Home Reposessed??

StillWaters

gutteruu wrote: »

Here you go with prices again! NOBODY in this thread asked for lower prices except YOU! Read the thread again if you need to, as I did! Your just making stuff up, then arguing against it!

I would be happier to see someone who saved 60,000 euro in the last 5 years in rent/mortgage that they refused to pay be moved out of a property they don't own and have no right to be in! Yes! They would go broke for 36 months and then thrive in the new growing economy!

Our bank, can then claim some money back by selling, reducing everyones interest rates and liability. This would in turn grow the economy as more disposable income, create a housing market so people can actually buy houses.

Or, we could leave those people who saved 60,000 quid in the last few years living for free in the houses being paid for by us (albeit indirectly).

So yes! Evict them!

A few people here have mentioned wanting cheap houses as a reason for their hard line stance on this issue.

Where do you get that the banks will reduce interest rates if repossessions occur? Can't you understand that the opposite is likely to happen????

If someone is 60k in arrears, having paid nothing for years, believe me the house has a judgement!

gutteruu

StillWaters wrote: »

Where do you get that the banks will reduce interest rates if repossessions occur? Can't you understand that the opposite is likely to happen????

If someone is 60k in arrears, having paid nothing for years, believe me the house has a judgement!

But as of now the banks are getting nothing off them! Zip! Zilch! At least if they sold up, they could get some return. Seeing as we own the banks we are liable for the total bill. Reducing that by anything is a bonus.

I can't see anybody that far in arrears walking away and agreeing to pay whats owed. I can see them stashing the 60k they saved, declare bankruptcy for 150 weeks and away they go.

The_Conductor

migu wrote: »

What a horrible person you are, do you not realise that there were people who saved deposits, borrowed prudently and lost their jobs. When they have used their savings to pay the mortgage what do they do then? What do you mean who cares about their family? Do you want children living in emergency accomodation? The only good thing about the NAMA interference and manipulation in the market is that it keeps prices artificially high and pond life like you cannot buy that repo (which is the carcass of somebody's broken dream) for a song. You represent everything that is wrong with the small minded, self centred Irish begrudger - I see why it didn't work out abroad and you had to skulk back home. Pathetic creature

Infracted for personal abuse.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

The_Conductor

cookie1977 wrote: »

How are you being screwed? House prices are the lowest they've been in years. Sorry they're not low enough for you but such is life. You'd be happy to have a family evicted so you can get a house cheaper? Just so I'm clear where you're coming from.

When you say house prices are the lowest they have been in years, of course you're accurate in your summation. However, until such time as a yardstick measure of affordability is reached- 3.5 times the average industrial wage for a 3 bed terrace being a 1980s measure- arguably we are still overpriced.

I'm not in favour of making anyone homeless- I do think that we have to get over the mindset of property being an investment- and instead consider it as everyone elsewhere does- as somewhere to live.

A big issue that we are going to have to address- aside from all these people with unsustainable mortgages- is families living in wholly unsuitable accommodation. Apartments were sold as the first step onto the property ladder and people bought into the blarney, imagining they'd sell up and buy ye 3 bed semi with a garden when the time came to have children. Now- they're trapped- and often children are suffering because of it- and there is no cognisance in government policy of this mess, or proposals to assist these people.

OMD

smccarrick wrote: »

When you say house prices are the lowest they have been in years, of course you're accurate in your summation. However, until such time as a yardstick measure of affordability is reached- 3.5 times the average industrial wage for a 3 bed terrace being a 1980s measure- arguably we are still overpriced.

.

