Huge negative equity on apartments.

cyrusdvirus

the_syco wrote: »

And yet these people think they're entitled to debt write-off.

i bought (in Leixlip) in 2009.

I've lived in Leixlip since 1987, and always wanted to settle down there.

All of my friends have bought around the area (Leixlip, Maynooth, Celbridge, Kilcock & Enfield)

I probably owe a small bit more than my house is worth, there are friends of mine who owe significantly more.

Not ONE of us thinks we are entitled to a handout, or a debt write off. Each one of us pays our mortgage, some months are a struggle, some less so.

Bullseye1

the_syco wrote: »

Those with houses have been belittling those who rent since before the boom, but now they're trying to play the victim asking for handouts.

What utter nonsense. You need to hang out with a better standard of friend if all you were getting was sneering comments from them due to your rental status. I never once heard such comments being directed at me while renting before i purchased my own family home.

There seems to be a real resentment and begrudery in this country to owning ones home. If your a success you must be corrupt. What a backward way of seeing things. With that mentality we will never get out of the **** we are in.

BizzyC

Unless you've become unemployed since the boom the only way in which negative equity will affect you is if you bought out of investment.
It's not as if payments have gone up since the recession, you pay now what you would be paying if the place hadn't dropped in value.

If you went for an investment and lost, hard luck. Nothing is guaranteed, you cant expect to make big money without taking on risk.
If you're earning less due to the recession, then you deserve a restructured deal from the banks to make things easier.
If it's your family home that you dont intend on selling, what difference does it make?

sealgaire

aidan24326 wrote: »

You could still say no though. I'm not sure what legal repercussions there would be. Would jail be a possibility? Does anyone know of someone going to jail for refusing to pay their mortgage?

If there was no danger of going to jail I would move out, hand over the keys and simply refuse to pay it. There needs to be a debt sharing structure put in place. The banks should be forced to take on half of the negative equity, since they were instrumental in creating the mess that we now have.

Yea right, I ain't paying for your mortgage!

ghogie91

The bank sell that apartment for 100k, your liable for the other 300k for example

Irishcrx

sealgaire wrote: »

Yea right, I ain't paying for your mortgage!

Better him than the bank!

OldNotWIse

Gauss wrote: »

It was ridiculous 5 years ago? People were socially conditioned to think it wasn't.

I wasn't.

MadsL

Firstly there seems to be a very common misapprehension that what you pay in purchase price is what you pay for the house. Take a long hard look at the dreaded amortization table and see what you actually spend in buying the house.

Gurgle wrote: »

Absolutely true, for these last 7 years. Everyone with access to a crystal ball in 2005 knew that buying wouldn't be a profitable short term investment.

But you're comparing peak vs trough prices, how does it / will it work out over 25 to 40 years?
How does it look for someone who bought in 2000 vs renting for the last 12 years?
How about someone who bought in 1987 and just finished paying off their mortgage last week? Would they have been better off renting for 25 years through the height of the boom?

You are asking for some fairly complex calculations over a number of different scenarios - in some cases people would be better off buying based on the calculation. However, the average cost of a house in 1996 was just euro75,000. Ten years later (2005) the average cost had increased to euro280,000 dropping to 174k in 2010. Source Based on the massive valuations increases between 96 and '05 large numbers of people remortaged, remodeled and refinanced. Some traded up significantly. Therefore the calculation is blurred by the additional debt they took on.

In my own case I almost bought a mid terrace in Bray in horrible condition for €125,000 about 12 years ago. It was gutted and I would have probably put a minimum of another €125k into it in repairs and refurb. Total €250k.

So my calculation (roughly) would be mortage over 12 years on €250k. Interest rates in 2000 were 6%. After 144 monthly payments of €1610.75, I have residual balance of €173,447.78 left to pay on the house. So I've paid off a whopping €77k from the principal. But surely I have turned a house into a lovely home, that has to be worth something. Ah, crap - my local estate agent is listing my neighbours house at €135k - so I still owe €40k more than the house is currently worth. I have paid almost €155k in interest payments.

If I rented - I paid less than €800 in rent a year from 2000 until I moved in 2005 and paid €1600 (now living with a partner in a city centre high floor apartment) - that totals 5*12*800+7*12*1600=182k.

