Unions call to not pay mortgages

Frank Black

Godge wrote: »

1. Recapitalise the banks
2. Sort out the regulation and management of banks to ensure it doesn't happen again
3. Tackle the structural budget deficit by reducing expenditure and incereasing taxation
4. As part of 3 shift the taxation burden into long-term sustainable taxation such as a property tax and away from taxes on economic activity
5. As part of 3 reform the public service to ensure both savings and better service and target social welfare payments at those who really need them as well as ensuring the removal of disincentives to work, both of these resulting in a lower expenditure bill
6. Tackle and reform the sheltered domestic private sector - doctors, pharmacists, vets, dentists, lawyers, accountants, retail distribution etc
7. Every citizen tackle their own personal financial position to the best of their ability and avail of new reformed bankruptcy laws if unable to do so.

Agreed, this is the only course of action that makes any sense. Of course it still leaves the huge amount of money that we've borrowed from the ECB/IMF to be paid back.
I think everyone recognises that it simply impossible that we'll ever be in a position to repay all of it.
So continue with step 3, hope that things improve and growth returns and negotiate a write off of a good chuck of the debt when the markets have returned to some sort of stability in a few years time.

None of this is ideal - but it's better than withdrawing from the Euro now.

As far as point 7 goes I think we'll need to take it a step further - the banks will need to regotiate debts with people (not write them off), but extend the terms, look at the interest rates and perhaps convert some of it into equity.

maggy_thatcher

Is mise le key wrote: »

Richard Boyd barrett commented recently at the ULA national forum, that it is becoming obvious that the majority of the people of the country agree with the ULA in that they understand that the debt is unsustainable & there will have to be, 'debt forgivness', 'debt restructuring', 'haircuts', 'defaults'.....whatever way you want to say it, but that they dont hold the political persuasion that the ULA does.

Whenever people say the ULA, I always think of these guys

My belief is that, yes, there should be debt restructuring - but that's it - if you owe 300K on a 20 year mortgage and can't afford to pay it, then pay it over 40 years instead - you pay less per month this way (with the obvious drawback of you end up paying a lot more).

This means that the "can't pay" are helped -- they can just spread the load a little; the "won't pay" are discouraged from this approach as they end up paying loads more, and the "didn't take out an overpriced mortgage" people aren't affected at all.

This strikes me as the safest, fairest way of handling things.

nextbestintown

Write off debt and still keep their houses.... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Never Happen... NEVER!

Is mise le key

nextbestintown wrote: »

Write off debt and still keep their houses.... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Never Happen... NEVER!

Oh contraire, it has already happened in quite a number of cases handled by these guys,

http://www.newbeginning.ie/

People have had there debt written off & retained the property & in some cases handed back the property to the bank & the debt does not follow them.

The change is coming slowly but will accelerate over the next number of months.

Godge

Is mise le key wrote: »

Oh contraire, it has already happened in quite a number of cases handled by these guys,

http://www.newbeginning.ie/

People have had there debt written off & retained the property & in some cases handed back the property to the bank & the debt does not follow them.

The change is coming slowly but will accelerate over the next number of months.

Well I certainly hope the ULA is firmly opposed to this sort of thing. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, doesn't mean writing off debts so people can stay in their McMansions. Private wealth paid for by the taxpayers through funding the banks being handed over to private individuals in the know would go against every socialist principle.

Another example of Oirish socialism as practiced by the ULA (see my posts on bin charges, water charges and property taxes).

It makes me laugh that someone like myself (somewhere between social democrat and christian democrat without the morality) is more socialist than the ULA and their apologists.

It is also farcical to see the difference between the unrealistic unachieveable rhetoric about withdrawing from the EU and the actual grubby populist policies pursued which appeal to the lowest common denominator - keep our school/hospital/road open while we refuse to pay bin/water/property charge.

Godge

black francis wrote: »

Agreed, this is the only course of action that makes any sense. Of course it still leaves the huge amount of money that we've borrowed from the ECB/IMF to be paid back.
I think everyone recognises that it simply impossible that we'll ever be in a position to repay all of it.
So continue with step 3, hope that things improve and growth returns and negotiate a write off of a good chuck of the debt when the markets have returned to some sort of stability in a few years time.

