Fine Gael's promise to give €120 million to Celtic Tiger house purchasers.

danbohan

Yes; I am not one of them

faceman wrote: »

People choose to have babies, drink alcohol and consume drugs. Yet as tax payees we fork out alot of money to support parents, single parents, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, addictions etc etc. Should we curtail that too because those people chose that lifestyle?

absolutley

this country has far too much handouts like this for instance

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-with-56-convictions-on-euro44000-gets-legal-aid-2538080.html

Kidchameleon

No; I am one of them.

Caoimhín wrote: »

If I thought for one second that buy to let landlords or property speculators will get a sniff of my tax in aid I will shut my business and leave this country for good.

But you don't mind staying here while tens of billions in tax goes to the banks? Strange.

Lumen

danbohan wrote: »

of course people need to buy

No they don't!

Liam Byrne

1. There's a problem with the poll, with an obvious option missing

2. The thread title is also misleading; the proposal is only related to those with mortgages, not those who bought houses.

iPlop

danbohan wrote: »

of course people need to buy , but buy with your eyes open to the pitfalls in 5-10-20- years and dont cry for help when /if it goes wrong . if the normal lending criteria of 3-4 times income had been maintained or people had not delibretely often with banks help lied about their incomes they would not been in the sh1t now

their is no fix ,and no matter what fine gael are promising will their be

That's why im saying stop blaming people for this ,the government allowed property to rise to the level it did because of greed and because of that greed banks had to lend more ,they thought the gravy train would never end.A 3 bed semi-d should have been capped at 150k no more.There should be a fixed price for a standard 3 bed semi.I know a developer that was putting 3 bed semi-d's together for less than 60k in 2006 and selling them for 440k ,that's where the problem lies.

I remember my father in and out of work in the 80's but they were never going to be thrown out of the house.As you said if they had maintained the 2>3 times your salary lending practice we would not be in this mess.Ok there would be no jobs ATM but people would probably be able to cope like they did in the 80's and houses would have never reached the prices they did

sollar

where is the option - no i am not one of them but i agree with this.

You have 3 no ottions and and only one yes option which is for people who are in NE.

Not an objective poll.

whiteonion

Yes; I am not one of them

Sink The Banana wrote: »

That's an excellent idea ,homeless people everywhere.people that lost their home ,getting rent allowance to rent somewhere because they lost their jobs ,throw them to the street ,great idea :rolleyes:

If the prices were to fall that much I would be able to buy one place for myself cash and not have to pay any rent. Then I would get a girlfriend and get her to pay €400 per month to live with me.

Pauleta

Yes; I am not one of them

If you can afford to pay back the loan you took out through your own free will then why should other people have to pay. I didnt take out a massive loan for a house because i knew i couldnt guarantee i would be able to pay it. If you cant payback the money the bank gave you for a house then kindly remove your belongings from the house and leave. I feel for people who have lost their jobs but you get no pity for me if you got yourself a mortgage and cant pay it or your house has lost value.

iPlop

whiteonion wrote: »

If the prices were to fall that much I would be able to buy one place for myself cash and not have to pay any rent. Then I would get a girlfriend and get her to pay €400 per month to live with me.

So by your logic we should make 30 ,40 ,50,000 people homeless so you can buy a house.

Did you say buy a place cash ,no mortgage? then charge your girlfriend 400 euro to live with you? I don't think that's what you meant ,am I reading that wrong?

whiteonion

Yes; I am not one of them

Sink The Banana wrote: »

So by your logic we should make 30 ,40 ,50,000 people homeless so you can buy a house.

Did you say buy a place cash ,no mortgage? then charge your girlfriend 400 euro to live with you? I don't think that's what you meant ,am I reading that wrong?

Yes she would have to pay her fair share to live under the same roof as me, and yes I would buy a place cash only.

