Mortgage Arrears Problem in Ireland.

jpb1974

no it doesn't - owning you own home is a luxury - you made the decision to buy that luxury and you have to face the consequences when you can no longer afford that luxury. Everyone is entitled to a roof over their head but that does not mean that everyone is entitled to OWN THEIR OWN HOME.

So when someone receives the dole there is a fixed list of non-luxury items that they are prohibited from purchasing?

You can't use the dole to fund a holiday or buy a car?

A home is a roof over your head. It's the same thing whether rented or purchased in so far as they both have costs associated with them.

Monty Burnz

jpb1974 wrote: »

What I'd specifically like to know is how you plan now to pay for 100% of your mortgage for the next 20 years without any guarantee of employment for tomorrow.

I didn't plan to do that, and I never did. I just planned to avoid the most obvious property bubble in human history (well, maybe tied with the Japanese one). And I did that successfully - I even tried to warn other people, but they thought rent was dead money/needed a home for their child/some other nonsense reason and went ahead and bought the bubble anyway.

But, all things going well, I will do exactly what you are wondering about ("how you plan now to pay for 100% of your mortgage for the next 20 years without any guarantee of employment for tomorrow") in 5 years or so.

How? Buy a house with cash.

carm

dolphin city wrote: »

as I thought - never mind thinking for yourself - just go along with whatever idiot in govt is doing at the time.

Obviously you didn't take time to read my first post. Next time you post, have the decency to read carefully. If I do end up leaving my house, one which I bought just before the complete and utter craziness and is not in negative equity and can make money if I sold, I will rent.

If I cannot get a job, I will be walking into the SW office looking for rent relief. Either way, it's the tax payer paying. I was one once for decades.

For the record, I don't listen to politicians until they've completely crapped up a country where we can all laugh at the stupidity of their arguments and inane quotes from the past.

fliball123

BluePlanet wrote: »

Well if you are a future house buyer than you should be glad to see valuations plummet. And you'd be against these artifical price ceilings FF have attempted to create.

Where have I said anything about me being against prices plummeting...show me one post?

Its all artificial I think if someone is paying simular tax to me if they want to buy a house or have one they should have a tax credit to do so...

sarumite

jpb1974 wrote: »

So when someone receives the dole there is a fixed list of non-luxury items that they are prohibited from purchasing?

You can't use the dole to fund a holiday or buy a car?

A home is a roof over your head. It's the same thing and whether rented or purchased they both have costs associated with them.

Well you can...but if you cannot afford to make the repayments on the car, don't come asking for more.

jpb1974

How? Buy a house with cash.

There you go folks... the pearl of wisdom we've all been waiting for.

The key to buying your own home: Save the entire cost upfront.

Thanks Monty (and we didn't have to buy a single book or a crystal ball).

CiaranC

jpb1974 wrote: »

A home is a roof over your head. It's the same thing whether rented or purchased in so far as they both have costs associated with them.

Are you actually serious?

If you receive rent allowance, the government (i.e. the rest of us) is providing a service by providing somewhere for you to live.

If you receive a mortgage allowance, the government (i.e. the rest of us) is paying for you to own a private asset.

Can you not see the difference? Can you not see how someone would be happy to pay into a system that keeps people from becoming homeless, but seriously unhappy to pay into a system which buys you a house?

Im starting to think you are taking the piss.

carm wrote:

If I cannot get a job, I will be walking into the SW office looking for rent relief. Either way, it's the tax payer paying.

Another one. Its what they are paying for that is the difference. Its not the taxpayers place to buy you a house. Buy your own house if you want, dont expect me to pay for it.

sarumite

jpb1974 wrote: »

No, what you said was effectively 'read a few book and use some common sense'.

What I'd specifically like to know is how you plan now to pay for 100% of your mortgage for the next 20 years without any guarantee of employment for tomorrow.

So please explain this.

Personally I don't see that is possible (unless you can afford to buy a house with cash!!!).....but then anyone who buys a house thinking its a risk free venture shouldnt be buying a house.

fliball123

Look I can see both sides of this argument...But lets put some perspective on this

ok there are 1 million people currently with mortgages 1/2 are in neg equity
People are losing jobs
House prices are dropping continusously therefor uping the amount of people in neg equity all the time and increasing the amount of neg equity all the time
These people cannot default as the debt will follow them.

