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
ECB cuts rate to 1.25%
Comments
-
Balancing the books and subsidizing are two different things.
A subsidy would be a formal arrangement put in place to pay part of the cost of something like farming subsidies to subsidize the cost of producing food to make it a viable business for the producer and keep prices from fluctuating .
Balancing the book has to be done there is no choice unless you want to go out of business . You don't subsidise your losses with your profits you just absorb them and hope by maximising profits in your profitable ventures you can outweigh your unprofitable ones.
That was be one correct usage of the word subsidy... But is also has other similar common language usages..
We often will create a new business area with costs subsidised by the costs of more profitable areas in order to generate future business. I have never heard any balk at the use in that context in over 20 years in business...
Regarding common language usage.. here are a handful of articles that seem to have no issue with the term in various non governmental forms..
"Is it is grossly unfair and inequitable for one class of mortgage holder to effectively subsidise another as banks struggle to keep their doors open? Is there a case to be made for capping interest rate margins on variable rate annuity mortgages? "
http://journalist.ie/2011/07/disparity-amongst-mortgage-holders-unsustainable/
"The Agency also rejects the assertion that holders of tracker mortgages are being unfairly cross subsidised, to the detriment of consumers with variable rates. It believes that consumers who signed up to a tracker rate are entitled to be assured that their lender will fulfil the contract they signed up to. "
http://www.nca.ie/eng/Media_Zone/Press%20Releases/NCA%20warning%20on%20switch%20to%20fixed-rate%20mortgages.html
"The national solidarity bond has been criticised as a “lapse-supported” product. In other words, the investors who bail out within the first five years and end up with a small return after tax end up subsidising the returns for the very few who will stick it out for seven to 10 years."
http://www.todayfm.com/Shows/Weekdays/Matt-Cooper/Personalfinance.aspx
"Your new lender may offer to subsidise some of these costs or even absorb all of them, though one condition may be that you have to use one of the lender's own recommended solicitors."
http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/ConsumerValue/Housing/switching-mortgages.html
etc etc etc..
The term subsidy is and can be used in far more cases than just formal governmental agreements / payments.
(and yes I am aware that the National Consumer Agency linked above disagree with tracker mortages being blames for bank issues..
) 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Since you keep asking how filiball is fully paying back his mortgage, you may have missed my post.
The banks are not funding the money they advanced to filiball, they did that when they paid for his house, they are funding other things such as depositers and bondholders that are more expensive now than when they got the money to pay for filiball's house. Most of those links you provide also miss this point. They paid for filiball's houseo. a few years ag
Sorry have responded..
Thats the point i am making
"They paid for filiball's houseo. a few years ago"
They did, but he didn't.. and THAT current cost is more than he is paying.. hence why banks are losing money.. Fliball hasn't paid 100% for anything yet..0 -
-
-
That was be one correct usage of the word subsidy... But is also has other similar common language usages..
We often will create a new business area with costs subsidised by the costs of more profitable areas in order to generate future business. I have never heard any balk at the use in that context in over 20 years in business...
Regarding common language usage.. here are a handful of articles that seem to have no issue with the term in various non governmental forms..
"Is it is grossly unfair and inequitable for one class of mortgage holder to effectively subsidise another as banks struggle to keep their doors open? Is there a case to be made for capping interest rate margins on variable rate annuity mortgages? "
http://journalist.ie/2011/07/disparity-amongst-mortgage-holders-unsustainable/
"The Agency also rejects the assertion that holders of tracker mortgages are being unfairly cross subsidised, to the detriment of consumers with variable rates. It believes that consumers who signed up to a tracker rate are entitled to be assured that their lender will fulfil the contract they signed up to. "
http://www.nca.ie/eng/Media_Zone/Press%20Releases/NCA%20warning%20on%20switch%20to%20fixed-rate%20mortgages.html
"The national solidarity bond has been criticised as a “lapse-supported” product. In other words, the investors who bail out within the first five years and end up with a small return after tax end up subsidising the returns for the very few who will stick it out for seven to 10 years."
http://www.todayfm.com/Shows/Weekdays/Matt-Cooper/Personalfinance.aspx
"Your new lender may offer to subsidise some of these costs or even absorb all of them, though one condition may be that you have to use one of the lender's own recommended solicitors."
http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/ConsumerValue/Housing/switching-mortgages.html
etc etc etc..
The term subsidy is and can be used in far more cases than just formal governmental agreements / payments.
(and yes I am aware that the National Consumer Agency linked above disagree with tracker mortages being blames for bank issues.. )
They're all using it in the wrong context too.:) Anyways most people get what is meant when you suggest variable rate mortgages are subsidizing trackers , I still say its not subsidizing just simple business procedure . The banks are the ones to be annoyed with no the ordinary home owner who happens to have a tracker.0 -
Advertisement
-
They're all using it in the wrong context too.:) Anyways most people get what is meant when you suggest variable rate mortgages are subsidizing trackers , I still say its not subsidizing just simple business procedure . The banks are the ones to be annoyed with no the ordinary home owner who happens to have a tracker.
And I of course will counter argue that people get subsidising means paying extra for their variable mortgages, bank charges, government funding so that banks can obtain balanced books
and the circle continues...
To close, i think most rational people are not annoyed with tracker owners.. I certaintly am not, as my single remaining mortgage is a tracker... The banks screwed up big time, and everyone is paying the cost, but it makes no sense for people to try and twist facts to hide their current benefit. It's a simple fact that the majority of trackers are not returning the complete cost to the banks. There is also sod all that the banks can do to get people off trackers, which is the way it should be...0 -
-
-
as i said before, i'd like to see the calulations to see how much ebtter of you would be. Youve got to add in the cost of that rent youve been paying for 15 years into the calculations also.
could be an interesting analysis.