Assume that I have to move now after 12 years. I pack up and leave as a renter (I've emigrated after being laid off twice in 12 months - pretty much had to) - If I had bought that house, I would be selling up at a total (dead money) cost to me of €195k and a net loss of €13k.

All of this ignores mortgage interest relief, rent relief and other Govt interventions in the market. The calculations for that are rather complicated. It also reflects a massive hike in rent that I took as a result of living/marrying my partner. I could have left the rent at €800 month.

Now I didn't pick this example to suit my argument, this was an example from my personal history - but it does go to show that in a falling market renting is anything but dead money. The fact I'm having to still explain this to people in 2012 is nothing short of astonishing.

who_me

gara wrote: »

That's precisely my point, unfortunately Ireland isn't such a nice place right now, primarily due to lack of consequences and accountability.

For whom? I know lots of people whose lives are being ruined struggling to repay their mortgates on reduced - and in some cases no - incomes with no option of selling up and now with property tax on the way too. You might argue that's fair. You might even argue it's a good thing if it teaches them personal responsibility. But you can't possibly argue there aren't dire consequences for those people.

dj jarvis

P.C. wrote: »

No thanks.
I do not want to share your debt.

hate to break this to ya ....... but you are, and will be for a very very long time
better start getting your head around this fact

not yet

cournioni wrote: »

You take on the debt then you have to pay it back. If you couldn't see the risk in taking out a loan then that is your problem, but don't make the problem mine just because of your mistakes.[/QUO

Well isn't that a smashing attitude to have, fcuk you jack I'm alright. by the way does the above attitude apply to unsecured bondholders who done exactly that.

MadsL

not yet wrote: »

cournioni wrote: »

You take on the debt then you have to pay it back. If you couldn't see the risk in taking out a loan then that is your problem, but don't make the problem mine just because of your mistakes.

Well isn't that a smashing attitude to have, fcuk you jack I'm alright. by the way does the above attitude apply to unsecured bondholders who done exactly that.

My buddy who sold his house in 2006 for a €200k profit after 4 years didn't share his windfall with me. Had he not sold and was now in NE why should I pick up the cost of his mistake?

buzymummy

no point in handing back keys if you cant pay mortgage the likelihood is you cant afford to rent somewhere either, best bet is to come to arrangement with bank for an amount you can pay, the you still have roof over your head. one way or another you still owe them the money, might as well stretch it out for longer period of time, thats what we did, we extended our term by 10 years to reduce our monthly repayments and must say that our bank have been very decent with dealing with us and handling everything when we did hit the stage where arrears were piling up but they helped us reach an amount we could manage and still have money to support our family and actually live our lives normally.

dj jarvis

MadsL wrote: »

My buddy who sold his house in 2006 for a €200k profit after 4 years didn't share his windfall with me. Had he not sold and was now in NE why should I pick up the cost of his mistake?

correct me if im wrong but dont you pay tax on any profit from a property sale ?
and this tax goes to the public purse ?
dont suppose you have used any public services in the following years ?

in a roundabout way he did share it - but no one wants to hear that side of the bubble - with mental mortgage's came stupid stamp duty , and all the taxes paid on outfitting the new home , these taxes paid for the running of the country , i presume you live in this county ?

MysticalRain

dj jarvis wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but dont you pay tax on any profit from a property sale ?
and this tax goes to the public purse ?
dont suppose you have used any public services in the following years ?

in a roundabout way he did share it - but no one wants to hear that side of the bubble - with mental mortgage's came stupid stamp duty , and all the taxes paid on outfitting the new home , these taxes paid for the running of the country , i presume you live in this county ?

The problem with that line of thinking is that it was all done on borrowed money. No point in spending loads of money if you will eventually have to hand it back. Much of it was squandered too, but that's another debate.

apache

buzymummy wrote: »

no point in handing back keys if you cant pay mortgage the likelihood is you cant afford to rent somewhere either, best bet is to come to arrangement with bank for an amount you can pay, the you still have roof over your head. one way or another you still owe them the money, might as well stretch it out for longer period of time, thats what we did, we extended our term by 10 years to reduce our monthly repayments and must say that our bank have been very decent with dealing with us and handling everything when we did hit the stage where arrears were piling up but they helped us reach an amount we could manage and still have money to support our family and actually live our lives normally.