Now lets break this down.

If you are 50k neg equity and you can no longer afford to pay. what are your options. This is the fundamental question everyone needs to look at and what is the least cost to the tax payer..

People have bandied the following

Debt forgiveness - tax payer takes the full loss - I dont like this idea

Bank takes the house and sells it. the owner still owes the balance and the tax payer still has to pay for this person to be housed. Also the bank aka tax payer still has an asset worth a lot less - I dont like this idea either

Or as I have suggested 3 other options which will cost the tax payer a lot less...but go figure but I will remind people of this in say 2 years time when we the tax payer are the biggest house owners in the country as thats what will happen...

Or has anyone any better ideas??? if so dont be shy we need a civil debate on this...anyone attacking the poster should feck off

Lu Tze

jpb1974 wrote: »

There you go folks... the pearl of wisdom we've all been waiting for.

The key to buying your own home: Save the entire cost upfront.

Thanks Monty (and we didn't have to buy a single book or a crystal ball).

Not beyond the bounds of possibility, if i stayed where i am and saved hard for the next three years, i could walk back in with 50%+ of the asking prices i would expect at that stage. Give it 6 years and would likely be able to return and buy outright.

There are many abroad in similar situations who might see it as an opportunity to go home.

jpb1974

Are you actually serious?

Do you start every thread with this?

Can you not see the difference? Can you not see how someone would be happy to pay into a system that keeps people from becoming homeless, but seriously unhappy to pay into a system which buys you a house?

I never suggested that the Government buy anyone a house.

I've paid handsomely into the system for the past 15+ years so I'd like to think that the system might help me someday if I need it.

Please read back over my posts from yesterday to see what I support.

Then come back and question me.

eamo12

How about all those ppl who profited most from the boom contribute and I'm not talking just about Seanie Fitz. For example, those bought their houses for 100K and sold for 300K. Easy for them to say now that they shouldn't be responsible for those who bought between 2005 and 2008. They were happy to be greedy when it suited them.

Also, those who bought during the boom are much more likely to be on variable mortgages and are now subsidizing trackers i.e. those who profited most from the boom. The working poorest subsiding the comfortable middle classes as usual - so much for shouldering the burden together.

carm

CiaranC wrote: »

Another one. Its what they are paying for that is the difference. Its not the taxpayers place to buy you a house. Buy your own house if you want, dont expect me to pay for it.

What ARE you talking about? First of all you've accused me of wanting your grubby money, now you're crapping about taxpayers forking out for people's house buying? !!

Again, I never stated there should be a bail out for homeowners. I am for lenders being more lenient on mortgage payments, which has sweet FA to do with you.

I am making a point -- if a person is forced out of their house, they will be taking your ever so hard earned money (or wherever it came from) by way of rent relief. So come up with a decent solution points instead of cupping your hands over your precious cash.

BluePlanet

fliball123 wrote: »

Look I can see both sides of this argument...But lets put some perspective on this

ok there are 1 million people currently with mortgages 1/2 are in neg equity
People are losing jobs
House prices are dropping continusously therefor uping the amount of people in neg equity all the time and increasing the amount of neg equity all the time
These people cannot default as the debt will follow them.

Now lets break this down.

If you are 50k neg equity and you can no longer afford to pay. what are your options. This is the fundamental question everyone needs to look at and what is the least cost to the tax payer..

People have bandied the following

Debt forgiveness - tax payer takes the full loss - I dont like this idea

Bank takes the house and sells it. the owner still owes the balance and the tax payer still has to pay for this person to be housed. Also the bank aka tax payer still has an asset worth a lot less - I dont like this idea either

Or as I have suggested 3 other options which will cost the tax payer a lot less...but go figure but I will remind people of this in say 2 years time when we the tax payer are the biggest house owners in the country as thats what will happen...

Or has anyone any better ideas??? if so dont be shy we need a civil debate on this...anyone attacking the poster should feck off

I've highlighted the best idea imo.
It's cheaper today to fund someone on sw + rent allowance than it was during the boom. Also, sw and rental allowance can come down quite a bit. Particularly since we are trying to become more "competitive" regards wages. I expect sw entitlements to decrease in the upcoming years.