I make a rough estimate, 10000€ year makes 150000€.
One could have bought a house in dublin suburbs (e.g Clondalkin) for around 60k€ during 1996 -1997. 3 bed semis were going for about 50k £ back in those days in Clondalkin (I was looking at them
) . Or cheaper outside Dublin. That mortgage probably be finished within 10 years and one could have saved 50k from rents. 0 -
I make a rough estimate, 10000€ year makes 150000€.
One could have bought a house in dublin suburbs (e.g Clondalkin) for around 60k€ during 1996 -1997. 3 bed semis were going for about 50k £ back in those days in Clondalkin (I was looking at them) . Or cheaper outside Dublin. That mortgage probably be finished within 10 years and one could have saved 50k from rents.
And he's over in the sticks in the west so could have probably bought for 30-40k..:D0 -
-
RoverJames wrote: »And you've been living where for the last 10 years?
10 years of renting eats into that 6 figure sum you are babbling on about. Unless you live with Mummy and Daddy for free.
As with many folk who throw out the "I was too smart to buy during the boom ..." bla bla bla the reality is you were probably earning sh1t money in a sh1t job and couldn't afford it.
Also as with many of these type of genius' you will never have the balls to buy a house as you'll be afraid buying at the wrong time.robbie7730 wrote: »Id say that about sums it up. Plenty who didnt buy during the last 10 years didnt because they were not in a position to, and now they come forth with their genial claims.RoverJames wrote: »I never said rent was dead money did I? If you and your partner (the other half of the we you mention) have saved up a six figure sum I'm delighted for ye. Seems as you are the guts of 40 you'll no doubt need it.
I'm in denial about nothing btw and just because you have been in professional jobs it doesn't mean you were not on sh1t money.
Also if you bought in 2000 you'd have gotten a house for less than what they are going for now and be 12 years into your small mortgage. The rent money would have covered all of those mortgage payments.
You reckon I am putting you down (and imply I'm someone a fool) yet all you are doing in this thread is gloating about your situation as you seem to think it's a good postion you are in.
When do you intend buying by the way?
Apparently despite the biggest crash in the history of property, in possibly the world, we are still having a debate about whether rent was "dead money" during that time. Mother Ireland is rearing them yet.I make a rough estimate, 10000€ year makes 150000€.
One could have bought a house in dublin suburbs (e.g Clondalkin) for around 60k€ during 1996 -1997. 3 bed semis were going for about 50k £ back in those days in Clondalkin (I was looking at them) . Or cheaper outside Dublin. That mortgage probably be finished within 10 years and one could have saved 50k from rents.
What about 2006? Hows that working out?
If houses cost 60k€ ( £45K) in 1996 - which I doubt - then nobody was paying 10000€ a year rent at the time, thats clearly rubbish. And people tend to rent in groups not rent a house.
I am paying £300 a month in the UK, in a perfectly nice house I share with GF and friend. Combined earnings of way over £100K here. My savings are heading towards £100k. I'll be back in Ireland once prices drop to €60k on average.0 -
And I of course will counter argue that people get subsidising means paying extra for their variable mortgages, bank charges, government funding so that banks can obtain balanced books and the circle continues...
To close, i think most rational people are not annoyed with tracker owners.. I certaintly am not, as my single remaining mortgage is a tracker... The banks screwed up big time, and everyone is paying the cost, but it makes no sense for people to try and twist facts to hide their current benefit. It's a simple fact that the majority of trackers are not returning the complete cost to the banks. There is also sod all that the banks can do to get people off trackers, which is the way it should be...
This is off topic but i wonder if say someone had 200k remaining to pay on a tracker mortgage and just say they had enough money in savings to clear the mortgage in one lump sum , what is the minimum ammount the bank would accept to finish the mortgage early , 180k , less? and forget about more interest to be made on the savings than you are paying on the mortgage just say you want rid of the debt.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RoverJames wrote: »I'm in denial about nothing btw and just because you have been in professional jobs it doesn't mean you were not on sh1t money.
Also if you bought in 2000 you'd have gotten a house for less than what they are going for now and be 12 years into your small mortgage. The rent money would have covered all of those mortgage payments.
I didn't want to buy a house back then, I'll buy when I'm ready to buy.I make a rough estimate, 10000€ year makes 150000€.
One could have bought a house in dublin suburbs (e.g Clondalkin) for around 60k€ during 1996 -1997. 3 bed semis were going for about 50k £ back in those days in Clondalkin (I was looking at them) . Or cheaper outside Dublin. That mortgage probably be finished within 10 years and one could have saved 50k from rents.
Fifteen years ago I was paying 17 pounds a week rent and our rent currently is 600 a month for a 4 bed house and I'm not in Dublin.
Your rental estimates are way off especially considering we've only been saving for the last few years.
Houses when I finished college were 30k for a new 3 bed semi d, ten years later the same houses were going for 260k. Facts like this helped me make my mind upRoverJames wrote: »Another gloater, and of course you're in the UK despite being able to get a job paying more here? Of course.
If average house prices here go to €60,000 you'll be staying in the UK I'd say.robbie7730 wrote: »Indeed it is, but at least not all of them stay here.
Another head the wall is it?
So now people that were sensible are gloaters while people with mortgages try and look hard on the net while regretting their decisions to buy bricks and mortar. Yeah right, I wish I was like you guys instead of being mobile and able to do as I please when I please.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement