keep our home and pay for only a fraction of its cost in the long run.
I think it is a real challenge. Many people have taken on very large mortgages to purchase homes that might be considered of moderate quality, and possibly no better than they might have allocated to them as social housing. That was why I chose Walkinstown as my example: there are many houses of that type there (yes, I know the area, and I know that there are also superior quality houses there -- so if anybody reading this lives in Walkinstown, please don't get huffy).
Perhaps the cost of the transition might be two-fold: (1) the former mortgagor, now tenant, might never be allowed acquire ownership rights in the property; (2) the rent might be subject to strict review and be increased to a full market rent whenever the tenant's circumstances improve. You might even design in a third cost, by allowing the state to re-assign housing units when family circumstances change, and move a couple to a smaller unit when the children grow up and leave home.
At some distant future date the state would have a stock of houses to meet social housing needs or to sell on the open market.
The problem with any such proposal is that the state's resources at present are very limited. But I am driven back to the question: if we do not social housing for people who lose their homes, what do we do instead? On my right: rock; on my left: hard place; straight ahead: precipice.0 -
Using your example, the second adult's job should be able to meet the rent of a similar 3 bed semi or a 3 bed terraced house in, or near, Walkinstown. If it doesn't, I'd imagine the family would qualify for FIS and through this, would be able to afford to rent somewhere preferable.P. Breathnach wrote: »Jaysus! I thought I was throwing you a rhetorical challenge in order to tease out the limits. So if a family in a Walkinstown three-bed semi lose their main income and as a consequence cannot meet mortgage commitments, you would be happy to relocate them to Carrick-on-Shannon. Never mind that it might entail a second adult in the home having to quit a job, or kids having to lose contact with school and friends, or even with grandparents down the road.
I think I'd favour a somewhat more accommodating social policy.
Why should social housing be convenient? As far as I can see, the current approach just encourages people to never leave state housing. Welfare is a safety net and imho, it shouldn't be pleasant to be dependant on the state. As far as I'm concerned the state is obliged to meet your basic needs when you can't meet them yourself but it is also obliged to ensure that this is done in the most cost effective fashion possible so that you're not overly burdening the tax payer.0 -
Why should social housing be convenient? As far as I can see, the current approach just encourages people to never leave state housing. Welfare is a safety net and imho, it shouldn't be pleasant to be dependant on the state. As far as I'm concerned the state is obliged to meet your basic needs when you can't meet them yourself but it is also obliged to ensure that this is done in the most cost effective fashion possible so that you're not overly burdening the tax payer.
you forget that social housing is not just about people who lose a job and cant pay a large mortgage
its also there for people in pretty bad circumstances, perhaps from abusive homes as an example, who have nowhere else but the streets...do you think someone like that should just be removed from their entire life, friends, conncections, etc and out in ahouse in a remote, rural part of the country because thats where cheap property is?As far as I can see, the current approach just encourages people to never leave state housing.
now that is an issue, poverty traps are real and certainly have that effect, but I dont think the location of the housing would change that
however, the conditions might, perhaps you believe that the most cost-efficient answer must be the best one. Perhaps for example, if we placed all single parents in a large state-run institution, like an industrial school or a laundry...cant see what might go wrong there?0 -
From what I can see the majority of social housing in Ireland is populated by people who've never had a job and probably will never have one.you forget that social housing is not just about people who lose a job and cant pay a large mortgage
A fair point but I don't think anyone would disagree with using some of the savings made on the majority to fund social housing in existing communities for the minority who are in those pretty bad circumstances.its also there for people in pretty bad circumstances, perhaps from abusive homes as an example, who have nowhere else but the streets...do you think someone like that should just be removed from their entire life, friends, conncections, etc and out in ahouse in a remote, rural part of the country because thats where cheap property is?
Well, if it's so awful to be away from friends and family, I think there's a pretty big incentive to find a job and move closer to where you desire to live. An extra incentive to break the poverty trap cycle can't be a bad thing?now that is an issue, poverty traps are real and certainly have that effect, but I dont think the location of the housing would change that
I'd suggest looking at means of making it practical for single parents to work first: affordable childcare etc. There are plenty of single parents in this country who aren't sponging off the state.however, the conditions might, perhaps you believe that the most cost-efficient answer must be the best one. Perhaps for example, if we placed all single parents in a large state-run institution, like an industrial school or a laundry...cant see what might go wrong there?0 -
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
You are broadening the discussion from the focus I had on mortgage finance. But I will stick to my guns. Large numbers of people are pretty well clueless when it comes to financial matters, and that includes people who might in other areas might be considered very savvy and competent. It's a cultural thing, just as trusting banks was (until recently) culturally underpinned.I don't think the average borrower is as naive, credulous, and trusting as you are making out. This is not about the vultures preying on the innocent little lambs. You don't need much more than primary school maths to understand the concept of a mortgage, after all.
I don't find mortgages difficult to understand. It does, however, involve a bit more than primary school maths. But I do not buy into your image of an equal relationship between borrower and lender. It's contrary to my experience among the people I know, and it's contrary to the accounts we learn about through the media. Banks assured people that things would be all right, and borrowers believed them.That family can then rent a modest home that is well within their means—just like all the other families that did not take out enormous mortgages during the boom years. Here in Donegal, you can now rent a nice 3-bedroom semi-detached for €100 a week or less. Contrary to all the drama in the papers, it's not as if banks are chucking people out on the street! A temporarily damaged credit rating and a bit of wounded pride is the worst that will befall them. However, I absolutely do not believe that people who cannot meet their mortgage repayments should be allowed to remain in "their" homes, for the reasons of moral hazard that nesf outlines above.
I thought it was harsh enough to take a Dublin suburban family and relocate them to Leitrim; now you are implying that they should go to Donegal. These are places that your archetypical Dubs visit for holidays, not to take up residence.
You are very much downplaying the impact on the borrower of being unable to meet mortgage commitments. It's quite a bit more than a temporarily damaged credit rating and a bit of wounded pride.
I am not advocating that people should get off scot-free. I do believe in personal responsibility. What I am trying to work towards is an approach where we can mitigate the damage that people might suffer. I don't have the answer, but I don't find your one very convincing.0 -
I think donegalfella's point was that there's plenty of cheap accomodation available in the private sector. Here's one in a dublin suburb for €130 a week which shouldn't stretch a family on welfare too badly, particularly when rent supplement is taken into account:P. Breathnach wrote: »I thought it was harsh enough to take a Dublin suburban family and relocate them to Leitrim; now you are implying that they should go to Donegal. These are places that your archetypical Dubs visit for holidays, not to take up residence.
http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?search=1&s[cc_id]=ct1&s[a_id]=&s[mnp]=&s[mxp]=600&s[bd_no]=3&s[search_type]=rental&s[furn]=&s[refreshmap]=1&limit=10&search_type=rental&id=7784930 -
I think donegalfella's point was that there's plenty of cheap accomodation available in the private sector. Here's one in a dublin suburb for €130 a week which shouldn't stretch a family on welfare too badly, particularly when rent supplement is taken into account:
http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?search=1&s[cc_id]=ct1&s[a_id]=&s[mnp]=&s[mxp]=600&s[bd_no]=3&s[search_type]=rental&s[furn]=&s[refreshmap]=1&limit=10&search_type=rental&id=778493
and people on welfare may well be doing that
so whats your point?
EDIT: just noticed that this house is, in fact, in Longford
should they be in rural remote Ireland or not?0 -
Apologies, the ad was misleadingly entered. Here's a three bed being advertised for €650 a month in Kimmage to illustrate the point instead: http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?search=1&s[cc_id]=ct1&s[a_id]=&s[mnp]=500&s[mxp]=700&s[bd_no]=3&s[search_type]=rental&s[furn]=&s[refreshmap]=1&limit=10&search_type=rental&id=784009
My point is: if you can't afford your mortgage, you can still put a roof over your family's head by renting, even if you've lost your job and your partner has lost theirs and you're living on welfare. We shouldn't need social housing for people who are capable of working. If we're to provide it anyway, I'd rather it was at lowest cost to the taxpayer rather than lowest inconvenience to the tennant.0 -
Advertisement
-
My point is: if you can't afford your mortgage, you can still put a roof over your family's head by renting, even if you've lost your job and your partner has lost theirs and you're living on welfare. We shouldn't need social housing for people who are capable of working. If we're to provide it anyway, I'd rather it was at lowest cost to the taxpayer rather than lowest inconvenience to the tennant.
