Mortgage Arrears Problem in Ireland.

jpb1974

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.

How do you know I didn't grasp something?

Where did I actually dismiss it?

I think (I use my words careful, I don't pretend to know for a fact) you're making a lot of assumptions fella.

fliball123

BluePlanet wrote: »

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?

Because as I say the bank also took the risk and should share the pain of the loss at the very least

CiaranC

dan_d wrote: »

Apparently it's a luxury to have a roof over your head, especially if it's a roof that you buy and not rent.

Why is this even in question? Of course it is a luxury to own a house. What else could it be?

dolphin city

dan_d wrote: »

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.

which is more important to you - to be surrounded by bricks and mortar
or to have your health. If you are having health problems over it, walk away from it.

CiaranC

jpb1974 wrote: »

How do you know I didn't grasp something?

Where did I actually dismiss it?

Fair enough, if you accept that he is right and you are wrong then just say it. No need for dancing around with the word games.

jpb1974

dan_d wrote: »

None of us can see the future I'm afraid, and a lot of us actually need somewhere to live, especially with kids.

And this is what it all boils down to.

For the love of me I can't understand how people who paid their taxes all down through the years now can't look for a little assistance in return for their contributions without all this bitterness.

Can we forget about "mortgage debt write off" for even an hour?

I've said it once and I'll say is again:

I firmly believe that nobody wants a bailout. All people want is a bit of time and understanding. A chance for the economy to sort itself out. A chance for jobs to be created. A chance to find employment. A chance to start re-paying the mortgage and to start contributing to the economy again.

BluePlanet

fliball123 wrote: »

Because as I say the bank also took the risk and should share the pain of the loss at the very least

If you were willing to make payments on the Asset for 30 years, i see nothing wrong with the Bank re-claiming the Asset, selling it for what they can, and you making up the difference within those 30 years.

Dempo1

CiaranC wrote: »

These mechanism already exist via your lender. Mortgage holders have already been given a years grace to get their houses in order. What more do you want? Anything more is a bailout using taxpayers money.

Time for a reality check, these mechanism's don't already exist, firstly there is this bizarre notion Banks are falling over themselves to assist mortgage holders, they are not. Yes there are supposed to me mechanism's in place but its a legal and bureaucratic nightmare. At best a customer may get an interest payment period and for a limited period of time, but guess what, some if not all banks have hiked their rates. I can vouch for same as it affects me, in fact having negotiated an interest payment period and getting it, the very next day PTSB kindly added an additional 1%. My mortgage is small but i feel for anyone with a large mortgage under such arrangement. The Hikes are predicted to rise and rise so one wonders where is all going to go.

Eddie Hobbs made some interesting points this morning. Most if not all French & German mortgages are on permanent fixed rates for the duration of term, in fact he confirmed what i knew, Mortgage Holders can get fixed rates of 3% for up to 30 years. I have said time and time again, the Irish Mortgage model is UN sustainable. Again, i don't want or expect a hand out but I would advocate a very simple solution, Fix rates through legislation at sustainable levels and it does not cost the tax payer a red cent.

Finally, you appear to think the simple solution is for people to give up their houses etc etc, guess what, if the situation continues as is, you just might get your wish but unfortunately one side affect is a massive increase in the need for social housing and Guess who pays for that and all that comes with it! YOU:P

Monty Burnz

fliball123 wrote: »

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?

Because the 10% that you don't pay the government has to be taxed from other people instead. We can't give people 10% less social services, or policing, or education. Those will stay the same, with other taxpayers making up the deficit.

fliball123 wrote: »

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

The bank thing is a red herring - most of the banks are owned by the taxpayer, and any loss they make is a loss to the taxpayer. So if we force them to lend at rates less than they are borrowing at, the taxpayer is making up the difference. The foreign banks would pull out if we tried to restrict the interest they charged, creating an even greater famine of capital.

jpb1974

Fair enough, if you accept that he is right and you are wrong then just say it. No need for dancing around with the word games.

Eh.. I never said the chap was wrong.

Duke Leonal Felmet

dan_d wrote: »

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.

Nobody said it was a luxury to have a roof over your head. Stop making things up. It's childish.

Monty Burnz

CiaranC wrote: »

Why is this even in question? Of course it is a luxury to own a house. What else could it be?

If it's a human right, I'm going to demand my house right now. A nice one in Dalkey maybe.

fliball123

BluePlanet wrote: »

If you were willing to make payments on the Asset for 30 years, i see nothing wrong with the Bank re-claiming the Asset, selling it for what they can, and you making up the difference within those 30 years.

But if you were a business this would not be the case and I dont see being right and fair doing the same to a person.

As I say if this is the way to go the neg equity needs to be split 50/50 if you are punishing the person for stupid borrowing then you should also punish stupid banks for silly lending

Duke Leonal Felmet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If it's a human right, I'm going to demand my house right now. A nice one in Dalkey maybe.

I demand my right to a six-bed on Shrewsbury road, and YOU are going to pay for it, Monty. It's my right because I pay taxes and thus I can demand anything I want.

Monty Burnz

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I demand my right to a six-bed on Shrewsbury road, and YOU are going to pay for it, Monty. It's my right because I pay taxes and thus I can demand anything I want.

Dammit.

fliball123

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Because the 10% that you don't pay the government has to be taxed from other people instead. We can't give people 10% less social services, or policing, or education. Those will stay the same, with other taxpayers making up the deficit.

