Unions call to not pay mortgages

bmarley

So how many people on this thread are getting their rent paid by the government? Huge amounts being paid to families who refuse to take council offered social housing and choose instead to rent (although they don't earn an income and cannot afford to pay the rent) so the government pays this for them...forever! Sure even if they could get a job it just wouldn't be worth it as they would loose their rent allowance, medical cards, and all those added perks they are entitled to. But what about those who have tried to do their best to provide a home for their families and wanted to work and not be dependent on the state. How are they rewarded? Do they get any help with paying off their mortgage during hard times? Some people argue that these deserve to loose their homes because they were "greedy" "irresponsible" "stupid" or what ever reason. Doesn't really matter what the reason is whether it is due to rising interest rates, higher costs of living, unemployment, there just has to be something done for families who find themselves in these situations. I could leave my house and what would happen to it..it would be sold for next to nothing. What would be the point in that? State would then have to pay for my family to be rehoused...I could actually choose a house next door and have them pay the rent on this for me. Instead I would prefer if they could give a little help towards keeping up with my mortgage payments...until my partner can find new employment.

hmmm

bmarley wrote: »

I could leave my house and what would happen to it..it would be sold for next to nothing. What would be the point in that?

What would happen? Some other family would get your house, at an affordable price. Perhaps they are some family who had wisely decided not to buy at over inflated prices or take out a mortgage they couldn't afford. Perhaps that family are renting right now and would love to own an affordable house.

Your proposal is that family who are renting pay your mortgage as well as their own rent. Why don't you pay your own debts?

later12

Of course most bystanders can understand the futility of a mortgage strike, from an objective viewpoint. I am sure that most mortgage holders can see this too.

Nevertheless, when it comes to acting on subjective, irrational, or simplistic beliefs, one has to admit that an awful lot of mortgage holders do have previous form.

While I can only try to imagine what it must be like to risk losing a home, this is one occasion where mortgage holders need to step back and remember that it was usually irrational behaviour that got them into this mess to begin with.

jased10s

The issue is not people who overstreached themselves buying a home ( albet a few did ) , It's the USC and people losing their jobs / rising costs .

Overnight we basically had a 150 + a month took out of our wages to pay back for the banks feckup, and while the same banks are now not lending causing businesses to go to the wall causing more unemployment.

bmarley is correct that a lot of people get their rent paid by the morgage holders and employed paying tax but they get nothing themselves.

I know a good few people who are long time dolers who have had a holiday this year and who can afford to drive a nice car while i cannot , But i work and contribute to the economy. And also have to go to the Doctors when absoutley needed due to no medical card ( dole people getting said card ).

I think the origional OP was getting at making the govement and banks to see we will not take anymore of this .

And i can afford my morgage and it's my home not an investment.

Just sick of getting hammered.

Godge

jased10s wrote: »

The issue is not people who overstreached themselves buying a home ( albet a few did ) , It's the USC and people losing their jobs / rising costs .

Overnight we basically had a 150 + a month took out of our wages to pay back for the banks feckup, and while the same banks are now not lending causing businesses to go to the wall causing more unemployment.

bmarley is correct that a lot of people get their rent paid by the morgage holders and employed paying tax but they get nothing themselves.

I know a good few people who are long time dolers who have had a holiday this year and who can afford to drive a nice car while i cannot , But i work and contribute to the economy. And also have to go to the Doctors when absoutley needed due to no medical card ( dole people getting said card ).

I think the origional OP was getting at making the govement and banks to see we will not take anymore of this .

And i can afford my morgage and it's my home not an investment.

Just sick of getting hammered.

You are confusing two issues here. Just because our social welfare and transfers bill of €26 bn is way too high and our social welfare is too generous doesn't mean we should increase it by paying for some people's overstretched mortgage which is just another form of social welfare.

jased10s

Godge wrote: »

You are confusing two issues here. Just because our social welfare and transfers bill of €26 bn is way too high and our social welfare is too generous doesn't mean we should increase it by paying for some people's overstretched mortgage which is just another form of social welfare.

But we pay social welfare so why not help the morgage people .

Banks get help
dole people get help
people with childeren get help
pensioners get help
the list goes on.