What happens to the current homeowners is not my problem. No one put a pistol to their foreheads and forced them to buy home for inflated prices.

danbohan

Yes; I am not one of them

Lumen wrote: »

No they don't!

your forgetting they are Irish

iPlop

whiteonion wrote: »

Yes she would have to pay her fair share to live under the same roof as me, and yes I would buy a place cash only.

What happens to the current homeowners is not my problem. No one put a pistol to their foreheads and forced them to buy home for inflated prices.

charging your girlfriend 400 euro per month to live with you in a mortgage free house?

Ha ha ,no comment:pac:

Please don't run for government.

bmarley

No; I am one of them.

What's the fact that there is a huge need for child psychologist's got to do with the fact that there are a huge number of families in Ireland struggling to pay their mortgages and in negative equity? Nothing really. Personally, I think that it is a great idea on behalf of Fine Gael, particularly at a time when interest rates are on the increase and families are in huge danger of loosing their houses. So what would happy if all these people lost their houses? Where could they be accommodated? Is there enough social housing available? What would become of all the repossessed houses, would they be put back on the market at knock down prices? Nothing would be gained from all of this, in fact our economy would suffer more. It is time people stopped turning against and blaming each other. People who bought properties during the boom did not foresee that they would loose their jobs. I would be grateful for any help the government could give me to enable me to stay in my home.

danbohan

Yes; I am not one of them

bmarley wrote: »

What's the fact that there is a huge need for child psychologist's got to do with the fact that there are a huge number of families in Ireland struggling to pay their mortgages and in negative equity? Nothing really. Personally, I think that it is a great idea on behalf of Fine Gael, particularly at a time when interest rates are on the increase and families are in huge danger of loosing their houses. So what would happy if all these people lost their houses? Where could they be accommodated? Is there enough social housing available? What would become of all the repossessed houses, would they be put back on the market at knock down prices? Nothing would be gained from all of this, in fact our economy would suffer more. It is time people stopped turning against and blaming each other. People who bought properties during the boom did not foresee that they would loose their jobs. I would be grateful for any help the government could give me to enable me to stay in my home.

People who bought properties during the boom did not foresee that they would loose their jobs

did they not ? well unless they were employed in the unreal world of our public sector they should have . what planet are these people living on , losing your job is a fact of life in every country in the world as is illness ,divorce , etc etc ,all of which effect peoples financial position

peasant

At the end of the day it all boils down to one thing only ...the big, gaping black hole that are the Irish banks.

That black hole is so huge, it will suck all the available money out of the economy for years to come. It doesn't matter if you throw the money straight into the hole or go the circuitous route of giving it to mortgage holders first ...the banks will suck it up and it'll be gone.

By giving the bank guarantee, the whole Irish economy has become an indentured servant to the banks for the next two or three decades.

Unless we manage to sever that commitment, nothing really matters. Even the much lauded job creation isn't going to fix this. More people with jobs might shorten the agony from 30 to 20 years ...but for the foreseeable future we're f*cked ..plain and simple

Mike 1972

One of the most immoral, unethical and dishonest election pledges ever

Retail Hell wrote: »

Principal Primary Residences Yes,
Investment Properties No

Like Alison Riordan ?

Monty Burnz

meditraitor wrote: »

FG are members of the Christian Democratic Party in Europe so if you want to support the pope VOTE FG

The Christian Democrats grouping is, along with the Social Democrats, the largest grouping in the European Parliament - home of the normal, mainstream parties.

This is Fianna Failure's record in Europe, from Wikipedia:

