Moved Country. Not paying my mortgage anymore

donalg1

durano wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

That's exactly what I am saying I will never willingly default on a loan such as the op is doing.

People,countries,businesses and all different forms of entities default on loans everyday of the week.In the real world sometimes things happen(like the greatest property crash in any western economy for 3 centuries or the greatest economic crash in history)that are outside our control and force us to default,you'll have to try and get over it.

Well thanks for that but I think I know myself better than you know me. So like I.said I won't willingly default on a loan like the op is doing.

Oh and the OP isn't being forced to default he is choosing to do it.

daltonmd

The Mustard wrote: »

You make good points.

In a child maintenance case, if it could be shown that a father ditched his job to strategically reduce earnings, I'd say the judge would be down on top of him like a ton of bricks.

If someone moved to another country (UK) to take up residence there, I think it would be very difficult to show that the reason they are unemployed or in employment with lesser wages, was deliberate.

Strategic default has a very specific meaning, so if someone no longer had the ability to repay the debts, then they wouldn't be a strategic defaulter - But let's not get into that argument!

No - let's (lol) get into this, because I think this is very important, more than that, I think this will have a huge bearing on cases in the future. If you were in NE to the tune of 150k and some kind of debt resolution came online, then I would hope that there was a forensic inestigation as to why some people were applying for leniancy in some way towards not repaying their mortgages.
Strategic delfault is defined as:
"the decision by a borrower to stop making payments on a debt despite having the financial ability to make the payments."

I think this is of huge importance and while I am all for helping those who "need" help - anyone who "decides" to leave viable employment to avoid repaying their mortgage should be punished accordingly. And no help should be afforded to them.

Leaving paid employment, to avoid fulfilling your contractual obligation for personal financial gain is wrong. End of story.

durano

donalg1 wrote: »

Well thanks for that but I think I know myself better than you know me. So like I.said I won't willingly default on a loan like the op is doing.

Oh and the OP isn't being forced to default he is choosing to do it.

Choosing to do it because he's been forced to move abroad to find work and forced to shoulder massive negative equity if he doesn't,some choice.

kegzmc

daltonmd wrote: »

No - let's (lol) get into this, because I think this is very important, more than that, I think this will have a huge bearing on cases in the future. If you were in NE to the tune of 150k and some kind of debt resolution came online, then I would hope that there was a forensic inestigation as to why some people were applying for leniancy in some way towards not repaying their mortgages.
Strategic delfault is defined as:
"the decision by a borrower to stop making payments on a debt despite having the financial ability to make the payments."

I think this is of huge importance and while I am all for helping those who "need" help - anyone who "decides" to leave viable employment to avoid repaying their mortgage should be punished accordingly. And no help should be afforded to them.

Leaving paid employment, to avoid fulfilling your contractual obligation for personal financial gain is wrong. End of story.

I haven't left work nor have I any intention of. Im still working in same position I had in Ireland. I ll probably take up a position here by end of year though. Hard to integrate, learn language etc while working from home.

daltonmd

kegzmc wrote: »

I haven't left work nor have I any intention of. Im still working in same position I had in Ireland. I ll probably take up a position here by end of year though. Hard to integrate, learn language etc while working from home.

Of course not - but you are "choosin" to strategically default are you not?

You also never said whether both properties are rented out? Are they receiving income of some kind or are they vacant?

You see, you asked the bank to sell one property and transfer the NE to the other property, so you could have one mortgage - something that I see no problem with by the way- but in response to a no, you want to simply stop paying one mortgage, keep the better bet for yourself and in the meantime purchase another property.
I think that you haven't tried hard enough with the bank - tried for a writedown of some kind, given fair reason as to why you think you should get a write down.

donalg1

durano wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Well thanks for that but I think I know myself better than you know me. So like I.said I won't willingly default on a loan like the op is doing.

Oh and the OP isn't being forced to default he is choosing to do it.

Choosing to do it because he's been forced to move abroad to find work and forced to shoulder massive negative equity if he doesn't,some choice.

