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

Mortgage Arrears Problem in Ireland.

Options
1…6791112…20

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Unrealistic
    Registered Users Posts: 1,278 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    To answer:

    Nothing is preventing me.

    Let's say I own the bank €250K. My mortgage is €1K a month.

    I loose my job.

    I sell the house for €150K and give this to the bank. I still owe the bank €120K.

    I rent a house. The Government are giving me €600 a month to pay the rent.

    I can't pay the bank. So €120K goes down the drain and the tax payer is still giving me €600 a month for rent.
    Faulty maths there. If you stay in the house the bank gets zero until some unspecified time in the future but we have a cash crunch now and no one lending to us. If the bank sells the house the bank gets €120k straight away, which is €120k less that the tax payer has to put in for the next round of bank recapitalisation. The government can continue paying you €600 a month rent allowance for almost 17 years before it eats up that €120k.


  • Options
    #243
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭fliball123


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Isn't paying off the debt better than lobbying for taxpayer assistance?

    better for who the bank? the tax payer..or the poor smoock who now has no house a big debt and still needs to find money for rent

    Lets look at that the bank has now a property that will continue to depreiciate
    The tax payer now has to foot the bill to house this person
    the poor smoock is well completely broke and will not recover for at least 2 decades


  • Options
    #244
    dolphin city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭dolphin city


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Cool well then we will call unmarried mothers the sluts who cant keep thier legs shut fund
    The chlidrens allowence the little fecks who should not have been born when their mothers cannot afford them
    The pensions the old fcuks who should have died already fund
    The Ps as the over bloated over inflated over wages cnut fund
    the unemployed as the scratch say no more
    The refugees - as they shouldnt be in my country fund
    The banks - I think just the Cnuts fund would be sufficient

    There is argument for all of these for people who are helping these out. one significant demographic in this society cannot be just told tough sh1t and the quicker we realise this the better..and this is one of the main reasons why FG is gathering pace as they are only ones who are willing to put back in place the mortgage interest relief

    we are talking about people not being able to pay their mortgages and are looking for someone else to pay it for them.

    bringing in unmarried mothers and pensioners to dilute the point, only shows that you have already lost the arguement.


  • Options
    #245
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    If you stay in the house the bank gets zero until some unspecified time in the future

    The question that was put to me was to sell now and rent an apartment, so this is the question I attempted to answer.


  • Options
    #246
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    Monty, it's like this -

    Either tell us how you would buy a house in the most stable of markets using your crystal ball approach or we'll all just accept that you're talking out of your hole.

    You're saying people should have know this, and people should have know that and people should've have planned 100% accurately for the future... and now I ask you for an example of how you would actually go about it (seeing as you seem to know so much) and you can't.
    Listen, if you can't read, there's nothing I can do for you. Your arguments here are weak and jumbled, you accuse others of bitterness while your own posts drip with it, and when you realise you've lost the argument, you become aggressive. I've already proved that I expected the property bubble to burst before it happened. I've told you that property prices will continue to fall for years yet. I've recommended some literature that will give you a better understanding of risk, asset markets, and bubbles. And still you ask for a magic formula on buying houses.

    That, like your inability to understand economic rent, shows me that not only have you not learned anything from the bubble, but that you don't even want to learn anything. That's pretty sad.

    But the next time you are making a life-changing decision like buying property, try to find someone who does like to learn, who doesn't follow the crowd like a sheep, and who has a record of making good decisions, and - if you can afford it - get their advice.

    Good luck with the house.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Thats assuming that the market will come back which I would say this will not happen for a couple of decades at least.

    So let me understand this..the now owner losses their home ..they have to rent it and then when the market reopens they have the option to re buy at possibly a higher price and definately a higher interest rate...Not sure it would work but at least it could be a solution..and that is what we need guys...You cant just bury your head in the sand and say jobdaws bought at the height of the bubble tough..It doesnt work not when there are over 1million people with mortgages and nearly 1/2 in neg equity

    What is this twenty year market freeze prediction based on?


  • Options
    #248
    dolphin city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭dolphin city


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Once again, proving that Irish people have learned nothing from the bubble.

    Here are the facts: unless you are buying with cash this is the situation.