I'd like to add, that we still haven't reached the bottom of the cycle. So we don't really know what house values truly are. FF's artificial price ceilings need to be let go. Once we are at the bottom, then we can start climbing out. Preventing the bottom is just delaying the pain.

CiaranC

jpb1974 wrote: »

There you go folks... the pearl of wisdom we've all been waiting for.

The key to buying your own home: Save the entire cost upfront.

Thanks Monty (and we didn't have to buy a single book or a crystal ball).

Hes shown how to buy a house intelligently. Put the (dead) money you save on mortgage interest into a savings account, then use it and its yield to buy a house for cash after x amount of years. You gain both the benefits of renting while young - mobility, freedom, flexibility to move with work etc and the benefits of owning a home while old, no rent, somewhere to settle down, a nest egg to pass on etc.

This is simple, intelligent, sound financial advice. The fact that you cannot grasp his simple idea speaks volumes.

Monty Burnz

jpb1974 wrote: »

There you go folks... the pearl of wisdom we've all been waiting for.

The key to buying your own home: Save the entire cost upfront.

Thanks Monty (and we didn't have to buy a single book or a crystal ball).

And you still haven't explained why people in negative equity should be given their houses for free.

Lu Tze

fliball123 wrote: »

Look I can see both sides of this argument...But lets put some perspective on this

ok there are 1 million people currently with mortgages 1/2 are in neg equity
People are losing jobs
House prices are dropping continusously therefor uping the amount of people in neg equity all the time and increasing the amount of neg equity all the time
These people cannot default as the debt will follow them.

Now lets break this down.

If you are 50k neg equity and you can no longer afford to pay. what are your options. This is the fundamental question everyone needs to look at and what is the least cost to the tax payer..

People have bandied the following

Debt forgiveness - tax payer takes the full loss - I dont like this idea

Bank takes the house and sells it. the owner still owes the balance and the tax payer still has to pay for this person to be housed. Also the bank aka tax payer still has an asset worth a lot less - I dont like this idea either

Or as I have suggested 3 other options which will cost the tax payer a lot less...but go figure but I will remind people of this in say 2 years time when we the tax payer are the biggest house owners in the country as thats what will happen...

Or has anyone any better ideas??? if so dont be shy we need a civil debate on this...anyone attacking the poster should feck off

Why is this a given? They may not be able to afford the mortgage repayments, but may be able to afford rent + debt repayments

jpb1974

Again, I never stated there should be a bail out for homeowners. I am for lenders being more lenient on mortgage payments, which has sweet FA to do with you.

Unfortunately carm I've been trying to make this point myself since yesterday but the haters just can't seem to get past the concept of mortgage debt bailout.

I don't know what you're supposed to do here when you support one thing but everyone else is intent on talking about mortgage debt bailout, pads in Dublin City Centre worth €500K and luxurious German cars.

jpb1974

And you still haven't explained why people in negative equity should be given their houses for free.

When did I ever say that I supported such an initiative?

The only thing I support is giving people the opportunity to keep their homes in a manner that is fair and consistent to all parties concerned

Not once did I say that I supported mortgage debt bailouts.

Monty Burnz

jpb1974 wrote: »

When did I ever say that?

When did I ever say I had a crystal ball? You decided to introduce a straw man, so I thought I would have a go. At least my straw man bears some relation to what you are saying.

sarumite

fliball123 wrote: »

Or as I have suggested 3 other options which will cost the tax payer a lot less...but go figure but I will remind people of this in say 2 years time when we the tax payer are the biggest house owners in the country as thats what will happen...

Or has anyone any better ideas??? if so dont be shy we need a civil debate on this...anyone attacking the poster should feck off

There are inherent difficulties in your 3 options....1st one requires massive cash injection by the government, cash it doesn have. 2nd is so unfair to those that didn't buy a house (Its reprehensible to have someone pay more tax than someone else because they weren't in the position to buy a house. 3rd probably wouldn't pass EU laws.

My preferred choice is bankruptcy. The person declares bankruptcy and losses their property. The bank repossess it and rents it back to them. Their record is tainted for a period of time (for arguments sake say 5 years). When the property prices pick up the bank sells it off.

jpb1974

This is simple, intelligent, sound financial advice. The fact that you cannot grasp his simple idea speaks volumes.

