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

Home Reposessed??

Options
1…5681011…17

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Just wondering - is there any sympathy for the guy who played the game correctly?

    You want me to have sympathy for someone who has cash, can avail of cheap houses and and was "smart" enough to not buy during the peak? You want me to have sympathy for these peoiple who want to see more reposessions so the house prices can go down more?

    Why may I ask?


  • Options
    #213
    beaner88
    Site Banned Posts: 154 ✭✭beaner88


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    You want me to have sympathy for someone who has cash, can avail of cheap houses and and was "smart" enough to not buy during the peak? You want me to have sympathy for these peoiple who want to see more reposessions so the house prices can go down more?

    Why may I ask?

    What cheap houses? Bog standard semi in Maynooth. 295K.
    http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/1-rockfield-green-maynooth-co-kildare/2213087

    The average wage is 35-40K.


  • Options
    #214
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    That's one example. That's also the asking price. Let me know what it sells for. You are not going to try to tell me know that house prices are not cheaper then they were 2-3 years ago are you?

    And if it is the asking/going price in that area then maybe other options need to be considered. You have to buy what you can afford.


  • Options
    #215
    whiteandlight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,359 ✭✭✭whiteandlight


    I have no issue with shortening the bankruptcy proceedings to somewhere between 3-5 years. Long enough for people to realise they should never let this happen again but not long enough to cripple them.

    I have no issue with a bank re-structuring a mortgage to allow more time, some sort of write down etc provided that there is a reasonable prospect of the mortgage ever being paid.

    I have an issue with people on low incomes expecting their mortgage to be written down so they can continue to live in a house that is now entirely out of their financial reach.

    I have a problem with anyone who is making no payments at all on their mortgage and is still in their house. Everyone in this country has to pay rent unless they are on social welfare or in receipt of welfare. If you are on welfare then you should already be negotiating and either entering bankruptcy or restructuring your debt. You should not get to sit on your ass in a house for free.


    It's the last two situations that cause all the controversy!


  • Options
    #216
    beaner88
    Site Banned Posts: 154 ✭✭beaner88


    http://www.myhome.ie/priceregister/51-rockfield-court-maynooth-co-kildare-3985

    Going my 3.5 times income a person would need to be earning 80K just to afford a 3 bed in a commuter town like Maynooth. Great value alright.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    You're equating someone up to their eyeballs in debt, facing the harsh realities that they could loose their home and possibly so scared out of their wits that they dont know what to do or what the future holds to someone who has no debt, looking to buy a house at a better price then it was a few years ago and is also so intelligent they didn't jump on the so called bandwagon? Just wondering.
    Why should I pay €150k for a house now, when Bob down the road bought a better house for €350k during boom times, paid two years of mortgage, and because now he's broke, he should be allowed to write off his remainder of debt and keep his house? Why can't I just have a free house?


  • Options
    #218
    dtf
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭dtf


    beaner88 wrote: »
    http://www.myhome.ie/priceregister/51-rockfield-court-maynooth-co-kildare-3985

    Going my 3.5 times income a person would need to be earning 80K just to afford a 3 bed in a commuter town like Maynooth. Great value alright.

    It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a working couple to be on a combined salary of €80k pa to afford buying a house, imo


  • Options
    #219
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    cookie1977 wrote: »

    You want me to have sympathy for someone who has cash, can avail of cheap houses and and was "smart" enough to not buy during the peak? You want me to have sympathy for these peoiple who want to see more reposessions so the house prices can go down more?

    Why may I ask?

    You want me to have sympathy for someone who borrowed more than3.5 x their income to buy an apartment with the intention to sell it on 3-4 years later at a PROFIT?

    Now that they lost their shirt on it, we should all pay higher taxes to compensate them and allow their debts to fall?

    If I invest and I lose my shirt on it, it's not daddy Enda's fault, it's my fault!


  • Options
    #220
    beaner88
    Site Banned Posts: 154 ✭✭beaner88


    dtf wrote: »
    It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a working couple to be on a combined salary of €80k pa to afford buying a house, imo

    Yes it would be unreasonable as a dual income household is not a reliable income. They have children, lose jobs, pay for childcare. That is why it should be 3 times single income and maybe 1 times the second income.