He can afford to pay the mortgage he is choosing not to he has said as much himself maybe you should read it. He has said he isn't going to pay it as he doesn't see the point in paying the mortgage not because he can't pay it.

durano

daltonmd wrote: »

Leaving paid employment, to avoid fulfilling your contractual obligation for personal financial gain is wrong. End of story.

Incorrect,if a person has a family then they are morally obliged to look after their family before any banks or states.If it makes financial sense to leave paid employment in order to avoid fufilling an expensive worthless contractual obligation then it is right to do this in order to secure their families financial future.

cafecreme

Its not an either/or situation. If he defaults strategically and carries out his plan to lie to the bank in the "new" country he will be showing his children that holding onto money is more important than honesty. If he repays the debts to the best of his ability he will show his kids that honesty is more important than holding onto money. This will mean nothing to you as judging by your arguments you dont believe in community, its every man for himself and his family only.
Your glorification of rampant individualism and your insistence on valuing money over basic moral principals such as consideration for others, decency and honesty is distasteful to a lot of people who believe in the value of community. It was the root of the Celtic Tiger greed that inflated the property bubble.
According to your line of argument we should be angry at you as well as the govt that allowed you & and your fellow barbarians to ruin the country as you contributed to the attitudes that drove it. I dont blame the ignorant people who followed the crowd in over-borrowing but I do blame people like you who seek to justify appalling behaviour by specious appeals (and a crude form of sophistry) to faaaamily.

durano

cafecreme wrote: »

Its not an either/or situation. If he defaults strategically and carries out his plan to lie to the bank in the "new" country he will be showing his children that holding onto money is more important than honesty. If he repays the debts to the best of his ability he will show his kids that honesty is more important than holding onto money. This will mean nothing to you as judging by your arguments you dont believe in community, its every man for himself and his family only.
Your glorification of rampant individualism and your insistence on valuing money over basic moral principals such as consideration for others, decency and honesty is distasteful to a lot of people who believe in the value of community. It was the root of the Celtic Tiger greed that inflated the property bubble.
According to your line of argument we should be angry at you as well as the govt that allowed you & and your fellow barbarians to ruin the country as you contributed to the attitudes that drove it. I dont blame the ignorant people who followed the crowd in over-borrowing but I do blame people like you who seek to justify appalling behaviour by specious appeals (and a crude form of sophistry) to faaaamily.

Lol at this nonsense-community,consideration for others,decency,honesty-none of these things have got sweet feck all to do with a mortgage obtained from a private institution,what planet do you live on?Do you actually believe that we are all in this together or something?This isn't a commune you know,it's a capitalist society.

kegzmc

cafecreme wrote: »

Its not an either/or situation. If he defaults strategically and carries out his plan to lie to the bank in the "new" country he will be showing his children that holding onto money is more important than honesty. If he repays the debts to the best of his ability he will show his kids that honesty is more important than holding onto money. This will mean nothing to you as judging by your arguments you dont believe in community, its every man for himself and his family only.
Your glorification of rampant individualism and your insistence on valuing money over basic moral principals such as consideration for others, decency and honesty is distasteful to a lot of people who believe in the value of community. It was the root of the Celtic Tiger greed that inflated the property bubble.
According to your line of argument we should be angry at you as well as the govt that allowed you & and your fellow barbarians to ruin the country as you contributed to the attitudes that drove it. I dont blame the ignorant people who followed the crowd in over-borrowing but I do blame people like you who seek to justify appalling behaviour by specious appeals (and a crude form of sophistry) to faaaamily.

I'm laughing my bum off at this. Are you for real? Do people actually think like this?

donalg1

kegzmc wrote: »

cafecreme wrote: »

Its not an either/or situation. If he defaults strategically and carries out his plan to lie to the bank in the "new" country he will be showing his children that holding onto money is more important than honesty. If he repays the debts to the best of his ability he will show his kids that honesty is more important than holding onto money. This will mean nothing to you as judging by your arguments you dont believe in community, its every man for himself and his family only.
Your glorification of rampant individualism and your insistence on valuing money over basic moral principals such as consideration for others, decency and honesty is distasteful to a lot of people who believe in the value of community. It was the root of the Celtic Tiger greed that inflated the property bubble.
According to your line of argument we should be angry at you as well as the govt that allowed you & and your fellow barbarians to ruin the country as you contributed to the attitudes that drove it. I dont blame the ignorant people who followed the crowd in over-borrowing but I do blame people like you who seek to justify appalling behaviour by specious appeals (and a crude form of sophistry) to faaaamily.