In the European Parliament from 1999 to 2009, Fianna Fáil was a leading member of Union for Europe of the Nations, a small national conservative grouping. European political commentators had often noted substantive ideological differences between the party and its colleagues, whose strongly conservative stances had at times prompted domestic criticism of Fianna Fáil. It had previously been a member of the Union for Europe, European Democratic Alliance, and European Progressive Democrats groups.
Party headquarters, over the objections of some MEPs, had made several attempts to sever the party's links to the European right, including an aborted 2004 agreement to join the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR), with whom it already sat in the Council of Europe under the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) banner. On 27 February 2009, Taoiseach Brian Cowen announced that Fianna Fáil proposed to join ELDR and intended to sit with them in the ALDE Group in the European Parliament after the 2009 European elections.[13] The change was made official on 17 April 2009, when FF joined the ELDR.
In October 2009, it was reported that Fianna Fáil had irritated its new Liberal colleagues by failing to vote for the motion on press freedom in Italy (resulting in its defeat by a majority of one in the Parliament) and by trying to scupper their party colleagues' initiative for gay rights.[14] In January 2010, a report by academic experts writing for the votewatch.eu site found that FF "do not seem to toe the political line" of the ALDE group "when it comes to budget and civil liberties" issues.[15]

Union for Europe of the Nations is a bunch of far-right and peasant parties. Perfect for Fianna Failure. And their new more liberal group doesn't seem too happy to have them either.

ejmaztec

I think that any negative-equity adjustment is down to the lender to make, as the lender also knew that property prices could go down as well as up. The lenders want it both ways, to be bailed out by us, and not take a hit on any monies owed to them on domestic mortgages.

This crap should have been sorted out back in 2008.

Monty Burnz

ejmaztec wrote: »

The lenders want it both ways, to be bailed out by us, and not take a hit on any monies owed to them on domestic mortgages.

The lenders ARE us - when will people figure this out? So any debt forgiveness or whatever, any time that a bank gets stiffed for some money - it comes out of our pockets!

ejmaztec

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The lenders ARE us - when will people figure this out? So any debt forgiveness or whatever, any time that a bank gets stiffed for some money - it comes out of our pockets!

Not necessarily, as well as small private investors, lending institutions are also invested in heavily by other financial institutions, and not all of them have their HQs in Ireland.

orourkeda

Yes; I am not one of them

Mark200 wrote: »

Help.

Why don't we bail out everyone who loses on an investment?

jam_mac_jam

Yes; I am not one of them

Sink The Banana wrote: »

That's an excellent idea ,homeless people everywhere.people that lost their home ,getting rent allowance to rent somewhere because they lost their jobs ,throw them to the street ,great idea :rolleyes:

Why are they homeless, can they not rent if they cant afford their house?

jam_mac_jam

Yes; I am not one of them

Where do people think this money is going to come from? More magic money that will just appear?

We cant do this, we are already fecked from taking on the debts of the banks. I dispair at the stupidity of the Irish people, after all this, after the crash people are still thinking "oh have to keep people in their houses" . Have we learnt nothing. There is always somebody else to pick up after you to bail you out, pathetic.

Mike 1972

One of the most immoral, unethical and dishonest election pledges ever

orourkeda wrote: »

Why don't we bail out everyone who loses on an investment?

Lets go the whole hog and bail out those whose horse didnt win the 3.30 at Cheltenham or whose Lotto numbers havent come up

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Why are they homeless, can they not rent if they cant afford their house?

When are people going to realise that

Negative equity /=/ Not being able to meet your repayments
Repossession /=/ Homelessness

iPlop

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Why are they homeless, can they not rent if they cant afford their house?

Because the poster wanted to do this

TBH I'd be happy to see banks raise interest rates alot.
Mortgage interest relief should be scrapped all together.
All rent allowance should be scrapped.
NAMA should start doing fire sales of properties.

This would cause the prices to drop to the levels they were in the nineties.
I would benefit alot from this.

Surly people that cannot afford their mortgage because they lost their jobs are not going to be able to afford rent.And if we scrap rent allowance like the poster said those people will be homeless.Did you read the thread or just the last page?

jam_mac_jam

Yes; I am not one of them

Sink The Banana wrote: »

So no one should buy houses? Right I want to settle down and raise a family but there might be a recession in 10 years so I won't?

That argument doesn't hold water.Lets stop blaming people for buying houses.If there were plenty of jobs and just a property crash with oversupply then this would be a non issue.But all the jobs are gone so people are idiots for buying houses ,Im sick of hearing this shit.We need to fix the problem instead of throwing people out of their houses and calling them idiots.They wern't idiots when the government was encouraging people to buy homes ,obviously because the government was creaming it from property at the time.