The bank thing is a red herring - most of the banks are owned by the taxpayer, and any loss they make is a loss to the taxpayer. So if we force them to lend at rates less than they are borrowing at, the taxpayer is making up the difference. The foreign banks would pull out if we tried to restrict the interest they charged, creating an even greater famine of capital.

and how is it fair that my 10% goes to paying every other tom dick and harrys ps wage/social welfare/childs allowence??? All I am getting is a bit of value for my tax thats all I think thats fair.

But the banks got the money from the ECB at an all time low rates...and as a previous poster pointed out a fixed rate works in germany and france why not here.....

Monty Burnz

fliball123 wrote: »

As I say if this is the way to go the neg equity needs to be split 50/50 if you are punishing the person for stupid borrowing then you should also punish stupid banks for silly lending

The banks are punished for silly lending when a borrower goes bankrupt. But up to that point the bank, when it is lending, is entitled to hold you to what you agreed to.

Having said that, don't get me started on the morons who were managing the banks... :mad:

dolphin city

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I demand my right to a six-bed on Shrewsbury road, and YOU are going to pay for it, Monty. It's my right because I pay taxes and thus I can demand anything I want.

i think I will go for one in the West myself. A nice airy one by the Atlantic. I can cry "foul" and let ye all pay for it.

fliball123

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The banks are punished for silly lending when a borrower goes bankrupt. But up to that point the bank, when it is lending, is entitled to hold you to what you agreed to.

Having said that, don't get me started on the morons who were managing the banks... :mad:

But monty as soon as this house is sold you no longer own it..The bank get some money back at the least the debt or neg equity should be split 50/50 its a deal that went dead for silly lending and silly borrowing a 50/50 problem so a 50/50 result in any debt

BluePlanet

fliball123 wrote: »

But if you were a business this would not be the case and I dont see being right and fair doing the same to a person.

As I say if this is the way to go the neg equity needs to be split 50/50 if you are punishing the person for stupid borrowing then you should also punish stupid banks for silly lending

Punishing the banks will occur automatically as some outstanding loans will not be collectable.
In the meantime, if you are capable of earning money, or getting sw, then the Bank should have the right to try and get their money back.

In other countries outstanding debts can be collected at the paycheck via automatic deduction.

Iago

how can so many people be so dumb about basic economic principles and cause and effect?

jpb1974

how can so many people be so dumb about basic economic principles and cause and effect?

Don't know, why don't you tell us?

Whiskeyjack

I get a bit skeptical seeing people claiming to have made a conscious decision not to buy because they knew the mess was going to happen. It reminds me of how the majority of people here claim not to have voted FF in the last election.

The fact is the vast majority of people in this country did not expect a crisis of this magnitude, and many of those now in arrears made the same calculations based on income in a job they thought was secure that people have been making for years.How many people do you know said "Don't get a mortgage, you'll be made redundant soon enough" back in 2003-2006?

Monty Burnz

fliball123 wrote: »

and how is it fair that my 10% goes to paying every other tom dick and harrys ps wage/social welfare/childs allowence??? All I am getting is a bit of value for my tax thats all I think thats fair.

No, taxes go into a pool. I don't have kids yet so see no benefit from taxes to pay for schools. You can't pick and choose where your tax payments go - it's impossible and unworkable.

fliball123 wrote: »

But the banks got the money from the ECB at an all time low rates...and as a previous poster pointed out a fixed rate works in germany and france why not here.....

Without wanting to sound like a patronising git (too late), the way banks work is a bit more complex. They roll over their debts rather than repaying them, so that the money that (you correctly point out) they borrowed cheaply has since been repaid, but replaced with more expensive borrowings. At this stage, the Irish state can't borrow at less than 6%, never mind the banks backed by the state. So, simplifying things slightly, that means that when the bank charges you 5% interest on your mortgage, but they are paying 6% for the money they borrowed to lend to you, you are actually getting a subsidy from the taxpayer.

Monty Burnz

jpb1974 wrote: »

Don't know, why don't you tell us?

I'd suggest that one of the main reasons is that people are unwilling to read books and such on the subject.

jpb1974

You can't pick and choose where your tax payments go - it's impossible and unworkable.

Exactly!

CiaranC

Can i get two simple dwellings that I cant afford to pay for too please? An apartment in the city and a beachhouse will do me nicely.

sarumite

fliball123 wrote: »

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

That 10% doesn't disappear...its on the books. Even if you could do some creative accounting to make it dissapear for 30 years, for it to be fair and equitable it would need to apply across the board...and thats where you need new cash injection for

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?

You are not paying 10% of you tax on a mortgage....you are paying 10% less tax than those not in the position to have a mortgage. We are not all in the position to choose to have a mortgage. And furthermore how do we make up for the reduction in tax intake? Reduce service or increase other taxes.

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

And when then bank start charging everyone else through the nose for every service to make up for the fact that they are being forced to provide mortgages below market value and with probable interest rates hikes coming from the ECB....no thanks.

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

Absolutley, so instead of bringing draconian anti-competitive banking legislation that more than likely breaks a number of EU rules, focus on changing the bankruptcy laws instead.

Monty Burnz

Whiskeyjack wrote: »

I get a bit skeptical seeing people claiming to have made a conscious decision not to buy because they knew the mess was going to happen. It reminds me of how the majority of people here claim not to have voted FF in the last election.

I've already posted a link proving that I expected the bubble to burst in 2006. Truth be told, I never thought it would go on as long as it did. Lesson learned.

jpb1974

I'd suggest that one of the main reasons is that people are unwilling to read books and such on the subject.

They should start teaching economics in primary school and make it a mandatory subject throughout primary and secondary education.

Then later on in life you should have to sit an economics exam as the initial phase in any sort of loan application.