People who are in neg equity and get hammered by rate hikes and USC get nothing.

And yes rates change and we know it.

Just dont seem fair.

And also did the gouvment not promise some help to homeowners ?

Sorry gtg as i have to work and earn money to pay for a bail out and dole and whater ever else.

motherriley

Is tax releif on interest still apply to mortgages in Ireland.

http://www.moving.ie/mortgages/mortgage_interest_relief.asp

carm

hmmm wrote: »

What would happen? Some other family would get your house, at an affordable price. Perhaps they are some family who had wisely decided not to buy at over inflated prices or take out a mortgage they couldn't afford. Perhaps that family are renting right now and would love to own an affordable house.

Your proposal is that family who are renting pay your mortgage as well as their own rent. Why don't you pay your own debts?

I bought my house at an affordable price before the supposed "boom". I am struggling to meet repayments due to redundancy. I'd like the fairness of mortgage interest supplement to be the equivalent of rent allowance, where it's not short-term and the criteria amended. I don't know anyone who wants a "bailout". I see them as needing a little extra to help them. Just as people who rent get a help out (but at far higher rates in many cases). If they lose their home, they can apply for rent supplement, which can be as high as E1,030 a month. Is this what you want to see up to 100,000 people doing? How will that be paid?

People who are struggling to pay their monthly mortgage payments were not "all" the great "unwise" who bought their homes at over inflated prices. There are some, yes.

Perhaps they are the family who have lived on rent allowance for 20 years who never moved their arse off their rented couch who have decided to buy a property with your tax and my tax as they've waited for the collapse. Who knows, there are so many stories.

I was one of those people who rented for many years waiting to be lucky enough to buy. Nobody could have guessed we'd all lose our jobs years later. You already pay (assuming you pay tax) many landlords mortgages by way of rent supplements, why do you appear more comfortable with that than the average family who wanted to buy into owning their own home?

hmmm

carm wrote: »

You already pay (assuming you pay tax) many landlords mortgages by way of rent supplements, why do you appear more comfortable with that than the average family who wanted to buy into owning their own home?

Because rent allowance and social welfare is meant to be a safety net, it's not intended to be a means to prop up someone allowing them to live a lifestyle they think they are entitled to but can't afford.

Lots of people took into consideration the possibility they might lose their job or that interest rates would rise, your financial decisions are your problem and certainly not someone else's problem to pay for.

carm

hmmm wrote: »

Because rent allowance and social welfare is meant to be a safety net, it's not intended to be a means to prop up someone allowing them to live a lifestyle they think they are entitled to but can't afford.

Lots of people took into consideration the possibility they might lose their job or that interest rates would rise, your financial decisions are your problem and certainly not someone else's problem to pay for.

Yes, you and I know that rent allowance and social welfare is meant to be a safety net, but there are thousands who don't and abuse it without conscience. That's beside the point.

A person's financial decisions will become everyone's problem when they cannot get jobs and can't afford to meet their mortgage repayments.

Which leads me back to my original question which you lightly passed by.

If people struggling with mortgage repayments lose their homes, they can apply for rent supplement, which can be as high as E1,030 a month. Is this what you want to see up to 100,000 people doing and How will that be paid?

sollar

Its not just people paying 400K for a box in dublin that are struggling. There are people out there with decent houses owing a €150,000 to €200,000 or so and are finding it hard to deal with the repayments. Nothing is selling at the min and banks are lending next to nothing for people to buy.

Godge

carm wrote: »

I bought my house at an affordable price before the supposed "boom". I am struggling to meet repayments due to redundancy. I'd like the fairness of mortgage interest supplement to be the equivalent of rent allowance, where it's not short-term and the criteria amended. I don't know anyone who wants a "bailout". I see them as needing a little extra to help them. Just as people who rent get a help out (but at far higher rates in many cases). If they lose their home, they can apply for rent supplement, which can be as high as E1,030 a month. Is this what you want to see up to 100,000 people doing? How will that be paid?

People who are struggling to pay their monthly mortgage payments were not "all" the great "unwise" who bought their homes at over inflated prices. There are some, yes.

