Unions call to not pay mortgages

CS Hasuki

It is the biggest heist in the states history. Screwed by taxes already, new property tax coming, €200 levy coming in. Mortgage rates going up. Banks like AIB & BOI are hiring staff and paying bonuses, still.

Tea drinker

Is mise le key wrote: »

Populism is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as,

"political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes".

How is beginning the economy over again rubbish?,

I don't have a mortgage and I don't have a house. I have a deposit. This money would be wiped out stolen from me in order to further increase the wealthy property owners. Unless of course there is a plan to give me a free house?

Yeah I thought that, I would have to go eff myself right?

Sconsey

Is mise le key wrote: »

That guys on less income to cover their negative equity properties, should go on a mortgage strike (Not refuse to pay at all or have written off completley), .

Could someone explain what negative equity has to do with ability to pay off a mortgage?...just because peoples property investments went bad does not mean they should be allowed to stop paying back their debts if they can afford to pay. If they can't afford to pay their debts then go bankrupt, return the house to the bank and maybe rent the house back or something.

Now here comes the 'why should we pay the banks back, we already gave them billions?' argument.....yes we all have given them billions and will be suffering for years to come as a result, we did not all buy property we could not afford to pay back, we are not all unable to pay our mortgages. Why should we all cover the debts of a minority that spent beyond their means?
I'm not saying turf them out on the street, that would be a disaster, but some homeowners need to accept that they should actually be renters, they might even be better off in the long run.

Frank Black

What I’ve wondered is whether all this talk of debt forgiveness is encouraging people not to pay their mortgages.
I mean unemployment is at around 15% say. Even in the days of the Celtic tiger there was still around 5% unemployment.
I presume that anyone in that 5% would not have been able to borrow from a bank to buy a house.
Of the 10% that were working and have now been made redundant how many of them bought a property during the boom. Since we are told that the recession has affected more young people than older people it would be reasonable to assume that less than half this number would have bought property (say 3- 4%).
If we assume the above there’s only 3-4% of the population that have bought property during the boom that have since been made redundant.
Now obviously there’s other people who are still in work but have seen falls in salary, but even allowing for this it’s hard to see why there should be so many mortgages in arrears.
Am I missing something or are there some people choosing not to pay knowing that the banks have to wait years to get possession of the property and in the hope that their debt will be written off to some extent?

hmmm

black francis wrote: »

What I’ve wondered is whether all this talk of debt forgiveness is encouraging people not to pay their mortgages.

Most people are fundamentally honest, and will be trying to pay their mortgages irrespective. Some will presumably be taking the proverbial in the hope of "forgiveness", but I doubt they are many.

I also think most people have a sense of fairness, which is why a solution of creating a less onerous bankruptcy scheme will find general support, but a scheme which allows people to have their debts paid by taxpayers won't be supported, even though both will be costly to the state.

Good loser

Originally Posted by Is mise le key

'You see continuing the endless line of credit from the taxpayers to the major global bankers in order to maintain the status quo sounds like rubbish to me, seeing as we do not have a functioning economy, banks or employment.'


What a load of garbage!

You obviously are completely out of your depth on economic matters and logic/commonsense.

Must be reading the wrong tabloids.

Perhaps a gene exchange could be arranged?

Is mise le key

Good loser wrote: »

Originally Posted by Is mise le key

'You see continuing the endless line of credit from the taxpayers to the major global bankers in order to maintain the status quo sounds like rubbish to me, seeing as we do not have a functioning economy, banks or employment.'


What a load of garbage!

You obviously are completely out of your depth on economic matters and logic/commonsense.

Must be reading the wrong tabloids.

Perhaps a gene exchange could be arranged?

Ah yes, firing insults over because you dont agree with me, a very 'logical/commonsense' approach.

Tea drinker

Cute hoorism at grass roots level

carm

Tea drinker wrote: »

I don't have a mortgage and I don't have a house. I have a deposit. This money would be wiped out stolen from me in order to further increase the wealthy property owners. Unless of course there is a plan to give me a free house?