Yeah thats it. The bank must have heard my prayers. After pissing about the last 2 months they rang me late this evening after posting on this thread coincidentally. They have cancelled my direct debit for this month and am now on a very reduced payment for 6 months. I have another few operations to go through and if i'm not able to go back to work in that timeframe it will be extended for another 6 months. They were very helpful so i'm just so happy i have room to breathe. When i do return to work i'll spread the cost owed over the remaining years. So no threatening letters etc. You're best off working with them.
Well chuffed now

Noel Dempseys Den

cournioni wrote: »

You take on the debt then you have to pay it back. If you couldn't see the risk in taking out a loan then that is your problem, but don't make the problem mine just because of your mistakes.

Quite a number of people will, though. Not endorsing that, but it will happen if present circumstances remain unchanged.

Milk & Honey

dj jarvis wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but dont you pay tax on any profit from a property sale ?
and this tax goes to the public purse ?

Not if it is a principal private residence.

dj jarvis

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Not if it is a principal private residence.

corrected , thank you - although not mentioned in the post if it was or not

but my point was that the people who never bought a house , did benefit indirectly from the revenue generated in taxes - borrowed money or not

no denying that more people, have a better standard of living still to this day , than they did pre " boom "

no doubt it will be eroded the longer this mess lasts -

MadsL

dj jarvis wrote: »

corrected , thank you - although not mentioned in the post if it was or not

To clarify it was a principal private residence.

the_syco

apache wrote: »

I have another few operations to go

Check if you're entitled to PPI?

Payment protection insurance (PPI), also known as credit insurance, credit protection insurance, or loan repayment insurance, is an insurance product that enables consumers to insure repayment of loans if the borrower dies, becomes ill or disabled, loses a job, or faces other circumstances that may prevent them from earning income to service the debt.

Brain Stroking

MadsL wrote: »

To clarify it was a principal private residence.

Have to say i agree with all your points and am definitely on your side of the argument but i smell bullsh1t in the story about your friend selling for 200k profit. Seems to suit your argument too nicely. An argument in fact that is won with nothing more than cold hard economics.

MadsL

dj jarvis wrote: »

corrected , thank you - although not mentioned in the post if it was or not

but my point was that the people who never bought a house , did benefit indirectly from the revenue generated in taxes - borrowed money or not

no denying that more people, have a better standard of living still to this day , than they did pre " boom "

no doubt it will be eroded the longer this mess lasts -

Hmmm, debatable; for years homeowners were unfairly subsidised (imho) by mortgage interest relief whilst renters got a pittance in rent relief.

Sala

I don't understand why many people say they are not willing / should not have to pay others mortgage debt if they get a write off, why I am forever reading in the media that debt forgiveness is a no go and those that borrowed must pay back everything- so why did we bail out the banks?? Have we not paid for this already? There is a big difference between can't and won't pay - the can't pay people can't pay and while I resent the amount of taxes and cuts I havde suffered I would resent knowing that developers and friends get cut loose owing millions and billions that I must now pay, while we hang our neighbours with a bubble mortgage out to dry.

MadsL

Sala wrote: »

I don't understand why many people say they are not willing / should not have to pay others mortgage debt if they get a write off, why I am forever reading in the media that debt forgiveness is a no go and those that borrowed must pay back everything- so why did we bail out the banks??

We bailed out the banks to avoid a systemic crisis in the global financial systems. History will tell us if that was the correct move. Personally I doubt it was.

Have we not paid for this already? There is a big difference between can't and won't pay - the can't pay people can't pay and while I resent the amount of taxes and cuts I havde suffered I would resent knowing that developers and friends get cut loose owing millions and billions that I must now pay, while we hang our neighbours with a bubble mortgage out to dry.

Apparently, no we haven't paid for the performing (at the time of the bailout) mortgages and loans. If these are now in the "can't and won't pay" category, then someone is going to have to pay for it. It won't be me, as I have left the country, it was pretty easy to see the next logical step in the bailout being those who now cannot pay their borrowings. I admire your generosity if you feel they should not be "hung out to dry" and you should pick up the tab.

apache

the_syco wrote: »

apache wrote: »

I have another few operations to go

Check if you're entitled to PPI?