None of this is ideal - but it's better than withdrawing from the Euro now.

As far as point 7 goes I think we'll need to take it a step further - the banks will need to regotiate debts with people (not write them off), but extend the terms, look at the interest rates and perhaps convert some of it into equity.

By the time it comes to repay it, the EU will have either

(1) developed a new system to support those in trouble (as a response to problems in Spain or Italy)
(2) begun to inflate the economy out of the debt trap.


If the doom-mongers who say the others are only a step away are right, those are the only two solutions.

sarumite

Is mise le key wrote: »

Yes, you see slowly i think the population are beginning to realise that the plan is failing, there is no solution to the debt that has been run up as unemployment is running high everywhere & the debt cannot be paid back.

Writing off of the debt is what has even been proposed as i have mentioned by Soros, one of the worlds big capitalist players.

Richard Boyd barrett commented recently at the ULA national forum, that it is becoming obvious that the majority of the people of the country agree with the ULA in that they understand that the debt is unsustainable & there will have to be, 'debt forgivness', 'debt restructuring', 'haircuts', 'defaults'.....whatever way you want to say it, but that they dont hold the political persuasion that the ULA does.


This is true, while the majority of the people are not of a Socialist politic they all know instinctivley what is coming.

I don't think the default argument solely belongs to socialists. If we were to default, it would require overnight balancing of the books. This would probably in all honesty mean scrapping/severly cutting many of the state expenditures I believe socialists would be opposed to. I haven't seen anyone on the far left who propose default explain how they would balance the books.

Wer are up the creek without a paddle, the EU is going to fail in its current form, the current & previous strategy of our governments cannot solve this, we need a radical change & some real bold initiatives to hold our own in the coming years which are going to be a tempest.

The EU is not the euro. Lets not conflate the two.

Is mise le key

Ahhhhhhh, it really gets tiresome reading some of this, the people that are of most concern to the ULA right now are the ones who cannot afford to pay & are under severe stress & pressure, as are their entire family because of the debt that was incurred during contrived property inflation we just went through.

Why is it, that when people find themselves in a hard place, due to market capitalism & we want to assisst, that you think it is somehow not Socialist to want to reduce their DEBT?

Remeber the debt was a capitalist creation via speculation & capitalist market forces, you seem to forget that i do not advocate the tax payer funding the banks.

samuite wrote:

The EU is not the euro. Lets not conflate the two.

Im not, the Euro is shakey (to put it mildly) as is the EU.

Is mise le key

It appears that the nay sayers on here are still behind in logical thinking, heres another thread on this forum which reports mortgages being written down as being 'pragmatic',

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056323790

sarumite

Is mise le key wrote: »

Remeber the debt was a capitalist creation via speculation & capitalist market forces, you seem to forget that i do not advocate the tax payer funding the banks.

you will probably continue to hear it until you explain how to finance this debt while keeping the economy afloat. My sister is in severe negative equity so I can understand you willingness to help as I feel the same way. Though that help needs to be fair and equitable.

Im not, the Euro is shakey (to put it mildly) as is the EU.

If EU sceptical countries like the UK which have a EU sceptical party as the majority in government are not looking to leave the EU.

Godge

Is mise le key wrote: »

Ahhhhhhh, it really gets tiresome reading some of this, the people that are of most concern to the ULA right now are the ones who cannot afford to pay & are under severe stress & pressure, as are their entire family because of the debt that was incurred during contrived property inflation we just went through.

Why is it, that when people find themselves in a hard place, due to market capitalism & we want to assisst, that you think it is somehow not Socialist to want to reduce their DEBT?

Remeber the debt was a capitalist creation via speculation & capitalist market forces, you seem to forget that i do not advocate the tax payer funding the banks.



Im not, the Euro is shakey (to put it mildly) as is the EU.

What about the 25% of the population who are too poor to afford a deposit to own property? They seem to have been dropped by the ULA and they are the people who the socialists are supposed to care about according to their philosophy.

Property owners (whether they have a large mortgage or not) are players in the capitalist system and it seems strange that a socialist party has them as their number one priority. It only makes sense if they are not a socialist party.

sarumite

Is mise le key wrote: »

It appears that the nay sayers on here are still behind in logical thinking, heres another thread on this forum which reports mortgages being written down as being 'pragmatic',

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056323790

I think you should reread that thread though. The people in that case lost their property.