Yeah I thought that, I would have to go eff myself right?

Can you educate me on who these "wealthy property owners" are you're referring to?

In order to acquire our mortgage many years ago, we had to save for years in order to qualify and interest rates were much higher back then. We also had to save even more for ridiculous overtaxed stamp duty at the time.

Can anyone tell me, what did all those buyer's over hiked stamp duty tax over the last few decades go to pay for???

hmmm

carm wrote: »

In order to acquire our mortgage many years ago, we had to save for years in order to qualify and interest rates were much higher back then. We also had to save even more for ridiculous overtaxed stamp duty at the time.

Give the "woe is me" stuff a break, no-one forced you to buy a house and people are finding life tough enough these days without also expecting them to pay your mortgage.

Fighting Irish

North_West_Art wrote: »

I know at least 10 people who have admitted that they will probably never pay off their mortgages, one girl bought an apartment in Stillorgan for 570,000 back in 2005, her work hours have halved and she has taken a pay cut, her ex partner has left the country, she has been on interest only for the last 10 months.. you dont have to be Einstein to figure out the repayments on 570,000 over 30 years @ 5%
and what your chances of paying it back in your lifetime on €350 per week and be able to live as well..
so many people, not by choice, have been forced into an impossible position

stop, just stop!

North_West_Art

sorry, my mistake.. they deliberately chose to put themselves into an impossible position, and did so in their thousands

carm

hmmm wrote: »

Give the "woe is me" stuff a break, no-one forced you to buy a house and people are finding life tough enough these days without also expecting them to pay your mortgage.

Ah if it isn't hmmm that chose not to answer my last question earlier on in this thread but happy enough to ride along on another post.

So, who am I expecting to pay my mortgage? I'm paying my mortgage. Or is this question going to be difficult for you to answer aswell?

hmmm

carm wrote: »

So, who am I expecting to pay my mortgage? I'm paying my mortgage. Or is this question going to be difficult for you to answer aswell?

As you said earlier in this thread

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

Who do you think is paying for your mortgage interest supplement? And you're looking for it to become a long term solution for you? Get out of here with your "I'm paying my mortgage", you are clearly looking for someone else to pay it.

Drumpot

I am in negative Equity . . I bought at the peak of the boom. I reckon my house is worth less then half what I owe . .

I have a personal loan and only recently (through blood and guts) paid off my Credit Card bills.

I will continue to pay my bills for as long as I can and dont expect anybody else to bail me out or to fund my liabilities.

That said, I think there is a good discussion to be had on the whole concept of accountability and liability with regards to a state.

I will continue to payoff my liabilities but people seem to forget that over 50% of the cost of a house at the peak of a boom went into the state to fund projects (roads, schools, staff etc) and to provide jobs (building, household goods etc).

The state, rightly or wrongly, promoted and actively encouraged a giant pyramid scheme and allowed the banks to run riot and convince people (first day of college - Credit card offers etc) that spending was the new "your country needs you" slogan. Of course people could choose not to engage in this lifestyle, but in many cases, people were scared into buying houses for fear that they might never be able to afford a family home. Thats not to say they shouldnt be responsible for their actions, but what responsibility does the state have to these people ?

I know there are plenty of PC warriors on boards that for one reason or another were lucky enough (but of course they profess their hyper foresight!) not to of purchased property during the boom, but for the majority of people out of their teens from 2000, we grew up in a bitterly stressful environment encouraging us to spend, with no education on prudency (except some incentives to save for Pensions which now seem to be an inconvenience to the government!).

I dont believe the taxpayer should of had to bailout the banks and I dont believe the taxpayer should have to bailout individual homeowners. The problem is that if the banks were still privately owned (which they should be), people wouldnt have a problem with there being huge writedowns as it would be private companies taking the hit, not the taxman. People took out mortgages/contracts with a private company, not the state so why should they be anymore accountable to pay back their loans just because the state didnt regulate the banks properly and ended up having to bail them out ?