Perhaps they are the family who have lived on rent allowance for 20 years who never moved their arse off their rented couch who have decided to buy a property with your tax and my tax as they've waited for the collapse. Who knows, there are so many stories.

I was one of those people who rented for many years waiting to be lucky enough to buy. Nobody could have guessed we'd all lose our jobs years later. You already pay (assuming you pay tax) many landlords mortgages by way of rent supplements, why do you appear more comfortable with that than the average family who wanted to buy into owning their own home?

There are people who paid insurance against redundancy in order to protect their mortgage payments, in some cases, depending on their jobs, this was quite high. They are safe in cases like yours.

Godge

jased10s wrote: »

But we pay social welfare so why not help the morgage people .

Banks get help
dole people get help
people with childeren get help
pensioners get help
the list goes on.

People who are in neg equity and get hammered by rate hikes and USC get nothing.

And yes rates change and we know it.

Just dont seem fair.

And also did the gouvment not promise some help to homeowners ?

Sorry gtg as i have to work and earn money to pay for a bail out and dole and whater ever else.

Why should people who can afford to buy property be helped. I think mortgage interest supplement is too generous. If you can't afford the payments on your car or your tv, they are repossessed. Why are houses different?

hmmm

carm wrote: »

If people struggling with mortgage repayments lose their homes, they can apply for rent supplement, which can be as high as E1,030 a month. Is this what you want to see up to 100,000 people doing and How will that be paid?

Instead of receiving rent allowance, you want to remain in your property and receive the equivalent of rent allowance as a subsidy to pay your mortgage.

If you cannot see the obvious problem with that suggestion then there's no hope for you. We'd have half the country stop paying their mortgage.

If you can't afford your current house and lifestyle, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for it instead.

carm

hmmm wrote: »

Instead of receiving rent allowance, you want to remain in your property and receive the equivalent of rent allowance as a subsidy to pay your mortgage.

If you cannot see the obvious problem with that suggestion then there's no hope for you. We'd have half the country stop paying their mortgage.

If you can't afford your current house and lifestyle, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for it instead.

I didn't say that. You misread entirely. Equivalent is not the word I used. I wouldn't expect the HSE to pay E1,030 off anyone's mortgage in the same way rent supplement is paid.

I don't have a "lifestyle" and if you have a problem with the taxpayer paying off partial monthly mortgage payments, perhaps take it up with Joan Burton and the mortgage interest supplement as you are already paying for people's mortgages. Were you not aware of this?

And so, I'll ask again.

If people struggling with mortgage repayments lose their homes, they can apply for rent supplement, which can be as high as E1,030 a month. Is this what you want to see up to 100,000 people doing and How will that be paid?

ei.sdraob

jased10s wrote: »

Godge wrote: »

You are confusing two issues here. Just because our social welfare and transfers bill of €26 bn is way too high and our social welfare is too generous doesn't mean we should increase it by paying for some people's overstretched mortgage which is just another form of social welfare.

But we pay social welfare so why not help the morgage people .

Banks get help
dole people get help
people with childeren get help
pensioners get help
the list goes on.

People who are in neg equity and get hammered by rate hikes and USC get nothing.

And yes rates change and we know it.

Just dont seem fair.

And also did the gouvment not promise some help to homeowners ?

Sorry gtg as i have to work and earn money to pay for a bail out and dole and whater ever else.

Just to inject some reality into the thread

There is no money to pay the parties you listed above. It has to be borrowed at high rates.

To borrow money at 10% in order to help someone who can't afford 4% mortgage is insane

thebullkf

weldoninhio wrote: »

I've no idea where your readig that from. I'll make it simple.

You are saying it is an Irish trait to want to own your own home and be secure in it. I agree with this.

You are saying that you should be entitled to buy the above secure home wherever your roots are. This is Nonsense

You are saying that anyone who payed over the odds for their home in the place they wanted to should not have to pay the mortgage on their home if their home has lost value. More Nonsense

I'm saying that the above citizen would be more secure buying a house they could afford in a satelite town, with no threat of the bank taking the house off them. Can you not see the sense in this??