Is mise le key

Godge wrote: »

What about the 25% of the population who are too poor to afford a deposit to own property? They seem to have been dropped by the ULA and they are the people who the socialists are supposed to care about according to their philosophy.

Property owners (whether they have a large mortgage or not) are players in the capitalist system and it seems strange that a socialist party has them as their number one priority. It only makes sense if they are not a socialist party.

Well part of a Socialsit solution would see all the empty units around the country used for Social benefit, people who cant afford a deposit, homeless, waiting lists etc etc.

A part of the IMF requirments that have been issued to our government is to eradicate state social housing entirley & have all people now in social the housing system housed in the private propertys all around the country that are empty, with the tenants being subsidised by the state, with the money going to private landlord owners.

Property owners are not players in the capitalist system simply because have put a roof over their familys heads within the system they live in, i have a mortgage, does that make me a capitalist seeing as the system i am in favor of is not available to me?

What would you propose i do until there is a proper Socialist housing system? Live in the street with my family?

I have to say, the majority of people that have been posting on this thread are at least logical even if i dont agree with them, you appear to be illogical & pose irrational statements that are not thought through in any great detail.

samurite wrote:

I think you should reread that thread though. The people in that case lost their property.

I realise that it was not the best solution to the case, no doubt it was tough for them to have to leave their home & seems to be the only option that was put on the table for them which in itself is kind of immoral, but they have left the debt behind them, they were in a €360,000 mortgage & the system has forced them out of their home in order to clear the debt, but at least they are free of it now.

ArmaniJeanss

sarumite wrote: »

If we were to default, it would require overnight balancing of the books. This would probably in all honesty mean scrapping/severly cutting many of the state expenditures I believe socialists would be opposed to. I haven't seen anyone on the far left who propose default explain how they would balance the books.

Has no-one mentioned the squillion dollars worth of oil&gas off our coast? Thats usually the magic beans in the balancing-the-books-after-default argument.

Edit: I see it did get mentioned a few pages back. 5 Trillion dollars worth out there apparently.

Godge

Is mise le key wrote: »

Well part of a Socialsit solution would see all the empty units around the country used for Social benefit, people who cant afford a deposit, homeless, waiting lists etc etc.

A part of the IMF requirments that have been issued to our government is to eradicate state social housing entirley & have all people now in social the housing system housed in the private propertys all around the country that are empty, with the tenants being subsidised by the state, with the money going to private landlord owners. Where have you seen this? Can you provide a link?

Property owners are not players in the capitalist system simply because have put a roof over their familys heads within the system they live in, i have a mortgage, does that make me a capitalist seeing as the system i am in favor of is not available to me? Yes, that does make you a capitalist

What would you propose i do until there is a proper Socialist housing system? Live in the street with my family? No, I would expect you to take the equivalent of social welfare from your job, live in social housing, and donate the rest of your earnings to the great socialist cause, while foregoing holidays, cars and other trappings of the big bad capitalist system (all that presumes you really believe what you say)

I have to say, the majority of people that have been posting on this thread are at least logical even if i dont agree with them, you appear to be illogical & pose irrational statements that are not thought through in any great detail. It is illogical and irrational to suggest withdrawing from the EU and the euro without having a plan to balance the books and create a sustainable economy. Actually, delete the second part of the sentence, it is illogical and irrational to suggest withdrawing from the EU and the euro, full stop.



I realise that it was not the best solution to the case, no doubt it was tough for them to have to leave their home & seems to be the only option that was put on the table for them which in itself is kind of immoral, but they have left the debt behind them, they were in a €360,000 mortgage & the system has forced them out of their home in order to clear the debt, but at least they are free of it now. And the taxpayers living in rental accommodation who cannot afford a house are now subsidising the banks so that they can be free of debt. Not exactly fair and socialist.

See in bold above

Godge

Is mise le key wrote: »

Right, we have kind of already discovered what i propose you do not agree with as a viable solution, i have still not seen any proposal in the last three posts that do offer any solution from your persepctive.

Play on whatever pitch you want if thats the case, offer me a solution within a capitalist framework, to this capitalist created problem please gents.