For the record I didn't buy in the boom ,Im in full employment and Im on a fixed mortgage that runs out in 2013

No, they shouldnt have bought a house if they cant afford it, in some cases it wasnt their fault but its tough really, is everyone going to be paid back for all money they lost ever.

yes its very sad that there is a recession but the state cannot put everyone right. Its unlucky but that is life and the sooner Irish people wake up and stop their sense of entitlement the better.

Monty Burnz

ejmaztec wrote: »

Not necessarily, as well as small private investors, lending institutions are also invested in heavily by other financial institutions, and not all of them have their HQs in Ireland.

The overwhelming majority of Irish mortgage debt is owed to Irish tax-payer owned banks. True or false?

Mike 1972

One of the most immoral, unethical and dishonest election pledges ever

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Surly people that cannot afford their mortgage because they lost their jobs are not going to be able to afford rent.

Because every rental property in the state costs exactly the same ?

freewheeler

No; I am one of them.

orourkeda wrote: »

Why don't we bail out everyone who loses on an investment?

There is a major difference between an 'investment' and someones HOME! Secondly i dont see any mention of a 'bail out' for struggling mortgage holders..just a helping hand which considering the implications of mass default seems reasonable surely? Considering the blank cheque which was given to the banking sector courtesy of FF anything else is just a drop in the ocean..

iPlop

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Because every rental property in the state costs exactly the same ?

You're trying to tell me that an unemployed person with the basic dole can afford 6 or 700 euro a month in rent ,what about a family of 2 unemployed adults with 2 kids that lost their home because of the crash ,get a grip!



The thing I love about these threads ,we get all the teenagers sitting at home in their parents house telling us "throw 'em to the street ,they shouldn't have bought in the first place ,how dare they start a family ,should've known better ,if you couldn't afford it you shouldn't have bought it"

People could afford their mortgages ,no one knows that they will be employed for the next 30 years

Cop on!

upandcumming

orourkeda wrote: »

If it isnt a bribe or a sweetener then what is it?

upandcumming wrote: »

They're doing something here to keep people in their homes.

.

Dempo1

One of the most immoral, unethical and dishonest election pledges ever

There's a couple of points here, the proposal on the surface seems to be a reasonable idea but hang on a minute.

Firstly TRS is only relevant to those in actual employment (guess what FG, a substantial amount of Mortgage Holders in trouble are not in fact in employment, go figure how this proposal assists them.

Secondly this Negative equity mantra is farcical, this issue is really only a problem or concern if the Mortgage holder is going to sell on the property (not a likely prospect for many years to come, if ever), it is an issue if a mortgage holder is in trouble, see point one:eek:

Thirdly, FG seemed to be confused, it is not just the Celtic tiger house purchasers that are in trouble, many people took out sensible mortgages pre 2004, they were in gainful employment, acted responsibly but now find themselves with reduced wages (if still in employment), enormous tax increases, major cost of living increases and Cuts, more cuts etc. This proposal is blatant discrimination and an over all proposal assisting all mortgage holders in genuine difficulty is what is required.

Finally, i would humbly suggest the new Government begin to enforce their legitimate rights as major shareholders of Banks now trying to further screw mortgage holders with increasing interest rates and from what i can see for NEW money these vultures need. Why is it those who took out mortgages at reasonable rates on money borrowed by banks at very low rates now have to pay for the continuing **** ups of our beloved banks. A mortgage is a contract taken out in good faith, WTF can't previous money borrowed and lent be on fixed rates for the term of said mortgages be kept at those rates, much the same as personal loans, its not as if the banks are being crucified on money previously borrowed, unlike us the tax payer!

Mike 1972

One of the most immoral, unethical and dishonest election pledges ever

So people working and paying tax (particularly in low wage jobs) wouldnt (or more likely couldnt) buy during the boom bubble are now going to be called on to "bail out" those who did and are now pleading poverty on the grounds that they might actually have to (shock horror) move back into rental properties ?