Payment protection insurance (PPI), also known as credit insurance, credit protection insurance, or loan repayment insurance, is an insurance product that enables consumers to insure repayment of loans if the borrower dies, becomes ill or disabled, loses a job, or faces other circumstances that may prevent them from earning income to service the debt.

I pay e40 on top of my mortgage every month for serious illness cover as part of my life insurance. There is a list of illness' that it covers. Basically you need to have cancer or lose a limb etc so i'm not covered.

MadsL

apache wrote: »

I pay e40 on top of my mortgage every month for serious illness cover as part of my life insurance. There is a list of illness' that it covers. Basically you need to have cancer or lose a limb etc so i'm not covered.

Do you consider it "dead money" then so?

apache

MadsL wrote: »

apache wrote: »

I pay e40 on top of my mortgage every month for serious illness cover as part of my life insurance. There is a list of illness' that it covers. Basically you need to have cancer or lose a limb etc so i'm not covered.

Do you consider it "dead money" then so?

No because if i end up in a wheelchair and have to adapt the apartment or get cancer the e50,000 payment will come in handy as well as getting my mortgage payed each month. Its a safety net. I'm responsible for myself.
I could always drop it. Its a choice. Until you are sick you don't realise how much it could mean. Piece of mind goes far.

Sala

MadsL wrote: »

We bailed out the banks to avoid a systemic crisis in the global financial systems. History will tell us if that was the correct move. Personally I doubt it was.




Apparently, no we haven't paid for the performing (at the time of the bailout) mortgages and loans. If these are now in the "can't and won't pay" category, then someone is going to have to pay for it. It won't be me, as I have left the country, it was pretty easy to see the next logical step in the bailout being those who now cannot pay their borrowings. I admire your generosity if you feel they should not be "hung out to dry" and you should pick up the tab.

It is not generosity - if someone can't pay they can't pay - you can't get blood out of a stone and someone has to pay, so it will be the tax payer. By "hung out to dry" I mean the way things could pan out - are we going to repossess family homes, sell them for half the monies owed and force people to take on a few hundred thousand in personal debt? It's not going to work.

MadsL

apache wrote: »

No because if i end up in a wheelchair and have to adapt the apartment or get cancer the e50,000 payment will come in handy. Its a safety net. I'm responsible for myself.

Another 'dead money' aspect to paying a mortgage then. A renter just moves into a more suitable apartment.

I could always drop it. Its a choice.

I think you will find your mortgage requires some form of cover.

apache

MadsL wrote: »

apache wrote: »

No because if i end up in a wheelchair and have to adapt the apartment or get cancer the e50,000 payment will come in handy. Its a safety net. I'm responsible for myself.

Another 'dead money' aspect to paying a mortgage then. A renter just moves into a more suitable apartment.

I could always drop it. Its a choice.

I think you will find your mortgage requires some form of cover.

Yeah how many apartments are "suitable" for someone with a long term illness? I've seen none!
I think you will find i meant to say i could drop my serious illness cover! Of course duh the least you need is life insurance.

Here you go again with your stupid questioning and points that are flawed. You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder.

I am a happy mortgage payer especially after today so go and piss in someone elses cornflakes because i won't be entertaining you.

MadsL

Sala wrote: »

It is not generosity - if someone can't pay they can't pay - you can't get blood out of a stone and someone has to pay, so it will be the tax payer. By "hung out to dry" I mean the way things could pan out - are we going to repossess family homes, sell them for half the monies owed and force people to take on a few hundred thousand in personal debt? It's not going to work.

I really didn't see anyone holding guns to people's heads as they signed the mortgage documents. I did however encounter fools queuing overnight to buy €950k 'penthouses' in D4.

When you say " It's not going to work." what do you forsee happening? And what do you propose. Unfortunately you have no way of forcing exiles to pay, so who will? Squeeze too hard and most people will find ways to leave, or simply quit working.

MadsL

apache wrote: »

Yeah how many apartments are "suitable" for someone with a long term illness? I've seen none!
I think you will find i meant to say i could drop my serious illness cover! Of course duh the least you need is life insurance.

Here you go again with your stupid questioning and points that are flawed. You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder.

I am a happy mortgage payer especially after today so go and piss in someone elses cornflakes because i won't be entertaining you.