What you need to look at however, if you are going to use a formula such as 3.5 times, is the household income. Average household income in 1980 may have been equivalent to average industrial wage but it no longer is. 2 workers in a family is very much the norm in 2013 even in families with children. This was not the case 33 years ago.
Average household income is about €50,000 today. 3.5 times that gives €175,000 for average price of a house. Coincidentally this is roughly where we are now for the average house, never mind a 3 bed terrace

A better guide would be net household income which I suspect( but don't know for certain) is higher now than 33 years ago as a proportion of income.

beaner88

OMD you should watch this which explains the problems around the two income model. Banks never lend on dual household income but always the primary earner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/01/the-middle-class-on-the-html

StillWaters

OMD wrote: »

What you need to look at however, if you are going to use a formula such as 3.5 times, is the household income. Average household income in 1980 may have been equivalent to average industrial wage but it no longer is. 2 workers in a family is very much the norm in 2013 even in families with children. This was not the case 33 years ago.
Average household income is about €50,000 today. 3.5 times that gives €175,000 for average price of a house. Coincidentally this is roughly where we are now for the average house, never mind a 3 bed terrace

A better guide would be net household income which I suspect( but don't know for certain) is higher now than 33 years ago as a proportion of income.

I agree, 3.5 times one income measure is archaic, and harps back to a time where women were practically locked out of the workforce.

StillWaters

beaner88 wrote: »

OMD you should watch this which explains the problems around the two income model. Banks never lend on dual household income but always the primary earner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/01/the-middle-class-on-the-html

Untrue, banks lend on dual income.

beaner88

StillWaters wrote: »

I agree, 3.5 times one income measure is archaic, and harps back to a time where women were practically locked out of the workforce.

The majority of houses with a couple of working age do not have a two full time workers. http://esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/WorkAndPovertyReport_FINAL.pdf
Try page 26/27, data has gotten a lot worse. 26% of houses have two full time workers.

Banks lend on single income with an additional smaller contribution from a second income. This is how it usually worked and the banks forgot this in the bubble. This resulted in situations like this.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1306281&postcount=7

faceman

Getting back to the TV & Broadband debate. It's been a long time since I worked in that area however I don't believe TV and Internet access are considered luxuries from a state perspective. Having Sky isn't akin to having a TV though.

The_Conductor

StillWaters wrote: »

Untrue, banks lend on dual income.

Subject to revised guidelines from the Central Bank.
Normal is now 3-5 times primary plus once secondary income- not the free-for-all that reigned during the boom years.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

So to recap your recent posts, you're in favour of making frugal folks pay for home broadband of bad mortgagees, who can't even tell what their interest rate is?

I'm just saying I dont see the need to take it off people as I personally dont see it as a luxary. I said people would disagree and that's fine with me. You can read what ever you like into the rest of my posts, they're there for everyone to interpret as they will despite my best efforts. Broadband is not the main point of the thread at all.

smccarrick wrote: »

When you say house prices are the lowest they have been in years, of course you're accurate in your summation. However, until such time as a yardstick measure of affordability is reached- 3.5 times the average industrial wage for a 3 bed terrace being a 1980s measure- arguably we are still overpriced.

I'm not in favour of making anyone homeless- I do think that we have to get over the mindset of property being an investment- and instead consider it as everyone elsewhere does- as somewhere to live.

A big issue that we are going to have to address- aside from all these people with unsustainable mortgages- is families living in wholly unsuitable accommodation. Apartments were sold as the first step onto the property ladder and people bought into the blarney, imagining they'd sell up and buy ye 3 bed semi with a garden when the time came to have children. Now- they're trapped- and often children are suffering because of it- and there is no cognisance in government policy of this mess, or proposals to assist these people.

Absolutely true. We have to get in with the idea that renting for life is an option/only option for some. To get there we need tougher building laws and proper planning. How we get there?? I don't know if there's the will in the Irish people psyche nor the governments (and that's any government) to do that. They say in times like this it's best to tear up the rule book and start again but there just does not seem to be any imagination from anyone.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

You're using "family evicted" as some sort of ultimate strawman everyone should bow to.

Unfortunately yes, families and other people can get evicted if they can't keep paying their loans. At least welfare net is there to catch them.
If someone invested in Irish bank shares for their pension fund - poof - gone. Dotcom bubble - poof - gone. Business car fleet when the company went to the wall - gone. Much bigger investments gone and no one argues in favour of giving them back to those unfortunate people whose life efforts collapsed around them.