They can go and fuck themselves with a six foot pole

Sink The Banana wrote: »

You're trying to tell me that an unemployed person with the basic dole can afford 6 or 700 euro a month in rent ,what about a family of 2 unemployed adults with 2 kids that lost their home because of the crash ,get a grip!!

Who said anything about 6 or 700 euro a month ?

Monty Burnz

Sink The Banana wrote: »

You're trying to tell me that an unemployed person with the basic dole can afford 6 or 700 euro a month in rent ,what about a family of 2 unemployed adults with 2 kids that lost their home because of the crash ,get a grip!

Are you trying to tell us that an unemployed family with 2 kids has a total income of only €200 per week??

Pull the other one. And of course rents would fall to nothing if the government released all the NAMA property and cut rent allowance to say €200, €250 per month.

mikemac

Yes; I am not one of them

This is up there with the proposal they had to compensate Eircom investors.

iPlop

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you trying to tell us that an unemployed family with 2 kids has a total income of only €200 per week??

Pull the other one. And of course rents would fall to nothing if the government released all the NAMA property and cut rent allowance to say €200, €250 per month.

One of my good friends get's 350 per week for the wife and 2 kids ,he's moved out of the family home as they have tried and failed to get employment over the last 3 years so the keys have been handed back ,their rent is 950 euro a month which they could not afford unless they got rent allowance.Now if we scrapped rent allowance he and his family would be homeless.

Monty Burnz

Sink The Banana wrote: »

One of my good friends get's 350 per week for the wife and 2 kids ,he's moved out of the family home as they have tried and failed to get employment over the last 3 years so the keys have been handed back ,their rent is 950 euro a month which they could not afford unless they got rent allowance.Now if we scrapped rent allowance he and his family would be homeless.

I didn't suggest scrapping it, I suggested cutting it - rents would fall by the amount that it is cut by, so RA renters would be no worse off, and those who have to rent privately would be better off, and the taxpayer would be better off. The only 'victims' would be landlords, and they would only be victims in the same sense that taxi drivers were after the market-distorting limited number of licenses was scrapped.

Cybertron85

The poll should include an option agreeing with the pledge on a case to case basis.

I only started working in 2005 so I didn't buy a house at the completely overpriced prices of the time and I'm happy I made that decision.

However, I understand that a lot of people buying family homes to live in have been screwed over badly and I don't mind some of my taxes going towards helping them out.

I don't want a single cent of my taxes going towards these failed property barons who were looking to play the market and make a profit for themselves, they should live with their bad gamble.

iPlop

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I didn't suggest scrapping it, I suggested cutting it - rents would fall by the amount that it is cut by, so RA renters would be no worse off, and those who have to rent privately would be better off, and the taxpayer would be better off. The only 'victims' would be landlords, and they would only be victims in the same sense that taxi drivers were after the market-distorting limited number of licenses was scrapped.

Sorry Monty you have your wires crossed there ,I was talking about another poster in the thread suggesting that it be scrapped all together along with TRS relief which would result with thousands being made homeless ,just so he could buy a home for cash and charge his girlfriend 400 euro a month rent.I suspect he's from Cavan:pac:

I agree with the point you've just made though

ejmaztec

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I didn't suggest scrapping it, I suggested cutting it - rents would fall by the amount that it is cut by, so RA renters would be no worse off, and those who have to rent privately would be better off, and the taxpayer would be better off. The only 'victims' would be landlords, and they would only be victims in the same sense that taxi drivers were after the market-distorting limited number of licenses was scrapped.

Of course, the landlords who bought during the boom years probably use the rent to pay off their loans, so if there is a cut in the amount of rental income, they won't be able to pay their mortgages, and the tax-payer will end up footing the bill for that problem as well.

iPlop

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So people working and paying tax (particularly in low wage jobs) wouldnt (or more likely couldnt) buy during the boom bubble are now going to be called on to "bail out" those who did and are now pleading poverty on the grounds that they might actually have to (shock horror) move back into rental properties ?