i am a bit confused
you are going on about people on social housing all being people who never worked and wont worked; now you are takling about people losing thier jobs?
is there some evidence that lots of people losing their jobs are being given lcoal authority homes? I dont think thats the case, its clear the best option is to help people keep a roof over their head until they can get another job.
this can happen in the form of the mortgage subsidy
in the long-term if a family has to lose their house there are options around rent subsidy for renting a private house etc; there is not actually that much local authority housing stock
for tohers who might lose their home, they may well still be earning wenough to source another cheaper home and that might well be what happens
however dont overlook the fact that losing a house is not a clean break, they still may owe a lot to banks (especially given negative equity rates) and be paying off through any earnings for some time.0 -
Well, the conversation has veered a bit all over the place so I'll summarise it briefly for you. My initial response was to this:P. Breathnach wrote:I do not suggest that a person unable to meet mortgage commitments be gifted a house. But what is to happen? If a bank exercises its charge and takes possession of a house, evicting a family, what is to happen that family?
I mentioned that they should still be able to rent accomodation and that, if for some reason they weren't in a position to do so, there's plenty of over-supply in the housing market so the government should be able to provide social housing quite cheaply (either by renting or taking housing at a heavy discount on their original asking price as part payment of tax debts etc.).
P. Breathnach objected to this, as most of the over-stock is 'in the sticks'. I don't see how someone receiving free housing has the moral right to demand that it be in a specific location when that's not a privilege any of us paying our own rent have - i.e. we rent where we can afford to.
I'm not over-looking it. Those debts will still have to be paid back but they're going to be paid back slowly. No court is going to grant a lien against wages that would put a family out of reasonable rental accomodation or take food from their mouths.Riskymove wrote:however dont overlook the fact that losing a house is not a clean break, they still may owe a lot to banks (especially given negative equity rates) and be paying off through any earnings for some time.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
I'm not sure JM, my mind reading abilities aren't what they were. Maybe if people hear DIRT inquiry, they might wonder why other issues that led to the Banking Crisis were uncovered/not touched upon.
The terms of any inquiry will be crucial.
Lawlor and Burke went to prison as a result of the tribunals. The tribunals have also shown the public what certain public figures thought was acceptable. They still get elected though, biscuit-tin Bertie springs to mind. The people are revolting, eh?
Lawlor never went to jail for corruption AFAIK he went to jail for contempt of court.Flamed Diving wrote: »I can't find the link.
Got it:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1220/weekinpolitics_av.html?2671864,null,230
Just watched it. The man is an absolute legend, I wish we had more like him in positions of power. I had the pleasure of having him as a lecturer and I must say he is a gent, to boot.
Ah that explains a few things. :rolleyes:We don't believe that he will change everything. We just can't think of someone better qualified for this position. Would you prefer someone from the Dept. of Finance at the helm which would be traditional?
Check any of my posts, as I am sure you can quiet easily and you will find I have always complained how head of central bank came form Dpet of Finance prior to his placement on the baord of one of the major banks.
Time honoured tradition.
So don't be disengenous that I would ever suggest that course of action.
IMHO it should have been somebody totally outside of Ireland.
I wish Honohan luck, but unless he massively overhauls the entire system, fires half the staff and finds a government not totally mired in the whole mess then he is in for a very hard time.Flamed Diving wrote: »It's the typical response from someone who has no reasonable line of approach. They will take your position, push it to its extreme, and then proceed to attack that. I mean, I would be astonished if any of "these other posters" believed that Honohan was going to turn the entire system upside-down. I doubt even Honohan would, if he could. A more reasonable person would see what you and I are actually saying, which is the best man for the job is in the seat, and he is making the right moves to push things in the right direction. Will he accomplish his goals? Only time will tell...