You stop this from happening, you're creating another weird factor to hinder the economy. Another layer of legal and financial mess to untangle.

No, this is just the discussion we're having here (to repossess or not). I agree with the rest of your comments but you're jumping the gun at the end. I'm not saying stop and leave everything as it is. There appears to me to be no imagination from the banks or the government on how to manage a lot of these debts/arrears. There seems to be only a route one situation, how quickly can we repossess. When another option could work for many.

Do we need more families housed under state support? Do we need to see more debts go unpaid? Do we not owe it to people to help them where we can since we've already helped the banks so much? The bottom of the market is an arbitrary value. You've no sure guarantee that an increase in repossession will achieve the drops in the market.

The government may be forced to rent these repossessed properties back to the families as there may be a housing shortage (which I think for some areas is already happening). You cannot uproot someone from Dublin who's house and family (schooling/work etc...) are in Dublin, all the way to the midlands. that does not make sense.

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

Do we need more families housed under state support? Do we need to see more debts go unpaid?

We don't need or want any of that, but you can only play the hand you've been dealt. Leaving someone in an unsustainable house won't pay the debts either.

cookie1977 wrote: »

Do we not owe it to people to help them where we can since we've already helped the banks so much?

No, we don't owe anything to anyone on the basis of the fact that the banks have been bailed out; or we would owe something to everyone, not just an arbitrary subset of people with certain property status as their only shared quality.

cookie1977 wrote: »

The bottom of the market is an arbitrary value. You've no sure guarantee that an increase in repossession will achieve the drops in the market.

It's not supposed to guarantee anything like this, it's supposed to let the market regulate itself. Which may or may not result in drops. Drops are useless anyway if interest rates keep going up due to toxic loan books.

cookie1977 wrote: »

The government may be forced to rent these repossessed properties back to the families as there may be a housing shortage (which I think for some areas is already happening).

Whether these houses are sold or rented out, the total number or houses vs people stays the same, it's just the form of payment/ownership that may change.

cookie1977 wrote: »

You cannot uproot someone from Dublin who's house and family (schooling/work etc...) are in Dublin, all the way to the midlands. that does not make sense.

Sure, you cannot uproot them from Dublin and preferably from where the child goes to school... but you can stall and skew the economy so that other people emigrate overseas.

cookie1977

Interest rates will go up eventually due to increased inflation and the fact they're so low anyway. Banks have to loan to make money so while they might increase variable rates it does not make sense for them to just up rates such that no one can afford a mortgage.

How does the total number of houses and people stay the same. family A is in arrears and their house is repossessed, person B buys the house and moves out of family home or rented 1-2 bed apt. Where does family A move? Back in to person B's apt or family home?

People are not emigrating due to house prices.

beaner88

The same when you are in a nice big apartment/house and you lose your job. You move into a place you can afford.

cookie1977

beaner88 wrote: »

The same when you are in a nice big apartment/house and you lose your job. You move into a place you can afford.

And we're building all these properties where???? People on here have said that repossessions will lead to cheaper houses. I do not believe this is so.

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

And we're building all these properties where???? People on here have said that repossessions will lead to cheaper houses. I do not believe this is so.

But you don't need to build, their house is not left empty after all. Someone moves in, leaving their house in turn etc. Same supply, same demand, people just move around to where they can realistically afford to be.

cookie1977

But what about the evicted family? The new owner of the repossessed house may have lived in their parents home prior to moving out or may only have rented a 1 bed apt. Whaere do the family go?

melekalikimaka

cookie1977 wrote: »

But what about the evicted family? The new owner of the repossessed house may have lived in their parents home prior to moving out or may only have rented a 1 bed apt. Whaere do the family go?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWeMvrNiOM

cookie1977

melekalikimaka wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWeMvrNiOM

you're implying that a group composed entirely of repossessed families will... find a way?

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

But what about the evicted family? The new owner of the repossessed house may have lived in their parents home prior to moving out or may only have rented a 1 bed apt. Whaere do the family go?