There is a complete quandary when people discuss this topic as people have completely forgotten that the contract that mortgageholders took out was with a private entity. They could of had a reasonable expectation that if they came into difficulty that they would of been able to negotiate a deal with the private bank! As usual, the argument isnt about whats right or wrong or reasonable, its about who should pay!

carm

hmmm wrote: »

As you said earlier in this thread


Who do you think is paying for your mortgage interest supplement? And you're looking for it to become a long term solution for you? Get out of here with your "I'm paying my mortgage", you are clearly looking for someone else to pay it.

hmmm I'm paying my mortgage "struggling to pay" yes, but I am paying my mortgage. I don't get mortgage interest supplement.

Please have the decency to read people's posts before you jump in without reading through, based on your own small-minded assumptions.

hmmm

carm wrote: »

hmmm I'm paying my mortgage "struggling to pay" yes, but I am paying my mortgage. I don't get mortgage interest supplement.

Please have the decency to read people's posts before you jump in without reading through, based on your own small-minded assumptions.

What an irrelevant point. Are you looking for mortgage interest supplement to be paid instead of rent supplement for mortgagees or not? If not, you should revisit some of your earlier posts.

carm

hmmm wrote: »

What an irrelevant point. Are you looking for mortgage interest supplement to be paid instead of rent supplement for mortgagees or not? If not, you should revisit some of your earlier posts.

You stated "Who do you think is paying for your mortgage interest supplement?" and now I see you are now trying to brush away your error with another question.

Interesting way of interacting with users in a thread. Firstly you ignore my first question from Page 23 (I believe I posted it two more times in case you didn't read it the first time), then you imply I'm getting something I don't with your "get out of here" comment. Nice. Now you expect me to respond when you've clearly made a mistake and don't have any manners to apologise. I see where this will go.

Keep enjoying the chink of your small change. I won't be digging deep into your pockets, don't worry.

hmmm

carm wrote: »

Firstly you ignore my first question from Page 23

I'm not hanging on your every word so I'm afraid I didn't see it. But to answer you I've dragged up the question.

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?

I don't know and I don't care. Any more questions? Social welfare is a safety net we can adjust as needed, it's not meant as a way to get the taxpayer to pay to keep someone in the standard of living they feel entitled to. If 100,000 cannot pay their mortgages, we'll fill the houses with people who can.

carm

hmmm wrote: »

I'm not hanging on your every word so I'm afraid I didn't see it. But to answer you I've dragged up the question.

I don't know and I don't care. Any more questions? Social welfare is a safety net we can adjust as needed, it's not meant as a way to get the taxpayer to pay to keep someone in the standard of living they feel entitled to. If 100,000 cannot pay their mortgages, we'll fill the houses with people who can.

Just one question for you hmmm. Who do you feel thinks the social welfare is "a way to get the taxpayer to pay to keep someone in the standard of living they feel entitled to"? Are there people on this forum stating this?

I have paid tax for nearly two decades. I hadn't complained when the rent supplement was introduced in order to help those who needed assistance to live. The same with mortgage assistance. I never received rental supplements when I was out of work 20 years ago renting. We just struggled on. It has, however, gone out of control thanks to our partying last government. As we can see from Murray and his e248,000 welfare theft. I'm sure there are hundreds more like him. If not thousands.

If you don't want to see "someone in the standard of living they feel entitled to" on benefits, have you been on boards.ie for many years discussing those on rent supplements living quite comfortably? I know some who've made a career out of it.

I hope you or none of your family members ever get into financial trouble and end up on the streets. You never know, it might stir something in you and you might start caring.

CiaranC

carm wrote: »

Just one question for you hmmm. Who do you feel thinks the social welfare is "a way to get the taxpayer to pay to keep someone in the standard of living they feel entitled to"? Are there people on this forum stating this?