  • Options
    #221
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    jmayo wrote: »
    The other thing that has been hinted at is that there are some mortgage holders/defaulters who are refusing to even attempt to repay their debts and they are holding out for this "bailout for the little guy" where they get their debt written off and they get to keep their house.
    That can never happen.

    And there are people like this all right. Just this week heard of a guy who started paying his mortgage intermittently when the talk about debt forgiveness started, with the intention of stopping paying it altogether. He can well afford it but wants rid of his apartment he ran out of time to flip and he doesn't care about credit rating as his parents now promised him a house they inherited. He is self-employed but started funneling his work through his friend's company with under the table options so that when it suits him he can claim his work dried up. Made trips to the bank and MABS already to flag "difficulties". Bottom line is he's living there half-free now and should writedowns happen will have money transferred to him from everyone else's pocket. It's supposed to be a caring society after all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    You want me to have sympathy for someone who has cash, can avail of cheap houses and and was "smart" enough to not buy during the peak?

    There are no cheap houses with artificial floors and banks hiking up interest all the time to make up for unpaid mortgages.

    If you have no sympathy for people who are now paying for being responsible and you're happy to milk them to bail out players you're contributing to further erosion of whatever's left of responsible attitudes.


  • Options
    #223
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Musicmental85 wrote: »
    I have an issue with people on low incomes expecting their mortgage to be written down so they can continue to live in a house that is now entirely out of their financial reach.

    I have a problem with anyone who is making no payments at all on their mortgage and is still in their house. Everyone in this country has to pay rent unless they are on social welfare or in receipt of welfare. If you are on welfare then you should already be negotiating and either entering bankruptcy or restructuring your debt. You should not get to sit on your ass in a house for free.


    It's the last two situations that cause all the controversy!

    We have no detailed figures of these people. There may be very few as no one can say for sure. The reasons behind it are wide and varied. I doubt they are as high as many on here like to believe. Under MARP you're protected from loosing your house. If you're not under the MARP process and are in arrears you are not protected and will further be less protected after legislation later this year. It pays to be dealing with your debt.
    the_syco wrote: »
    Why should I pay €150k for a house now, when Bob down the road bought a better house for €350k during boom times, paid two years of mortgage, and because now he's broke, he should be allowed to write off his remainder of debt and keep his house? Why can't I just have a free house?

    Posters on here are just making assumptions from here say and lumping many together in saying that there are lots of people living it "up" rent free. This is not the case at all. Look at the charity organisations and their increased work loads. Look at the increased rates of suicide.
    Scortho wrote: »
    You want me to have sympathy for someone who borrowed more than3.5 x their income to buy an apartment with the intention to sell it on 3-4 years later at a PROFIT?

    Now that they lost their shirt on it, we should all pay higher taxes to compensate them and allow their debts to fall?

    If I invest and I lose my shirt on it, it's not daddy Enda's fault, it's my fault!

    Again, another person who didn't buy in the boom. It's all grand to say now "I was right, it wouldn't last, sure they're all mad". Fact is it happened for more reasons then simple bad math. Your taxes already bailed out the banks. If you want this country to get back on it's feet economically then you'll need the domestic economy to grow too. That requires more than those who didn't buy a home to spend money.


  • Options
    #224
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    mhge wrote: »
    There are no cheap houses with artificial floors and banks hiking up interest all the time to make up for unpaid mortgages.

    If you have no sympathy for people who are now paying for being responsible and you're happy to milk them to bail out players you're contributing to further erosion of whatever's left of responsible attitudes.

    Everyone is paying for the bailout. Not just those who didn't buy. In fact in the last budget, if you had kids and a house you were more hit then single people with no kids and no house.


  • Options
    #225
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    beaner88 wrote: »
    Yes it would be unreasonable as a dual income household is not a reliable income. They have children, lose jobs, pay for childcare. That is why it should be 3 times single income and maybe 1 times the second income.

    Why is a dual income household not a reliable income? Maybe some aren't. My wife would like to give up work to mind out children fulltime but we cant afford it so she cant. That's our current life.


  • Options
    #226
    gutteruu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭gutteruu


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    You want me to have sympathy for someone who has cash, can avail of cheap houses and and was "smart" enough to not buy during the peak? You want me to have sympathy for these peoiple who want to see more reposessions so the house prices can go down more?

    Why may I ask?