Hmmmm.
The best man according to you, one of his ex students who happens to think he is a legend. :rolleyes:
I know some who thought Seanie Fitz was a legend as well. :rolleyes:
Sure wasn't bertie only a legend ?
The system is broken, and the program last night highlighted just how broken it was.
Look at the history of CB over last 20 years and see the overchargign, the dodgy share deals, the non resident accounts and tax evasion.
What did the CB do ?
Ehhh nothing.
IN were lending wrecklessly so they sent them a letter, then another one and basically Fingelton gave them the bird.
What did the CB, IFSRA do ?
Ehhh nothing.
And guess what the Irish taxpayers are now going to be left with 8.5 billion of sh**e from IN, a small little mutual building society FFS.
The system is broken and replacing the head ain't going to change the rot that is at the very core.
Look at HSE for example.
Yeah lets all be reasonable, have a nice little enquiry, have a nice report at the end, say how awful it was, but do sweet shag all meaningful as usual and hey presto normal service will be resumed down the road.
What age are you BTW, how many tribunals of enquiry do you remember ?
We are past the time for the reasonable Irish approach.
The country's reputation is in the gutter, the reputation of our stock exchange, regulatory authorities, banks and Dept of Finance are didly squat in international terms.
Lets stick a sticking plaster on it and hopefully people forget as usual. :rolleyes:
Except this time the foreigners (e.g Germand taxpayer and Hypo Real Estate bailout) who were badly burnt thanks to little ould Ireland aren't going to forget.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Thanks for another unreadable wall of gibberish.0
-
Flamed Diving wrote: »Thanks for another unreadable wall of gibberish.
Great comment.
BTW I'll bet you didn't learn your condescending attitude from your esteemed ex lecturer ?I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Check any of my posts, as I am sure you can quiet easily and you will find I have always complained how head of central bank came form Dpet of Finance prior to his placement on the baord of one of the major banks.
Time honoured tradition.
So don't be disengenous that I would ever suggest that course of action.
IMHO it should have been somebody totally outside of Ireland.
I wish Honohan luck, but unless he massively overhauls the entire system, fires half the staff and finds a government not totally mired in the whole mess then he is in for a very hard time.
See, I wasn't saying you were proposing that and frankly I don't get how you read it that way! I was pointing out that we're happy because finally an academic with a solid background in the area is in charge rather than a civil servant come off the escalator from Dept. of Finance.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
See, I wasn't saying you were proposing that and frankly I don't get how you read it that way! I was pointing out that we're happy because finally an academic with a solid background in the area is in charge rather than a civil servant come off the escalator from Dept. of Finance.
What I fail to get is how both yourself and flame diver are both so in love with the guy.
Ok flame diver is old student of his.
Call me cynical, but I don't see how appointing one guy to the top of a totally inept organisation that are historically so beholden to the very people they are meant to regulate will make the necessary huge differences.
If Honohan starts culling entire departments with the CB I will be happy.
Anyway how much influence will he have in the useless spawn of the CB, the IFSRA ?
That organisation should be shelved entirely and at it's previous heads brought to court for negligence and treason.
Yes he is massive improvement in what went before, but changing one figurehead is not enough I believe.true, but neither Lawlor nor Burke would have gone to prison if we hadn't had the tribunals. Also both would probably have been reelected in their respective constituencies.
I have to say the hundreds of millions spent must have been the most expensive methods of getting anyone to jail in the history of this and probably many other states.
Who exactly ended up in jail for all these millions spent: Redmond, Burke, Lawlor on (technicality) and Dunlop.
Oh we will get a report at the end but will we get further prosecutions of the major players ?
Doesn't appear to be really great value for money.
The tribunals were a way of prolonging the inevitable and having a drip drip feed.
Also it avoided real prosecutions I feel.
Maybe a DIRT style enquiry would work, but I firmly believe there also needs to be major changes to our regulatory authorities, our stock exchange rules and our corporate enforcement.I am not allowed discuss …
0
Advertisement