I live in Rush, its about halfway between Dublin and Drogheda, I can get to Drogheda comfortably in about 20 mins and Dublin city centre in about 15. I've been to both, Drogheda is by no means destitute. What will be destitute is the above citizen who overstretched himself with a mortgage he couldn't afford, and is eventually kicked out on the street by the banks and finds his family on the council waiting list, pleading for a house while the courts chase him for payment of his debts.

15 mins to the GPO.....from rush

wheres the jobs in these satellite towns....


its not nonsence at all, having to move to a satellite town and be even more marginilised from your family is nonsense

the answer lies somewhere between choking off the tether thats hurting the most, and stimulating the economy by encouraging innovation and retaining our resources.

too many people on the dole, long term- they should be cut. Now.

the dole should also be limited to a year-36 months MAX.

too many civil servants on too high wages, they should be cut. Now.

too many politicians... " " " "

too much apathy among the people.

too much greed " " " "

too much cronyism..

no leadership.

no recourse to the law for the wealthy.

theres no motivation for radical change because we don't enforce our existing laws properly, we don't protect our national wealth properly, too many people have too many fingers in too many pies.

To all the merchants spouting tough luck , why didn't you do xyz...if hindsight were foresight etc etc. we're in the faeces, too many mé feiners on here tbh, with little to do but be smug.:(


you may be glad you're not mired in the crap, but i sense the people who are, are glad you aren't either.


we should've burned the swine when we had the chance.

does anyone know what the annual cost of living in Dublin/Cork/Galway is currently??

if people on minimum wage can manage to live , so can people on 150k plus,

swift scythe of wages should be the first thing....

As an aside:

i vomit a little in my mouth when i hear about the plans by hoteliers,and fast food giants,and massive facilities companys looking to change the JLC agreements....in the name of 'job creation' .its bloody profit creation !
as usual they start fixing our little pyramid from the bottom up, as opposed to from the top down.

.. its greed that drives and ultimately ruins us.

There are too many politicians in jobs who would've been sacked in any, any , other sector or european country....

i could go on... the sickening thing is, everyone knows...nobody acts.:mad:

i despair at my country, and its leaders.:mad:


Rudderless, with a slow puncture that can't me mended..:(

we should all hang our heads.

I work btw, have always contributed to the state,have been unemployed, and have a high mortgage - someone else earlier mentioned rents being a third of mortgage payments...they're obviously not renting, nor paying a mortgage:rolleyes:


Sorry for the rant.:(

Good loser

Why did RTE/Media give that stupid, destructive, union suggestion the oxygen of publicity?

What business is it of the unions how mortgages are managed by individuals, the banks or the State?

A few years ago the INMO boss wanted wages increased because a guard/teacher or nurse/guard etc couldn't AFFORD to buy a semi in Dublin.

Now they want wages maintained so that the resultant mortgages can be AFFORDED.

What about levying the nurses now so that the State can AFFORD to pay for the mortgages thay are urged to default on?

Better still maybe the nurses who can AFFORD it could pay the mortgages for those nurses who can't AFFORD theirs. (the INMO doing the paperwork)

Keeping it in the family like

ilovesleep

I never bought into the property crap and have no debts, thank goodness.

So, banks borrowed money from other banks to lend to people. Then the banks come into difficulty repaying those loans and the tax payer is forced to prop them up. So if you have a loan, and are working paying tax you are effectively paying two times over.

If you decide to go to the bank for a loan, you are borrowing your own money with interest.

Forget what I was watching and who was talking but he made so much sense. We, the irish people, loans or no loans, are paying two or three times over for banking money and will be for a long time to come.

The irish taxpayer already owns all those mortgaged houses. Eejits, the lot of ye who are paying twice for their loans.

sarumite

ilovesleep wrote: »

The irish taxpayer already owns all those mortgaged houses. Eejits, the lot of ye who are paying twice for their loans.

Unfortuantely we only own the debt and nothing more.

sarumite

carm wrote: »

If people struggling with mortgage repayments lose their homes, they can apply for rent supplement, which can be as high as E1,030 a month. Is this what you want to see up to 100,000 people doing and How will that be paid?

If they lose their homes, then they must qualify for rent allowance. If they are in such poor financial cirucumstance that they qualify for rent allowance, then chances are that even with debt forgiveness they are still going to struggle to pay their mortgage. As such they will probably lose their house anyway.

I don't want to see (nor do I think all 100,000 will qualify) on rent supplement. Perhaps some sort of debt for equity swap to allow a person to remain in their home but lose some of their property.

carm

sarumite wrote: »

If they lose their homes, then they must qualify for rent allowance. If they are in such poor financial cirucumstance that they qualify for rent allowance, then chances are that even with debt forgiveness they are still going to struggle to pay their mortgage. As such they will probably lose their house anyway.

I don't want to see (nor do I think all 100,000 will qualify) on rent supplement. Perhaps some sort of debt for equity swap to allow a person to remain in their home but lose some of their property.

I agree sarumite. I wouldn't expect everyone to qualify for the rent allowance but there will be people who will require that assistance if they cannot afford to pay their mortgage and lose their homes. They may or may not lose their homes. Everyone's situation is different but we do know things aren't getting any better for many.

There seems to be little thought into someone posting comments like "Eejits, the lot of ye..".

We can only hope that over time the family, couple or person's income improves and they don't have to lose their home but no one can look into a crystal ball, as we've all tragically found out (no thanks to FF, regulator, central bank et al).

Everyone's in a different boat but there seem to be sweeping generalisations together with underlying bile flowing through some of these poster's threads on both boards.ie and other forums. Many of them are not even aware of many of the social welfare payments or issues regarding mortgages and negative equity.

And they don't have many answers to the issues either. Nor do I as it's an utter shambles, but the debt for equity swap is a start and one that may well work.

Frank Black

sarumite wrote: »

If they lose their homes, then they must qualify for rent allowance. If they are in such poor financial cirucumstance that they qualify for rent allowance, then chances are that even with debt forgiveness they are still going to struggle to pay their mortgage. As such they will probably lose their house anyway.

I don't want to see (nor do I think all 100,000 will qualify) on rent supplement. Perhaps some sort of debt for equity swap to allow a person to remain in their home but lose some of their property.

It’s the only thing logical thing to do.
People looking to have their debt written off need to realize that it’s just not going to happen – morally it’s not right to expect that the tax-payer should be asked to pay off people who borrowed recklessly.
However, kicking 1000’s of people onto the streets obviously won’t do anyone any good either.
Given the above, the only other option that makes any sense is that some of the outstanding debt is converted into an equity option on the property.

beeftotheheels

black francis wrote: »

It’s the only thing logical thing to do.
People looking to have their debt written off need to realize that it’s just not going to happen – morally it’s not right to expect that the tax-payer should be asked to pay off people who borrowed recklessly.
However, kicking 1000’s of people onto the streets obviously won’t do anyone any good either.
Given the above, the only other option that makes any sense is that some of the outstanding debt is converted into an equity option on the property.

But how does that help? Say AIB has a mortgage in its books for 400k on a property worth 200k. So they take a half? share in the house and reduce the mortgage to 200k. But they now own half a house worth only 100k and have crystallised a loss of 100k. And where does that 100k to make up the loss come from? One would assume the owners on AIB (which would be us).

There is no easy answer here, especially when the debt is from banks that we own the majority of (which is all the Irish banks).

coup1917

Jocker wrote: »

At last! The Irish people are waking up to their Governments corruption and are calling for action for people to stop paying their mortgages and in return cause the banks to crash bringing the power back to the people.

This has taken too long to happen but come on people carry this out and teach these elitist gangsters a lesson for once and for all. Claim your country back and let Mr. Kenny know he is not a leader of the Irish but a servant who better listen before the **** really hits the fan in Ireland.

The Irish have had many chances to turn this all around but have had their heads in the sand for far too long to their own detriment. .To be able to stick your head in the sand you must be on your knees. Now lets all get these currupt IMF slaves on their knees and bring the banks also to their knees. They are thrwing people out of their homes and couldn't care less about the faith of the people or their families they are evicting.

What goes around certainly comes back around but this has taken too long to come back around. Start action NOW people and claim your sovereignty back. This could be your last chance to make a stand to protect your own interests and those of your kids for the future.

Just heard Eddie Hobbs on Newstalk for his opinion on this.
Delighted to hear he dismissed the union suggestion as "utter ****e". In fact he got quite hot under the collar regarding the idea - Newstalk presenter was playing devils advocate in a disgraceful way and he got a reaction..