You are getting narky simply because I asked you to justify the mathematics behind your belief that renting is "dead money", when you clearly cannot. You also seem incapable of seeing the dead money aspect of paying a mortgage.
Care to point out the "flaws" in my earlier points?

But I guess it is "stupid" to question the age-old wisdom of "investing" in "bricks-and-mortar"...

TwoShedsJackson

MadsL wrote: »

Another 'dead money' aspect to paying a mortgage then. A renter just moves into a more suitable apartment.



I think you will find your mortgage requires some form of cover.

It requires life cover, not the payment protection thing the OP has. That's optional.

And in most cases useless as the list of terms and conditions make it almost impossible to get a payout on it, I read in the Times last year that only 4% or so of claims are paid out.

OP if you're looking to save €40 a month that's the first payment to dump.

jackal

Some people can't pay, some people won't pay. Defaulting needs to be penal enough that the "wont pay" crowd are strongly discouraged from trying to offload their bad judgements on the public. We are going to have to forgive the debt of the "can't pay" crowd. Lots of them are hopelessly underwater on their debts and will never pay a substantial fraction of it off. This we must accept.

I have suggested this to TD's etc, no response.

People defaulting on a property loan have proven that they are incapable of paying a substantial loan back. This may be through no fault of their own, or it may be a reflection on their lack of financial ability.

Anyone defaulting should be made bankrupt and prohibited from getting a loan over 5k for 20 years in Ireland. The bankruptcy process itself should be relatively quick - something like in the UK. Let people get on with their lives, but don't make it an attractive option for those with any aspiration to own their own home. Most of the "wont pay" crowd still want to own a property, just not the one that has gone sour on them.

And for those who keep trotting out the hindsight line... There were clear signs for anyone that cared to scratch the surface that it was going to crash, and crash hard. Most of the people I know who bought in the lead up to the crash, intelligent people who have been badly stung, would say "Mea Culpa". They know they should have known better, but got caught up in it for one reason or another.

Thankfully all of them bought actual houses that they can live in for the foreseeable future, or extend to meet their changing needs. It's those who bought apartments that I fear for the most. We have seen the lack of quality, the "stack em high" approach to giving as little square feet per unit as possible to get the most out of the footprint of the building - even if this building is now in a giant empty field.

Monty Burnz

Jesus Christ, not the 'rent is dead money' myth again? How many times are the hard of thinking going to trot that one out?

If rent is dead money, what is mortgage interest? A friend of mine was amazed the other day when she calculated that she would have to two and a half times the cost of a property over the course of her mortgage. Amazed. Maybe she was away the day they covered compound interest in primary school?

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but dont you pay tax on any profit from a property sale ?
and this tax goes to the public purse ?
dont suppose you have used any public services in the following years ?

in a roundabout way he did share it - but no one wants to hear that side of the bubble - with mental mortgage's came stupid stamp duty , and all the taxes paid on outfitting the new home , these taxes paid for the running of the country , i presume you live in this county ?

He shared 30% or so of it in CGT...against his will, if he declared it. He didn't share 100% of it by choice - which is what people want to do with their debt.

Thanks but no thanks. People have enough trouble of their own without being burdened with (more of) other people's mistakes.

apache

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

It requires life cover, not the payment protection thing the OP has. That's optional.

And in most cases useless as the list of terms and conditions make it almost impossible to get a payout on it, I read in the Times last year that only 4% or so of claims are paid out.

OP if you're looking to save €40 a month that's the first payment to dump.

As i said the e40 a month covers life and serious illness. Illness if i drop it would bring it down to e20. I'd save e20 a month - not e40. For the sake of e20 i'd rather hold on to it (it costs a lot more to get now) and if i do have a life threatening illness (there is 42 they cover) then i can be secure in knowing that i get lump sum to adapt apartment and get mortgage paid. If hospital reports tally up to you being in criteria they can't not pay out.

TwoShedsJackson

apache wrote: »

If hospital reports tally up to you being in criteria they can't not pay out.

You'd be amazed what insurance companies can and can't pay out on when it suits them. I'm just recommending you check the terms and conditions very carefully.

apache

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

apache wrote: »

If hospital reports tally up to you being in criteria they can't not pay out.

You'd be amazed what insurance companies can and can't pay out on when it suits them. I'm just recommending you check the terms and conditions very carefully.