    Because those people now got shafted because of NO fault of their own. Tax hikes on everything, interest rates flying up, economy bust, trouble getting credit etc etc. Their spending power is now a fraction of what is was through no fault of their own. So although you want to help those who won't/can't pay, those who can pay and would help the country recover are being screwed.

    You want to help people who invested poorly by taking it from those who were careful. The whole basis of your point is morally flawed.


  • Options
    #227
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Everyone is paying for the bailout. Not just those who didn't buy. In fact in the last budget, if you had kids and a house you were more hit then single people with no kids and no house.

    Yes, but those who didn't buy into the bubble have no benefits such as free living, while are still expected to fund those who have them.


  • Options
    #228
    migu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭migu


    lima wrote: »
    Why would we as tax payers need to rehouse those people who would rightly get their houses taken from then (as they are not their houses until they have paid off their mortgage loan)?

    Once they get removed from the properties (which the bank can sell on to people like me for cheap) they can rent like in any other market. Who cares about their family and kids and all that - they can have a comfortable lifestyle paying rent, so be it, suck it up.

    Give up all this protect the family crap, I don't care, get out of the house you can't pay off and let me buy it and I can rent it to you.


    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


  • Options
    #229
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gutteruu wrote: »
    Because those people now got shafted because of NO fault of their own. Tax hikes on everything, interest rates flying up, economy bust, trouble getting credit etc etc. Their spending power is now a fraction of what is was through no fault of their own. So although you want to help those who won't/can't pay, those who can pay and would help the country recover are being screwed.

    You want to help people who invested poorly by taking it from those who were careful. The whole basis of your point is morally flawed.

    You're blaming all those in debt/arrears for the state of your finances? The whole basis for my point is to do with morals. I dont agree in the slightest that it's morally flawed and I'm not sure you understand that either. Everyone is paying for the crisis. Those in debt and those in credit. Those with property and those without. Those with children and those without. Everyone.

    The point I'm making is that mass repossessions to ensure house prices go lower (which is where this began) is not a solution to the problem. And if people think that there's a huge population of people not paying their mortgage while living the high life then nothing I can say will ever make sense.

    All that is happening now should have happened during the boom time. All the new taxes and such should have been brought in when it was less painful but I seem to remember the majority of people voting for which ever government told them they'd give them the most. We didn't cause the crisis but we sure as hell contributed to it.


  • Options
    #230
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    mhge wrote: »
    Yes, but those who didn't buy into the bubble have no benefits such as free living, while are still expected to fund those who have them.

    Show me the numbers enjoying the high life with no rent please. Just a link is all I need. Some proof so to speak.


  • Options
    #231
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    You're blaming all those in debt/arrears for the state of your finances? The whole basis for my point is to do with morals.

    Yes, but you have it backwards. You're siding with the grasshopper against the ant, so to speak.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Show me the numbers enjoying the high life with no rent please. Just a link is all I need. Some proof so to speak.

    No need for "high life" drama.
    There were a few articles where the number of strategic arrears was estimated to be 20% and rising.
    But you don't need to default strategically - other may have no realistic chance of keeping their houses because they bought too expensive and will never sustain them once their boom salaries are gone. Leaving them there helps no one and costs lots in unpaid mortgages.


  • Options
    #233
    Peanut2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭Peanut2011


    Scortho wrote: »
    You want me to have sympathy for someone who borrowed more than3.5 x their income to buy an apartment with the intention to sell it on 3-4 years later at a PROFIT?

    Now that they lost their shirt on it, we should all pay higher taxes to compensate them and allow their debts to fall?

    If I invest and I lose my shirt on it, it's not daddy Enda's fault, it's my fault!

    Isn't this what Enda and Co. are doing with the pumping the money to the banks and paying the bondholders??? We are all paying for it as a result!

    Furthermore you are only focusing on the investment properties, the real issue is the Family Homes!! If you look at the people that bought dooring the boom, it was middle class that did it as it was cheaper to pay the mortgage than it was to rent.

    Why was this?? Well planning laws for once favoured the estate builders rather than individual builds and than lets talk about all the incentives the government at the time was giving so one would buy....

    Look at the Priory Hall?? There are many more estates like this where the government and local councils have failed in their duty but who is left suffering???