They can go and fuck themselves with a six foot pole.

Nope everyone that's still employed is paying for it ,just as you're paying for all the unemployed people ,shall we cut them off too?

Bob Geldof anyone? Feed Ireland 2011?

Monty Burnz

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Sorry Monty you have your wires crossed there

My bad

Monty Burnz

ejmaztec wrote: »

Of course, the landlords who bought during the boom years probably use the rent to pay off their loans, so if there is a cut in the amount of rental income, they won't be able to pay their mortgages, and the tax-payer will end up footing the bill for that problem as well.

Only for the ones that do have a problem. I don't see why we should be concerned with propping up BTL empires at the cost of every renter in the country, and every taxpayer in the country.

iPlop

We do have to help people that's for sure but how I don't know.If we don't help them they'll lose their homes and then look to rent which will cost the state in millions in rent allowance payments.

Maybe , anyone that bought in the boom should have their home re-valued and then pay the mortgage on what it's worth now for say the next 5 years and then go back to the original amount ,just as a short term solution to stop people defaulting until we can see some sort of light at the end of the tunnel.Maybe there will be a lot more jobs around maybe there won't but it would give some time to find some sort of a solution.

Obviously this isn't the solution for people that are unemployed and can't pay any type of a mortgage ,I don't know what the answer is.


The one and only solution to this crisis is to get people back working again ,then when that happens a legislative cap on the price range of a standard family home and the same with apartments

orourkeda

Yes; I am not one of them

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Lets go the whole hog and bail out those whose horse didnt win the 3.30 at Cheltenham or whose Lotto numbers havent come up

When are people going to realise that

Negative equity /=/ Not being able to meet your repayments
Repossession /=/ Homelessness

Absolutely. It's an idiotic suggestion by the FG party and they should really know better.

People need to accept their share of responsibility for their actions.

Mike 1972

One of the most immoral, unethical and dishonest election pledges ever

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Nope everyone that's still employed is paying for it ,just as you're paying for all the unemployed people ,shall we cut them off too?

Bob Geldof anyone? Feed Ireland 2011?

Its bad enough that people confuse not having the bank owning your own home with homelessness but now youre comparing it with starvation as well.

All this thread needs now is a Godwin -any takers ?

iPlop

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Its bad enough that people confuse not having the bank owning your own home with homelessness but now youre comparing it with starvation as well.

All this thread needs now is a Godwin -any takers ?

It was just there a page or two ago when another poster suggesting stopping all types of relief for everyone in rented or mortgaged home.

He was just one or two words from a Godwin!

ejmaztec

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Its bad enough that people confuse not having the bank owning your own home with homelessness but now youre comparing it with starvation as well.

All this thread needs now is a Godwin -any takers ?

WE could round up all the mortgage defaulters and the homeless and concentrate them in a large camp. We can advise them that work will set them free, and teach them all German.:D

Mike 1972

One of the most immoral, unethical and dishonest election pledges ever

Sink The Banana wrote: »

It was just there a page or two ago when another poster suggesting stopping all types of relief for everyone in rented or mortgaged home.

I suggest you take it up with the poster in question.

My name is URL

One of the most immoral, unethical and dishonest election pledges ever

orourkeda wrote: »

Absolutely. It's an idiotic suggestion by the FG party and they should really know better.

People need to accept their share of responsibility for their actions.

I agree completely, but the problem is that if the people affected; don't pay, then the cost of the losses to the banks will be passed on to everyone else regardless.. be it through higher interest rates or a property market which makes it virtually impossible for anyone to buy or sell.

If they're going to do it it should be heavily regulated and have strict criteria set out for who can avail of it, instead of just a general "well I'm in negative equity so I'm entitled to help" heading.

It's obvious though that FG are playing on the populist idea that anyone in negative equity actually deserves some form of assistance, which is utter crap.