I'm laughing my bum off at this. Are you for real? Do people actually think like this?

Better than thinking and acting Luke a scumbag imo

cafecreme

durano wrote: »

Lol at this nonsense-community,consideration for others,decency,honesty-none of these things have got sweet feck all to do with a mortgage obtained from a private institution,what planet do you live on?Do you actually believe that we are all in this together or something?This isn't a commune you know,it's a capitalist society.

That whoosh us educated folk just heard was my point going over your head Community and capitalism are and have never been mutually exclusive-your limited understanding of capitalism is based on Reaganomics and Thatcherism, its around a whole lot longer than those and there are much more succesful versions of capitalism (that havent bankrupted states) that accommodate honesty, decency and community, those Calvinists are turning in the graves at your vulgarity

durano

donalg1 wrote: »

Better than thinking and acting Luke a scumbag imo

I take it by scumbag you mean smart rational person?

durano

cafecreme wrote: »

That whoosh us educated folk just heard was my point going over your head Community and capitalism are and have never been mutually exclusive-your limited understanding of capitalism is based on Reaganomics and Thatcherism, its around a whole lot longer than those and there are much more succesful versions of capitalism (that havent bankrupted states) that accommodate honesty, decency and community, those Calvinists are turning in the graves at your vulgarity

lol , look at you!

cafecreme

kegzmc wrote: »

I'm laughing my bum off at this. Are you for real? Do people actually think like this?

This coming from a man who thinks getting his sister in law to take out a mortgage that he will pay for is a viable notion to secure his family's future really stings. Ouch, what a cruel barb cos your opinion on anything really matters

cafecreme

durano wrote: »

lol , look at you

No, look at you wallowing in your ignorance

durano

cafecreme wrote: »

No, look at you wallowing in your ignorance

Well that's me told.

donalg1

durano wrote: »

cafecreme wrote: »

No, look at you wallowing in your ignorance

Well that's me told.

Oooh good one ha ha

durano

Donalg thinks you're the sh*t anyway:DHe likes them apples.

donalg1

durano wrote: »

Donalg thinks you're the sh*t anyway:DHe likes them apples.

What is that supposed to mean? Tell me will you be happy when ur income is hit as a result of people like the op will you still support them.

That question is of course based on you and the op being different people which I seriously doubt

Victor

Yellow and red cards handed out. Knock it off you lot.

---

Separately, people are hogging the thread. Anyone (except the OP, kegzmc) who has posted 10 times or more in this thread, do not post again.

donalg1 53
durano 52
The Mustard 20
daltonmd 16
mhge 15
Graces7 12
Damie 11
Zamboni 11
monkeybutter 10

durano

Victor wrote: »

Yellow and red cards handed out. Knock it off you lot.

Anyone (except the OP, kegzmc) who has posted 10 times or more in this thread, do not post again.

donalg1
durano
The Mustard

mhge
daltonmd
Graces7
Damie
Zamboni
monkeybutter

What sort of BS is this?

daltonmd

durano wrote: »

Incorrect,if a person has a family then they are morally obliged to look after their family before any banks or states.If it makes financial sense to leave paid employment in order to avoid fufilling an expensive worthless contractual obligation then it is right to do this in order to secure their families financial future.

Really? You want to go down this road?

Now I am known as a bit of a "bleeding heart liberalist" around these parts when it comes to families who are struggling with their "homes"and the obvious difficulties many people have trying to keep a roof over their heads.

But your moral olbigation to your family starts when you decide to buy "investment" property, without making the relevant "contingency plans" (nod to Zamboni).

In this case, the OP can pay for these TWO properties, he went abroad and secured employment which not only allowed him to REPAY those two properties, but also allowed hom to purchase ANOTHER property.