Godge wrote: »

1. Recapitalise the banks
2. Sort out the regulation and management of banks to ensure it doesn't happen again
3. Tackle the structural budget deficit by reducing expenditure and incereasing taxation
4. As part of 3 shift the taxation burden into long-term sustainable taxation such as a property tax and away from taxes on economic activity
5. As part of 3 reform the public service to ensure both savings and better service and target social welfare payments at those who really need them as well as ensuring the removal of disincentives to work, both of these resulting in a lower expenditure bill
6. Tackle and reform the sheltered domestic private sector - doctors, pharmacists, vets, dentists, lawyers, accountants, retail distribution etc
7. Every citizen tackle their own personal financial position to the best of their ability and avail of new reformed bankruptcy laws if unable to do so.


None of those in any particular order.

What is wrong with the above? It is all in our own hands now that the EU/IMF have given us money to keep the show on the road for the next 18 months to 2 years. If we don't do this, we will have failed as a nation again and once more it will be our own fault.

Is mise le key wrote: »

So pretty much the approach that the government past & present is taking which is going to fail as it is unaforrdable.

You see renowmed world economists like joseph stiglitz know this is unworkable, even major hedge fund operator george soros knows it wont work & has commented on it over a year & a half ago, this was tried & failed & the ECB/IMF know its unworkable but are painting themselves into a corner & will keep up the pressure & the illusion until the major privatisation programs can be rolled out in each country before the inevitable default comes.

Take a look at out national debt on the link in my sig, & the rest of the countries, this is not affordable for any nation, even the US.

Is mise le key wrote: »

I have to say, the majority of people that have been posting on this thread are at least logical even if i dont agree with them, you appear to be illogical & pose irrational statements that are not thought through in any great detail.

.

You may disagree with the seven points outlined in my post above but it has been agreed with by at least one if not more posters. So it is more than a little disingenuous to describe my statements as illogical and irrational. It smacks of being unable to accept a few hard truths.

hmmm

Is mise le key wrote: »

i have a mortgage,

How very selfless of you to cheerlead a policy of having renters pay the mortgages of others. Your dedication to the landowners of this country is noted and admired for brazen neck. And to think you lot lecture people about socialism.

Is mise le key

Godge wrote: »

See in bold above

Godge wrote: »

Where have you seen this? Can you provide a link?

http://richardboydbarrett.ie/category/current-campaigns/eu-imf-deal/

Godge wrote: »

Yes, that does make you a capitalist

Oh come on please, you are saying i am a capitalist by default because bought a home within the only system that is available to me, this is where i was saying your posts are illogical & irrational, so am i also a capitalist if i travel with a private airline to get where i want to go?

Godge wrote: »

No, I would expect you to take the equivalent of social welfare from your job, live in social housing, and donate the rest of your earnings to the great socialist cause, while foregoing holidays, cars and other trappings of the big bad capitalist system (all that presumes you really believe what you say)

Well not that its any of your business really but, i earn slightly more than the average ind wage, on that i support my entire family.

You are saying i should opt to live in social housing system that is completely inadequate for the needs of people & all ready over burdened due to it being controlled by right wing governments for decades!!!

Why would i, if i am not in position to have to use state assistance, use up more of our social resources in this already social inadequate right wing system? That would be ridiculous to say the least, again this is illogical & irrational.

I will point out to you that the leadership of the ULA do exactly what you have said, they only take the average ind wage + expenses (not the corrupt crazy expenses of FF/FG) & donate all the rest to the 'great Socialist cause' as you put it.

Now you are trying to say that Socialists don’t take holidays or should not drive cars!!! Again for the record, not that it is your business, my car is 15 years old & i don’t aspire to have anything other than something that is reliable.

You seem to indicate from that part of your post that you presume i want fine cars, opulent housing, luxurious holidays, all i want in life is to live a comfortable existence & nothing that i do negatively affects another person’s basic quality of life & right to dignity.

Godge wrote: »

And the taxpayers living in rental accommodation who cannot afford a house are now subsidising the banks so that they can be free of debt. Not exactly fair and socialist.

I am not advocating the taxpayers subsidise the banks, you are.