    1. You buy with a mortgage -> you pay interest on the capital -> interest is rent on money
    2. You rent -> you pay rent on the property

    Either way you are paying rent. But you say - 'oh no, after 30 years, I will own the house'. Yeah? Well depending on interest rates, capital appreciation, rent levels etc. - after 30 years, the renter may have enough saved to buy the house for cash anyway, with some to spare. If rent is 'dead money' then that applies equally to the rent you pay the bank for borrowing their cash.


    agreed this "dead money" arguement is always brought out - its like a line that is thrown out but nobody actually thinks what they are saying. People bought a house at 400 K when the house was only worth 200 k.

    if you want to see real dead money take a look at your mortgage payments.
    now THAT'S dead money and on top of that its dead money that brings nothing but stress and strife - why, because you bought a little cement fortress cause it was the "thing to do". Give me a renters "dead money" any day. They can walk away whenever they want and will probably have enough money to purchase a house straight off in another couple of years when the houses go down to their TRUE VALUE.

    so if you want to see dead money - look to the mortgage payers.


  • Options
    #249
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    What is this twenty year market freeze prediction based on?
    I'd just like to point out that the market is not frozen or closed now - if a property is correctly priced, it will sell. Unfortunately 99% of sellers think we are still in the neighbourhood of 2007. In truth, we are a lot closer to 1995.


  • Options
    #250
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭fliball123


    dolphin city wrote: »
    we are talking about people not being able to pay their mortgages and are looking for someone else to pay it for them.

    bringing in unmarried mothers and pensioners to dilute the point, only shows that you have already lost the arguement.

    How have I lost the argument...I am talking about taxpayers paying to help people out when they are in trouble...Its not diluting it , I am actually trying to point to fact that we are proping up people who need help


  • Options
    #251
    Lu Tze
    Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Lu Tze


    If house owners get subsidised by renters to pay their mortgage, why not give benefit in kind, any spare rooms in the house of any subsidised property will be available rent free to those who are subsidising it.

    Acceptable outcome i believe. They lose a bit of their house to avail of the subsidy. Fairness all round.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    dolphin city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭dolphin city


    fliball123 wrote: »
    And what about the 2k that still needs to be paid off the mortgage???

    2k per month on a mortgage - tut tut


  • Options
    #253
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    Monty -

    I've shown no bitterness. I used your bitterness and applied it to a hypothetical scenario whereby you would be entitled to nothing if you didn't plan 100% accurately for the future. It was a hypothetical scenario used to highlight your bitterness, not mine.

    Now you're playing the poor, hurt little soul because you cannot and will not backup your argument.

    As for your crystal ball approach... basically what your saying is "read a book before you buy a house". Sorry Monty it, doesn't add up. The fact of the matter is there is nothing, absolutely nothing that can allow anyone to plan for the unknown and that is irrespective of the Celtic Tiger and Property Bubbles.
    that you don't even want to learn anything. That's pretty sad.

    No it's sad that I asked you for your insight and that you couldn't provide it.


  • Options
    #254
    dolphin city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭dolphin city


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    @Monty Burnz -

    How about this proposal -

    If you are made redundant at some point in the future the state will refuse to grant you any rent allowance.

    You should have known that your employment wasn't going to last forever... so let's cut your job seekers allowance and/or dole payments to nil.

    You shouldn't have went travelling when you did, you should have saved that money for a rainy day.

    If you then wake up the next day with a heart problem then the state won't help you out. No medical care unless you pay out of your own pocket. You should have know that you needed to exercise more and change your diet.

    If you have any kids then all welfare payments will be terminated. You should have seen your redundancy coming the road and worn a condom.

    If you decide to house your family on the streets in a card-board box then the state will impose a tax on you for the space you occupy.

    Basically you can fend for yourself... and I will sit pretty in my job knowing that not a cent on my tax money is going to you because you should have know better.



    apply that to the mortgage whingers too please.


  • Options
    #255
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    What is this twenty year market freeze prediction based on?

    Well for the next 1/2 decade we are locked into a severe austerity measure...Looking at previous bubbles with in asia which are probably the most like our one...