    Same way many, many new families who looked to buy their first family home are now stuck in "commuter" towns with the houses who are not worth the mortgage they have, never mind anything else and who the government is going to milk again with the property tax.

    Never mind the fact that many families like this are struggling to pay the mortgage and other bills but now they will have to pay all this extra just so that the spineless shower of ar*** in the Dáil can keep their perks, pensions and salaries!

    I am all for paying my own way and have been all along. I am not asking for debt forgiveness but maybe the banks could look at reduced rates of interest on troubled mortgages or what ever other way there is. After all, they got re-capitalised by the government with peoples money.

    The only thing the banks have done since is raise every single interest rate they have to hit the same people that bailed them out yet again.


  • Options
    #234
    gutteruu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭gutteruu


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Everyone is paying for the crisis. Those in debt and those in credit. Those with property and those without. Those with children and those without. Everyone.

    Some are paying for the crisis AND for their accommodation aswell!!
    cookie1977 wrote: »
    The point I'm making is that mass repossessions to ensure house prices go lower (which is where this began) is not a solution to the problem.

    I think you are the only person who is talking about prices going lower. Nobody cares. They just want the squatters out, homes repossessed and a proper actual housing market so that we can all get on with life. People don't care what price the house is as long as its the actual price of the house. The whole thing is a held up because of these people who are too (insert opinion here) to go broke for 36 months and start fresh.


  • Options
    #235
    beaner88
    Site Banned Posts: 154 ✭✭beaner88


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Show me the numbers enjoying the high life with no rent please. Just a link is all I need. Some proof so to speak.

    http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/MortgageArrearsandRepossessionStatisticsQ32012.aspx

    106,000 have not been paying their mortgage recently. Instead enjoying free occupation of a property at the banks (ie our) expense. That frees up an awful lot of cash to spend.


  • Options
    #236
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gutteruu wrote: »
    Some are paying for the crisis AND for their accommodation aswell!!



    I think you are the only person who is talking about prices going lower. Nobody cares. They just want the squatters out, homes repossessed and a proper actual housing market so that we can all get on with life. People don't care what price the house is as long as its the actual price of the house. The whole thing is a held up because of these people who are too (insert opinion here) to go broke for 36 months and start fresh.

    Read the thread then post again.


  • Options
    #237
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    beaner88 wrote: »
    http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/MortgageArrearsandRepossessionStatisticsQ32012.aspx

    106,000 have not been paying their mortgage recently. Instead enjoying free occupation of a property at the banks (ie our) expense. That frees up an awful lot of cash to spend.
    Good god. That does not mean they aren't talking to their bank nor does it mean they're living the high life.


  • Options
    #238
    Peanut2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭Peanut2011


    beaner88 wrote: »
    http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/MortgageArrearsandRepossessionStatisticsQ32012.aspx

    106,000 have not been paying their mortgage recently. Instead enjoying free occupation of a property at the banks (ie our) expense. That frees up an awful lot of cash to spend.

    How do you figure it would free up cash to spend??? The banks even if they reposes the house are still left with the shortfall. Who will buy the house and what value is the house to the bank if they can't sell it??

    If you think it is bad now, wait a bit more when the property tax comes in, water charges and so on... Many more families will start defaulting as they can not squeeze any more out!


  • Options
    #239
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Peanut2011 wrote: »
    Same way many, many new families who looked to buy their first family home are now stuck in "commuter" towns with the houses who are not worth the mortgage they have, never mind anything else and who the government is going to milk again with the property tax.

    Never mind the fact that many families like this are struggling to pay the mortgage and other bills but now they will have to pay all this extra just so that the spineless shower of ar*** in the Dáil can keep their perks, pensions and salaries!

    I am all for paying my own way and have been all along. I am not asking for debt forgiveness but maybe the banks could look at reduced rates of interest on troubled mortgages or what ever other way there is. After all, they got re-capitalised by the government with peoples money.

    The only thing the banks have done since is raise every single interest rate they have to hit the same people that bailed them out yet again.

    Not one of them had to buy.
    Not a single one of them.


  • Options
    #240
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Not one of them had to buy.
    Not a single one of them.

    Excuse me but how do you know?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    beaner88
    Site Banned Posts: 154 ✭✭beaner88


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Excuse me but how do you know?

    Can you describe to me a situation where a person had to buy and had essentially no choice in the matter?


Advertisement