It's not like the whole market is two cases of house swapping, is it? People downsize, upsize, die and have babies too.

You are stuck in some sort of romantic notion of "never evict a family" (what about single/childless owners, BTW?). It's as if you wanted the government to pay their former salary to everyone who has lost their job. Welfare is all they can get, unfortunately, even if they lost their jobs through no fault of their own and it comes as a life changing shock to them.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

It's not like the whole market is two cases of house swapping, is it? People downsize, upsize, die and have babies too.

You are stuck in some sort of romantic notion of "never evict a family" (what about single/childless owners, BTW?). It's as if you wanted the government to pay their former salary to everyone who has lost their job. Welfare is all they can get, unfortunately, even if they lost their jobs through no fault of their own and it comes as a life changing shock to them.

Where are you getting this from.

I want repossessions, where possible, not to happen. I want long term deals done such as described by Mc Williams (and there's other ideas too) so that people get to stay in their homes and repay a significant portion of the debt while the bank doesn't loose out either. This I feel would see families buying power increase and the domestic economy get stimulated.

Why specifically do you want repossessions? It's certainly not going to bring the white elephant of a fixed economy. It could cause increases in taxes to support all these people as well as continued stagnation of the domestic economy.

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

Why specifically do you want repossessions? It's certainly not going to bring the white elephant of a fixed economy. It could cause increases in taxes to support all these people as well as continued stagnation of the domestic economy.

I don't want repossessions specifically, I just do not appreciate artificial factors skewing the economy. We've had them all - tax breaks, MIR, stamp duty etc., see what they caused, and that's just in property. It may not fix the economy but it won't hurt it either and will contribute to transparency. Taxes are rising already and have been for a while because of the stagnation we're in and also because of the money needed by the banks, bad mortgages included; people who are trapped in their houses are not going to spend anything more anyway even if you leave them there.

cookie1977

So how do you see repossessions fixing things. The social welfare bill is already a major cost factor to the state and continues to increase. Families are giving up private health insurances. Since the peak almost 200,000 people have given this up putting further cost strains on the health services. How ill your model stimulate the economy and keep taxes low?

People given time or deals ala McWilliams where the bank gets to sell their stake in the house in 20 years does result in more cash flow for a stricken family.

strandroad

It was explained so many times how welfare may may not be more expensive than paying those mortgages, their legal costs etc.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

It was explained so many times how welfare may may not be more expensive than paying those mortgages, their legal costs etc.

Who's paying for the mortgages. The banks already have the cash for the written down mortgages. The state already pays for access to accountants to families in arrears (one time fee of about 250 I think). A resurrected family who stimulates the economy could repay those legal costs in time or have them incorporated into the shared debt over 20 years

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

Who's paying for the mortgages. The banks already have the cash for the written down mortgages. The state already pays for access to accountants to families in arrears (one time fee of about 250 I think). A resurrected family who stimulates the economy could repay those legal costs in time or have them incorporated into the shared debt over 20 years

It's been explained as well; honestly EOT as it's just going round in circles now.

cookie1977

I really do not understand how rehousing someone at the expense of the state is cheaper then the person paying for half the mortgage while the bank sits on the other half (which they've already been compensated for in the recapitalisation) to sell in 20 or so years.

gutteruu

cookie1977 wrote: »

Who's paying for the mortgages. The banks already have the cash for the written down mortgages.

This point is driving me nuts! We paid!!!!!! Or did they find it at the end of a rainbow? We are paying back the loan that paid them!! (This doesn't even include the 15 billion from the national pension reserve fund that we will be screwed for in 10 years time)

What gives these people the god given right to remain in their homes whilst people who rent get evicted when they don't pay. There is a massive number of people renting in this country and they have all fallen victim to the exact same circumstances as those who are living for free, but they get kicked straight out if they don't pay. No questions, no sad stories, no bitching, no lock ins etc!

So...What makes a person living for free in a bank owned home so much more important than a family renting? Why can they not be evicted when its perfectly fine to have a greater percentage of renters open to eviction daily without question.