    Looking at the increase in empty propties due to emmigration
    increase in tax
    cuts in expenditure - less infrastructure
    less to social welfare
    increases in prices of fuel
    Increase in interest rates

    all of these mean that the only buyer for the forseeable future are the rich or people who have saved up enough to get a very low mortgage...The rich tend to not buy if they are not making a profit. So how long would it take to save say 100k...but I doubt there will be a complete stagnation in this housing market for at a decade...but I have no crystal ball its a personal opinion


  • Options
    #256
    Unrealistic
    Registered Users Posts: 1,278 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Thats assuming that the market will come back which I would say this will not happen for a couple of decades at least.

    So let me understand this..the now owner losses their home ..they have to rent it and then when the market reopens they have the option to re buy at possibly a higher price and definately a higher interest rate...Not sure it would work but at least it could be a solution..and that is what we need guys...You cant just bury your head in the sand and say jobdaws bought at the height of the bubble tough..It doesnt work not when there are over 1million people with mortgages and nearly 1/2 in neg equity
    I'm not expecting the market to come back to bubble prices either. I would see the bank selling at a lower price and by functioning market I just meant one where buyers and sellers have similar expectations about the value of a house. Today most sellers still have inflated expectations of the value of their house believing, for example, that a 40% fall from what they paid must mean it is a bargain. Sensible buyers doing their sums based on yield and affordability are waiting for prices to drop further still. I didn't explain it very well but I was envisaging it as a non-recourse handing back of the house so the bank will have to sell at a loss and, while the mortgage holder loses the house he does not get caught for the negative equity on top that. I think that is the fairest option. If you have bought a house you can't pay for then give it back and have the tax payer cover the negative equity. But for people in negative equity and struggling to pay a mortgage to expect the tax payer to cover both the negative equity and the core repayments on the current value of the house is just too iniquitous to contemplate.


  • Options
    #257
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    No it's sad that I asked you for your insight and that you couldn't provide it.
    I did provide it. That you still cannot see it speaks volumes.


  • Options
    #258
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,406 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    fliball123 wrote: »
    As for the 2 tier thing...simple give a tax credit simular to the mortgage interest rates and then if someone is buying in the future they can avail of this aswell
    What's this, incentivising buying houses?
    Now where o where have we heard of that before....

    I think it's time fliball123 for you to own up. What part of the "property game" do you play? Owner or Estate Agent?
    You claim to be a renter but i have my doubts.


  • Options
    #259
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    apply that to the mortgage whingers too please.

    People that need social welfare assistance
    People that need rent allowance
    People that need state paid medical assistance
    People that need mortgage assistance

    It's all boils down to the same thing at the end of the day... cash... and cash is an asset no matter what way you look at it.


  • Options
    #260
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Unrealistic wrote: »
    I'm not expecting the market to come back to bubble prices either. I would see the bank selling at a lower price and by functioning market I just meant one where buyers and sellers have similar expectations about the value of a house. Today most sellers still have inflated expectations of the value of their house believing, for example, that a 40% fall from what they paid must mean it is a bargain. Sensible buyers doing their sums based on yield and affordability are waiting for prices to drop further still. I didn't explain it very well but I was envisaging it as a non-recourse handing back of the house so the bank will have to sell at a loss and, while the mortgage holder loses the house he does not get caught for the negative equity on top that. I think that is the fairest option. If you have bought a house you can't pay for then give it back and have the tax payer cover the negative equity. But for people in negative equity and struggling to pay a mortgage to expect the tax payer to cover both the negative equity and the core repayments on the current value of the house is just too iniquitous to contemplate.

    ahh ok yeah I agree..I think people on here do not realise how many people if they had the option of walking without the debt following them they would


  • Options
    #261
    dolphin city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭dolphin city


    fliball123 wrote: »
    How have I lost the argument...I am talking about taxpayers paying to help people out when they are in trouble...Its not diluting it , I am actually trying to point to fact that we are proping up people who need help

    that is completely different than taxpayers coming to your aid to help you keep your house - maybe you would like the tax payer to pay off your car and holiday too.