I have paid tax for nearly two decades. I hadn't complained when the rent supplement was introduced in order to help those who needed assistance to live. The same with mortgage assistance. I never received rental supplements when I was out of work 20 years ago renting. We just struggled on. It has, however, gone out of control thanks to our partying last government. As we can see from Murray and his e248,000 welfare theft. I'm sure there are hundreds more like him. If not thousands.

If you don't want to see "someone in the standard of living they feel entitled to" on benefits, have you been on boards.ie for many years discussing those on rent supplements living quite comfortably? I know some who've made a career out of it.

I hope you or none of your family members ever get into financial trouble and end up on the streets. You never know, it might stir something in you and you might start caring.

Once more.

"The standard of living they feel entitled to" is property ownership when they cannot afford property. I cannot afford property, so I do not own property.

There is a difference between helping someone feed themselves/keep a roof over their heads and helping someone keep private ownership of a property.

The latter is just as much a "theft" as Mr Murray above.

carm

CiaranC wrote: »

Once more.

"The standard of living they feel entitled to" is property ownership when they cannot afford property. I cannot afford property, so I do not own property.

There is a difference between helping someone feed themselves/keep a roof over their heads and helping someone keep private ownership of a property.

The latter is just as much a "theft" as Mr Murray above.

CiaranC, so you have a problem with mortgage interest supplement if this relates to payments on "private ownership" on a house? Are you implying you feel it is "theft" if someone requests assistance from the state with regard to their mortgage repayments (ie to feed themselves and keep the "private" roof over their head).

If you could afford a property, you may well buy yourself a property. Who knows? What's your point? Should no one EVER acquire a mortgage again in this country for fear they cannot pay it in years to come?

maggy_thatcher

carm wrote: »

Should no one EVER acquire a mortgage again in this country for fear they cannot pay it in years to come?

you weigh the odds and take everything into account:

1. Don't purchase a property on your own; go in with a partner.
2. Ensure you have payment protection insurance - if you lose your job and become unable to pay your mortgage, this can keep the repayments going for awhile
3. Ensure that the repayments are a sensible fraction of the combined salary of those purchasing the property - in particular that it is repayable if only one person is working
4. In 'good' times, build up a buffer of savings handy, as you never know what's around the corner.

If you always stick to these guidelines, then for most people having a mortgage is perfectly safe. It'd only be if both of the house-owners became long-term unemployed that there'd be issues - and for those, then it'd be time to sell the house and move out.

IRISHREDSTAR

The problem at the moment is the people of this state are being asked to pay the mortgage plus take pay cuts and tax increases. As far as the markets are concerned the people of Ireland WILL default on their mortgages that’s why the banks are the way they are. The pay cuts and tax increases are simply the way the markets are getting their money back. They have already socialised your debt so you are really paying twice if you are paying your full mortgage now.
Having socialised this debt, the only fair way is to right down people’s personal debt this could be done on the basis of a voucher for every man and women in the state who can prove their habitual residence in Ireland for lets say the last ten years.
If we give a voucher equal to 100,000e to every man and women to write down their mortgage-
If you bought a house for 230 now maybe it’s worth 120 but you still owe 200 hand, in your voucher for 100 leaving you with a much more manageable mortgage. If you are married couple you would have two vouchers.
Now to be fair we would also have to give mortgage vouchers to people who don’t have a mortgage at all so people you are living in rented homes council or private or not could use their voucher to buy the home out.
We could set up property fund for people to take a share of property in nama with any all or part vouchers remaining.
To do this would cost very little cash .

hmmm

IRISHREDSTAR wrote: »

Having socialised this debt, the only fair way is to right down people’s personal debt this could be done on the basis of a voucher for every man and women in the state who can prove their habitual residence in Ireland for lets say the last ten years.
If we give a voucher equal to 100,000e to every man and women to write down their mortgage-
If you bought a house for 230 now maybe it’s worth 120 but you still owe 200 hand, in your voucher for 100 leaving you with a much more manageable mortgage. If you are married couple you would have two vouchers.
Now to be fair we would also have to give mortgage vouchers to people who don’t have a mortgage at all so people you are living in rented homes council or private or not could use their voucher to buy the home out.
We could set up property fund for people to take a share of property in nama with any all or part vouchers remaining.
To do this would cost very little cash .