Is mise le key

Just for the sake of impartiality, here is an article from the NY times & an american economists views on the EU etc, not from a Socialist if you dont want to hear it from me,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/magazine/16Europe-t.html?pagewanted=all

I would urge you to read it in its entirety.

coffee_cake

Is mise le key wrote: »

Oh come on please, you are saying i am a capitalist by default because bought a home

Kinda how it works, no

Is mise le key

bluewolf wrote: »

Kinda how it works, no

Masterfully detailed analysis, such insight & so helpful.

coffee_cake

Is mise le key wrote: »

Masterfully detailed analysis, such insight & so helpful.

As opposed to "oh come on please"?!

godge has said it all already and I'm chipping in to agree.

Is mise le key

bluewolf wrote: »

As opposed to "oh come on please"?!

godge has said it all already and I'm chipping in to agree.

Touché

take everything

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

1) you signed the contract
2) it's not their fault you bought an overvalued house, nor that it has fallen in value
3) you'll be black listed and not be able to get another mortgage
4) they'll probably seize the house
5) people won't view you as a lying cheating scumbag who's word has zero meaning

I'm glad to see, from this and other well-thanked posts, that see there are sane, responsible posters on boards.ie.
Why do some people find it so hard to grasp you pay back what you fcuking borrowed. Nothing to do with what happened to the value of your house.

Godge

Is mise le key wrote: »

http://richardboydbarrett.ie/category/current-campaigns/eu-imf-deal/




.

Now if that it what you are relying on for your information, no wonder you are completely deluded. There is no money to build houses, maybe you don't understand that but most of us do. As a result, until we are out of this crisis, those on the housing list will only get a council house if one becomes vacant so they will have to stay in rental housing. To twist that into people will have to live in subsidised rental housing for the rest of their lives (80 years for a newborn?) is unbelieveable. If we follow the correct path, this country will recover and there will be money for council housing in future years. The stuff on that website is cheap populist guff with no sense of reality and no recipe for saving this country.

If we follow the path of the deluded, most will leave and a lack of housing won't be a problem.

carm

take everything wrote: »

Why do some people find it so hard to grasp you pay back what you fcuking borrowed.

Is this what you'll be advising Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore to accept when they go back to the EU to sign for our second bailout, oh great one?

sarumite

carm wrote: »

Is this what you'll be advising Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore to accept when they go back to the EU to sign for our second bailout, oh great one?

You think a second bailout would involve a default on the 1st? To answer you question, yes...I expect if they go for a second bailout that we will have to pay back what we borrowed, though hopefully on a reduced interest rate.

I guess the whole sentence should be that you pay back what you borrowed or you declare bankruptcy/default and accept the consequences.

carm

sarumite wrote: »

You think a second bailout would involve a default on the 1st? To answer you question, yes...I expect if they go for a second bailout that we will have to pay back what we borrowed, though hopefully on a reduced interest rate.

I guess the whole sentence should be that you pay back what you borrowed or you declare bankruptcy/default and accept the consequences.

So the important points being:
"we will have to pay back what we borrowed" (not as optimistic as you, nor are Moodys)
or
"declare bankruptcy/default and accept the consequences".

I guess that's for all then...

Come on Seanie, Fingers, Drumm, Quinn-stop fcuking about and give us your assets. You're playing us and the people on boards.ie think you need to "pay back what you fcuking borrowed".

CiaranC

carm wrote: »

Come on Seanie, Fingers, Drumm, Quinn-stop fcuking about and give us your assets. You're playing us and the people on boards.ie think you need to "pay back what you fcuking borrowed".

Come on we are only talking about gob****e PAYE workers who got caught up in the bubble here, the likes of Drumm gets to live in a Mansion in Florida while the rest of you suffer.

Is mise le key

carm wrote: »

Come on Seanie, Fingers, Drumm, Quinn-stop fcuking about and give us your assets. You're playing us and the people on boards.ie think you need to "pay back what you fcuking borrowed".

Thats very relevant to the subject of this thread, there seems to be a hell of a lot of 'debt forgivness' around at the top & none at the bottom.

Anyone want to comment on the NY times article i posted as an impartial persepective on our current situation seeing as its all crazy if its coming from a Socialist,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/magazine/16Europe-t.html?pagewanted=all