He has never stated whether these TWO properties are rented and yielding a return of some kind - what he has stated is - I DECIDED TO STOP PAYING ONE : "It is my intention now to only pay one Irish mortgage and forget about the other"

If you are "morally obliged" to look after your family then you are "morally obliged" to make decisions that do not jeopardise them.

The OP's situation is NOT - "Should I pay my mortgage or feed my kids" - his situation is "Should I pay all my mortgages or choose not to pay one" - all the while being able to feed his kids.

Your argument is non - existant.

durano

This isn't fair,you know I can't reply to defend my argument,we're only allowed 10 posts per thread apparently.
And you shouldn't be still posting either in case you didn't know.

Victor

durano wrote: »

What sort of BS is this?

You've posted 51 times already. Surely you have said what you needed to say at this point.

NuMarvel

durano wrote: »

This isn't fair,you know I can't reply to defend my argument,we're only allowed 10 posts per thread apparently.
And you shouldn't be still posting either in case you didn't know.

Any more or less fair than a man trying to find a way to walk away from his financial obligations and offload his responsibilities to the State?

For what it's worth, I do appreciate that you're not in a position to reply, and my post genuinely isn't meant as taunting or the like, but there's a disconnect when this is your first mention of fairness in the topic.

Damie

Well I've received an infraction somehow as iterated below

Victor wrote:

Dear Damie,

You have been infracted for posting Backseat Moderation.

Boards.ie has a team of volunteers who look after our forums and they are the ones who will give instruction or take actionon a thread should they be necessary.

If you see a problem with a post, report it and a mod will investigate.

Please see the Boards.ie FAQ for more details.

If you wish to appeal this infraction you can see details on how to do so here.

Victor

Moderator Note

If you have a problem with someone, report it.

Your post:

Damie wrote: »

Give him a minute, takes him time to log out and log back in as durano....andy goram complex me thinks!

I'm trolled out too....*door slam*.

In no way can this be considered 'back seat modding'! I made a statement about a poster, it was plain and obvious what was going on, somehow I got picked out and handed an infraction.
And before I get accused of arguing publicly instead of through pm's, I am still waiting on a reply from a pm sent last night to the Mod in question.

So instead of the MOD dealing with the trolling and WUM's, I got a red card, ffs!

tunedout

Damie wrote: »

Doubt you could organise a pissup in a brewery to be honest....bro....

To be honest, I think it would be rather difficult to organise a pissup in a brewery, given that most companies would be reluctant to tolerate alcohol consumption on their production premises. There may also be health and safety/workplace issues to consider, not to mention getting the license off the courts to host said event may be difficult. Having accommodated for all of that, taps would probably have to be installed (unless the alcohol can be consumed directly from the keg), appropriate lighting, and insurance for the said event would have to be arranged.

The_Conductor

Damie wrote: »

Well I've received an infraction somehow as iterated below

In no way can this be considered 'back seat modding'! I made a statement about a poster, it was plain and obvious what was going on, somehow I got picked out and handed an infraction.
And before I get accused of arguing publicly instead of through pm's, I am still waiting on a reply from a pm sent last night to the Mod in question.

So instead of the MOD dealing with the trolling and WUM's, I got a red card, ffs!

If you have a problem with a moderators decision- there is a prescribed dispute resolution process, and a set forum for dealing with these type disputes. It is *not* acceptable to derail a topic or thread in a forum disputing a moderators decision.

Please do not continue with this discussion here, as I would rather not have to take further action myself.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

The_Conductor

tunedout wrote: »

To be honest, I think it would be rather difficult to organise a pissup in a brewery, given that most companies would be reluctant to tolerate alcohol consumption on their production premises. There may also be health and safety/workplace issues to consider, not to mention getting the license off the courts to host said event may be difficult. Having accommodated for all of that, taps would probably have to be installed (unless the alcohol can be consumed directly from the keg), appropriate lighting, and insurance for the said event would have to be arranged.

Thankyou Tunedout.......
If you have more witticisms- perhaps the After Hours forum might be a more appropriate venue........