Err.. what part didn't I grasp?

fliball123

BluePlanet wrote: »

I've highlighted the best idea imo.
It's cheaper today to fund someone on sw + rent allowance than it was during the boom. Also, sw and rental allowance can come down quite a bit. Particularly since we are trying to become more "competitive" regards wages. I expect sw entitlements to decrease in the upcoming years.

I'd like to add, that we still haven't reached the bottom of the cycle. So we don't really know what house values truly are. FF's artificial price ceilings need to be let go. Once we are at the bottom, then we can start climbing out. Preventing the bottom is just delaying the pain.

Well its a solution if a bit unfair on the person who owes the cash ...I mean if a business was in the same position they would be able to walk away..I think your solution would work if some of the neg equity was taken by the bank..as there were 2 sides to it the lender and the person getting the loan so the risk is shared so the debt should be aswell

dolphin city

jpb1974 wrote: »

So when someone receives the dole there is a fixed list of non-luxury items that they are prohibited from purchasing?

You can't use the dole to fund a holiday or buy a car?

A home is a roof over your head. It's the same thing whether rented or purchased in so far as they both have costs associated with them.

oh silly me.

I forgot about Window 5 in every dole office - the "caribbean holiday" payments allowance,
as well as Window 8- the "drive your own porsche" allowance window.

as far as your third statement - well all I can say to you is

there is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

fliball123

Lu Tze wrote: »

Why is this a given? They may not be able to afford the mortgage repayments, but may be able to afford rent + debt repayments

Well the fact is that the system in Ireland is geared for this...Why would you bother working for say 2k a month if 1.5k is going on rent and paying back neg equity when you can stop working get the dole and basically pay no bills as you are not working....No court in the country will throw you out if you unemployed...Unfortunately this is the situation in Ireland...Dont hate the poster hate the post

dolphin city

carm wrote: »

Obviously you didn't take time to read my first post. Next time you post, have the decency to read carefully. If I do end up leaving my house, one which I bought just before the complete and utter craziness and is not in negative equity and can make money if I sold, I will rent.

If I cannot get a job, I will be walking into the SW office looking for rent relief. Either way, it's the tax payer paying. I was one once for decades.

For the record, I don't listen to politicians until they've completely crapped up a country where we can all laugh at the stupidity of their arguments and inane quotes from the past.

some people have been laughing at their stupidity for years, as well as laughing at the ones running in for 100 percent mortgages. payback's a bithc. literally.

CiaranC

jpb1974 wrote: »

Err.. what part didn't I grasp?

You didnt grasp that buying a house for cash is clearly a realistic option under current market conditions. In fact its probably the best option out there and makes perfect sense. Especially as anyone with half a brain will have held off buying a house since at least 2006 and will already have considerable savings. Match that with a slowly falling market with a long way to go, and well, even you can think it through to conclusion.

Instead you dismissed it with a sarcastic response.

BluePlanet

fliball123 wrote: »

Well its a solution if a bit unfair on the person who owes the cash ...I mean if a business was in the same position they would be able to walk away..I think your solution would work if some of the neg equity was taken by the bank..as there were 2 sides to it the lender and the person getting the loan so the risk is shared so the debt should be aswell

Why is it unfair?
You've asked the Bank for a loan and they provided it. You spent the loan on a house and probably furnishings. Why is it unfair to pay that loan back?

fliball123

sarumite wrote: »

There are inherent difficulties in your 3 options....1st one requires massive cash injection by the government, cash it doesn have. 2nd is so unfair to those that didn't buy a house (Its reprehensible to have someone pay more tax than someone else because they weren't in the position to buy a house. 3rd probably wouldn't pass EU laws.

My preferred choice is bankruptcy. The person declares bankruptcy and losses their property. The bank repossess it and rents it back to them. Their record is tainted for a period of time (for arguments sake say 5 years). When the property prices pick up the bank sells it off.

First how is just taking 10% of the loan and reapplying it at the end need a cash injection??

secondly how is me paying 10% of my tax for a mortgage and I hightlighted that an underlined it unfair on people who did not buy a house..They should have the same option if they choose to?