As posted earlier, it is extremely naive and dangerous to tell people not to pay their mortgages. This sort of rubbish might wash in more radical societies but how the hell is it supposed to improve our situation..??

I have long held suspicions of these unions heads and exactly what they bring to the table in running a sucessful economy - Comments such as this will hasten their extinction thankfully....:mad::mad:

Frank Black

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But how does that help? Say AIB has a mortgage in its books for 400k on a property worth 200k. So they take a half? share in the house and reduce the mortgage to 200k. But they now own half a house worth only 100k and have crystallised a loss of 100k. And where does that 100k to make up the loss come from? One would assume the owners on AIB (which would be us).

There is no easy answer here, especially when the debt is from banks that we own the majority of (which is all the Irish banks).

Well, losses will need to be crystallised at some stage anyway - realistically there's no way in the short to medium term that the banks are going to get the money back from the borrowers.
While the property in your scenario may be worth half the price it was worth, the hope would be that in 20-30 years time that prices would have increased. At least if the bank/us the taxpayer have a share of the property there is more chance of getting the money back if the proerty is sold in the future.
Not ideal by any means - but the alternatives are worse.

Is mise le key

Caoimhín wrote: »

Jesus wept. What bollix, people borrowed money to buy expensive houses and now want the rest of us to let them off the hook. Write off the mortgage but keep the house? Over my dead body buddy.

So many thank yous for this post, bizarre

The thread title is misleading despite the original poster being an advocate off the proposal, then this post above which obviously the poster not getting the proposal either,

People borrowed money to buy over priced houses, the proposal is a mortgage strike i think you will find, Now what happens after a strike ends? Anybody?

New terms are agreed to & then a return.

The reality is that even if you reduce the debt owed to the bank in accordance with the current 'market value' of the property the bank will still make a profit over the term of the mortgage for the most part, just not as much as they would have on the basis of the original loan.

It is simply a case that the banks want to earn as much money as possible out of their mortgage loan books despite the loans & price of the property originally agreed being a complete falshood that cant now be paid back.

Properties that have slid into negative equity against their loans rightly need to have the loans reduced to the current value of the property.

Here are an organistion that have been set up to assisst people with legal advice around their mortgages & homes free of charge,

http://www.newbeginning.ie/

sarumite

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But how does that help? Say AIB has a mortgage in its books for 400k on a property worth 200k. So they take a half? share in the house and reduce the mortgage to 200k. But they now own half a house worth only 100k and have crystallised a loss of 100k. And where does that 100k to make up the loss come from? One would assume the owners on AIB (which would be us).

There is no easy answer here, especially when the debt is from banks that we own the majority of (which is all the Irish banks).

There is a few ways it could work....the harshest being that they take half of the mortgage value (if indeed 50% is the debt swap), thus on a 400k mortgage they would own 200k of the property. In some cases this would be all or most of the property, however tt would allow a person to remain in their home and avoid bankruptcy. Or it could work in the manner in which you describe above. The advantage for the above scenario is that if a person cannot afford the house, the banks sells it for 200k and makes a 200k loss as opposed to the 100k loss you describe above. In many ways its probably better to focus on limiting loss rather than maximising gain, at least in the short term.

Cookie_Monster

Is mise le key wrote: »

Properties that have slid into negative equity against their loans rightly need to have the loans reduced to the current value of the property.

why though, I really don't understand why people think this.

My car loan doesn't go down in value as the car depreciates... why should the value of the loan have anything to do with the value of the house over value of the amount actually borrowed?

Frank Black

Is mise le key wrote: »

Properties that have slid into negative equity against their loans rightly need to have the loans reduced to the current value of the property.

It's not morally as simple as that - it's like saying when prices were increasing that the loans people had taken out should have increased to reflect the higher price the property was worth.

If you borrowed money to invest in shares you're not entitled to a loan decrease if the shares plummet in value.

Nobody should be entitled to a write off of debt that they freely borrowed but there does need to be a recognition of the problem that a lot of people cannot pay back these loans.

Debt for equity is the only solution which can accomodate these two realities.