You want to give everyone in the country 100k. Why not make it a million, as you seem to think "to do this would cost very little cash". Why not ten million? Do you really believe you have found the magic money tree?

Godge

IRISHREDSTAR wrote: »

The problem at the moment is the people of this state are being asked to pay the mortgage plus take pay cuts and tax increases. As far as the markets are concerned the people of Ireland WILL default on their mortgages that’s why the banks are the way they are. The pay cuts and tax increases are simply the way the markets are getting their money back. They have already socialised your debt so you are really paying twice if you are paying your full mortgage now.
Having socialised this debt, the only fair way is to right down people’s personal debt this could be done on the basis of a voucher for every man and women in the state who can prove their habitual residence in Ireland for lets say the last ten years.
If we give a voucher equal to 100,000e to every man and women to write down their mortgage-
If you bought a house for 230 now maybe it’s worth 120 but you still owe 200 hand, in your voucher for 100 leaving you with a much more manageable mortgage. If you are married couple you would have two vouchers.
Now to be fair we would also have to give mortgage vouchers to people who don’t have a mortgage at all so people you are living in rented homes council or private or not could use their voucher to buy the home out.
We could set up property fund for people to take a share of property in nama with any all or part vouchers remaining.
To do this would cost very little cash .

Census 2011 showed a population of 4.58 million. Probably about 3 million between the age of 18 and 65. Giving just that 3 million 100,000 each is a cost of €300 bn. The current Irish debt is €106 bn so your proposal would see the national debt quadruple. I know people argue here about whether the current debt is sustainable but your proposal is probably the craziest suggestion ever, resulting in completely unsustainable debt.

Sizzler

Do what a union leader says...LOL !

The same clowns that took the exchequer up the ass during the celtic tiger and are loathe now to give back a cent without trying to organise stikes / protests or marches :rolleyes:

The sooner the media starts to ignore these lads the better, they dont deserve a fraction of the media oxygen they are afforded.

SIR PEADO BAILOUT

You bought those properties in anticipation and `certainty` of profit..well for many of you that`s failed...that`s LIFE..if you want to be cheated YOU`ll be cheated :eek:

Now you know the system is rigged what do you intend to do ?..carry on proping up that very same and its fiat currency Oh Oh Euro..simples say no and end this abusive relationship :mad:

Good loser

IRISHREDSTAR wrote: »

The problem at the moment is the people of this state are being asked to pay the mortgage plus take pay cuts and tax increases. As far as the markets are concerned the people of Ireland WILL default on their mortgages that’s why the banks are the way they are. The pay cuts and tax increases are simply the way the markets are getting their money back. They have already socialised your debt so you are really paying twice if you are paying your full mortgage now.
Having socialised this debt, the only fair way is to right down people’s personal debt this could be done on the basis of a voucher for every man and women in the state who can prove their habitual residence in Ireland for lets say the last ten years.
If we give a voucher equal to 100,000e to every man and women to write down their mortgage-
If you bought a house for 230 now maybe it’s worth 120 but you still owe 200 hand, in your voucher for 100 leaving you with a much more manageable mortgage. If you are married couple you would have two vouchers.
Now to be fair we would also have to give mortgage vouchers to people who don’t have a mortgage at all so people you are living in rented homes council or private or not could use their voucher to buy the home out.
We could set up property fund for people to take a share of property in nama with any all or part vouchers remaining.
To do this would cost very little cash .

What you, and many others, do not understand is that any price/value only stands until the instant the transaction (if any) is completed.

That is why it is so important to be careful with large transactions.

It is possible for a price/value to move in any direction after sale/purchase with no consequences for the already concluded contract.

If this was not the case the business of buying and selling could not continue.

Essentially valuation only exists for the moment of the transaction.

nextbestintown

Well as long as the muppets lose their houses and it goes on the saturated market that just keeps falling then all the kind people are happy

x