We own the irish banks we have Irish regulations aswell first and formost and we have the power to force banks to offer people a fixed interest rate over the duration of the loan. Its done in other countries

Unfortuantaly the bankrupcy laws are out of date in this country I know people who are going to england renting for a few months and then declaring bankrupcy ala that cnut Drum out of Anglo Irish did so in the states

dan_d

carm wrote: »

I cannot believe the anger here.

We bought in 2004, just pre-exorbitant-prices era. We have both worked and paid taxes for 15+ years. We wanted a standard house in a standard area to bring up our one child, a family home. We didn't want to make money, didn't buy to sell, expected to live in it until we paid off the mortgage as we had already paid dead rent money to landlords for over 10 years. We didn't exaggerate our salaries, we didn't lie to get our mortgage in early 2004. We didn't join the Section 23 "oooh goodie, a second house I can buy and rent and make lots of extra money" investors brigade.

We haven't lived the "celtic tiger", own one car, a holiday if we're lucky, didn't overspend, etc.

We did expect to cover our mortgage, planned it in case one or both of us lost our jobs, that we could expect to find one job between us, as nobody in Ireland expected the complete and utter disaster that Bertie Ahern, Charlie McCreevy (let's not forget Charlie), Brian Lenihan and Brian Cowen of Fianna Fail and the lovely legacy they have left us. Let's not forget who created the property bubble and who has walked away/is walking away with cosy big wads of cash.

I haven't worked for over a year and my husband who has worked for nearly 30 years (probably longer than some of your ages on this forum) his business has gone to sh1te, thanks to overpriced rates, completely ridiculous rents, nobody buying and a government et al who kept advising its country people again and again there would be a soft landing. If we had been advised correctly, we would not find ourselves in this position.

What did you want people to do? Never buy a house "in case" this happened? Nobody, not your overpaid Banking Regulator, ESRI, Central Bank did their jobs well.

With regard to renting, if someone cannot afford to pay their mortgage and they were to lose their house, how do you think they will pay the rent? Yes, you guessed it. The Social welfare. Either way, the tax payer pays.

Having said that, I would get E100s out of renting from the Social Welfare system than what I presently get from SW paying a mortgage. I get a big fat E0. You're right, maybe it is time to go back to renting. Then the lender can hold on to a house they can't sell.

There's no point trying to explain your situation here, people don't want to hear it.Apparently it's a luxury to have a roof over your head, especially if it's a roof that you buy and not rent. Course if nobody's allowed to buy,because that's stupid, then how would any of us have properties available for us to rent? Somebody has to own property somewhere, either for people to rent, or to live in themselves. It's all very well to quote Switzerland, but in case people hadn't noticed there is a completely and totally different social system in place there, whereby tenants have rights, and there are laws, that people actually follow, in regard to renting. We do not have that system in place.

As for being on the dole - well, here I am back on the dole, after 6 months of frantic job hunting, and (having finally found something), 3 weeks of work, before being told I'm now on temporary lay off. It's a super feeling. Couldn't wait to get back to the Social welfare office, to pick up my handouts every week, so I can do nothing all day.

For those of you who don't notice, that is serious sarcasm. But the way some people go on, I feel I should have dumped the TV in my living room, the computer, my phone, my car, moved out of our house - everything - the minute I went on the dole. Because I "shouldn't be able to afford these things". You know what? There are actually people out here who did plan for the eventuality of losing their job, and who can - just- cover their bills, and who have their own,private (not paid for by the begrudging taxpayer) insurance to cover their mortgage payments, while unemployed. But believe me, as I sit here struggling with serious anxiety problems and panic attacks as a result of the situation I now find myself in, once again (through no fault of my own - once again), you have absolutely no idea what it's like unless you've been here, and further more, you have no right to judge others.

I personally, do not want a return of the property bubble.I do not advocate a bailout of every mortgage holder out there. But you can't just tar everyone with the same brush and say "you should have known". Known what, exactly?? That we were in a bubble? Fair enough. That every politician, banker and regulator would be exposed as being complete frauds, and the world economy would crash? None of us can see the future I'm afraid, and a lot of us actually need somewhere to live, especially with kids.