    If you want help ffrom the tax payer get out of your house, sell it, and when you have NO ASSETS left then the tax payer will help you. But do you honestly think you should be entitled to get your house paid for because you CHOSE to make a bad decision yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    It's all boils down to the same thing at the end of the day... cash... and cash is an asset no matter what way you look at it.
    Why do you keep saying that cash is an asset, as if it is profound wisdom? You realise that they teach that in school to 12 year olds? What point are you trying to make, if any?


  • Options
    #263
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    I did provide it. That you still cannot see it speaks volumes.

    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.


  • Options
    #264
    carm
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭carm


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    It's not like the PS argument. I will break this argument down as clearly as possible:

    I don't want you taking my money.

    Cheers.

    This argument has gone puerile. I don't want your money, thanks. Where did you get the idea I did? We have pumped between us 45 years of tax into my country. Go back to reviewing Switzerlands banking policies and rental properties.


  • Options
    #265
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭fliball123


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    What's this, incentivising buying houses?
    Now where o where have we heard of that before....

    I think it's time fliball123 for you to own up. What part of the "property game" do you play? Owner or Estate Agent?
    You claim to be a renter but i have my doubts.

    A future hose buyer which is why I advocate that a tax credit is for not just existing buyers but also for future...

    How is incentivising buying a house..by your logic...getting childs allowence incentivises unmarried mothers??? maybe it does?

    but if I pay my tax should I not expect some bang for my buck?


  • Options
    #266
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    Why do you keep saying that cash is an asset, as if it is profound wisdom? You realise that they teach that in school to 12 year olds? What point are you trying to make, if any?

    Mainly because you seem to want to differentiate a house as an asset and cash as an asset.

    You're bitter about the prospect of someone keeping their home, but you don't seem to see cash in the form of rent allowance as an asset.


  • Options
    #267
    dolphin city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭dolphin city


    Lu Tze wrote: »
    If house owners get subsidised by renters to pay their mortgage, why not give benefit in kind, any spare rooms in the house of any subsidised property will be available rent free to those who are subsidising it.

    Acceptable outcome i believe. They lose a bit of their house to avail of the subsidy. Fairness all round.

    was just going to post a similar post.

    If people are so worried about losing their house, start renting out a room - let someone into you house to share it with you and pay rent.

    However somehow I think a lot of these whingers wouldn't dream of having someone rent a room - they want the best of both worlds - keep their luxery, but get someone else to pay for it.

    Its time to get a grip, wake up, and realise you made a bad decision. Nobody is responsible except yourselves.


  • Options
    #268
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,406 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    fliball123 wrote: »
    A future hose buyer which is why I advocate that a tax credit is for not just existing buyers but also for future...
    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.


  • Options
    #269
    jpb1974
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭jpb1974


    However somehow I think a lot of these whingers wouldn't dream of having someone rent a room - they want the best of both worlds - keep their luxery, but get someone else to pay for it.

    Do you know this for a fact? What percentage of home owners wouldn't dream of having someone rent a room?


  • Options
    #270
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Not sure where the cash comes from..It could just go straight in as a cut in the actual loan amount and when the loan is paid off. Tell them there is still the 10%
    For it to be considered fair it would need to be across the board...cutting 10% off the banks books is not going to work.

    As for the 2 tier thing...simple give a tax credit simular to the mortgage interest rates and then if someone is buying in the future they can avail of this aswell
    /

    I don't see why a person who can afford to buy a house should get their tax burden lowered. That money will have to come from somewhere, either increase taxes on those that couldn't/cannot afford a house, or cuts in services. Either way any money lost through lower taxes will need to be accounted for at some point.

    Yes but banks operating in Ireland could be forced via regulation

    Even if such draconian regulation did pass EU approval, I would be very concerned by it. It may work in the short term, but when the ECB issue a rate rise, the banks are not going to simply swallow that....they will pass it onto the customers in the form of increased charges. This is going to have a profound effect on people like myself who have very little in the way of excess income and could not afford to pay the bank for every transaction I needed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    dolphin city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭dolphin city


    jpb1974 wrote: »
    People that need social welfare assistance
    People that need rent allowance
    People that need state paid medical assistance
    People that need mortgage assistance

    It's all boils down to the same thing at the end of the day... cash... and cash is an asset no matter what way you look at it.

    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.


Advertisement