I nearly did cancel it twosheds but then i thought in fairness this illness i have isn't covered. Did read the terms carefully. Got a bit of legal advice also.

cournioni

not yet wrote: »

cournioni wrote: »

You take on the debt then you have to pay it back. If you couldn't see the risk in taking out a loan then that is your problem, but don't make the problem mine just because of your mistakes.

Well isn't that a smashing attitude to have, fcuk you jack I'm alright. by the way does the above attitude apply to unsecured bondholders who done exactly that.

No attitude here, it's just called living in the real world. You take out a loan, for X amount, you have to pay it back. If you can not see the risk in taking a loan then it is nobodies fault but your own.

That absolutely does apply to unsecured bondholders. Bondholders should also be aware of the risk when they are investing, especially those that invest in other lending institutions.

I'm not saying don't loan or don't invest, what I am saying is be cautious, don't go in over your head and never ever get greedy.

not yet

cournioni wrote: »

No attitude here, it's just called living in the real world. You take out a loan, for X amount, you have to pay it back. If you can not see the risk in taking a loan then it is nobodies fault but your own.

That absolutely does apply to unsecured bondholders. Bondholders should also be aware of the risk when they are investing, especially those that invest in other lending institutions.

I'm not saying don't loan or don't invest, what I am saying is be cautious, don't go in over your head and never ever get greedy.

So can I take it you believe that someone who bought a home in 2003-2007 was greedy, because thats what I'm taking from your post.

I, and others bought apartments during this period, not to make money,not to invest, not to be greedy but simply to have a home. The Banks and estate agents at the time fooled people into thinking if you don't buy now you will not be able to afford it in 5 years, oh and the government at the time were part of this cable of nasty greed induced basdtars.

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

So can I take it you believe that someone who bought a home in 2003-2007 was greedy, because thats what I'm taking from your post.

Some were greedy, most were a bit stupid. It really wasn't a good time to buy for most people.

not yet wrote: »

I, and others bought apartments during this period, not to make money,not to invest, not to be greedy but simply to have a home. The Banks and estate agents at the time fooled people into thinking if you don't buy now you will not be able to afford it in 5 years, oh and the government at the time were part of this cable of nasty greed induced basdtars.

Other people were fooled into putting their life savings into bank shares. Do they get their money back too? They weren't greedy, they were just trying to provide for themselves in their old age. Where do they sign up to get their money back? Do you mind paying more tax to bail them out?

not yet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Some were greedy, most were a bit stupid. It really wasn't a good time to buy for most people.

Other people were fooled into putting their life savings into bank shares. Do they get their money back too? They weren't greedy, they were just trying to provide for themselves in their old age. Where do they sign up to get their money back? Do you mind paying more tax to bail them out?

How do you make out people were stupid..Every single piece of adivce at the time said buy...

Who said anything about signing up to get money back.

stevedublin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Other people were fooled into putting their life savings into bank shares. Do they get their money back too? They weren't greedy, they were just trying to provide for themselves in their old age. Where do they sign up to get their money back? Do you mind paying more tax to bail them out?

There is one hell of a difference between someone speculating on the stock market to get rich and someone trying to put a roof over their head!
You and your sort won't be happy until everyone is jobless, homeless and starving!

not yet

stevedublin wrote: »

There is one hell of a difference between someone speculating on the stock market to get rich and someone trying to put a roof over their head!
You and your sort won't be happy until everyone is jobless, homeless and starving!

Correct, and cut PS PAY BY 50% while we are at it.

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

How do you make out people were stupid..Every single piece of adivce at the time said buy...

Nonsense.

not yet wrote: »

Who said anything about signing up to get money back.

Well you want people let off their mortgage debt - to get hundreds of thousands of euro from the taxpayer. What about the taxpayers who lost their savings on bank investments? Do they get their money back too?

What is the difference?

not yet

Jesus Thatcher will never be dead.

Monty Burnz

stevedublin wrote: »

There is one hell of a difference between someone speculating on the stock market to get rich and someone trying to put a roof over their head!

People were not speculating to get rich - they were putting their savings in 'safe' bank shares so they would have something to retire on. Not everyone wants to leech off the state in their old age.

stevedublin wrote: »

You and your sort won't be happy until everyone is jobless, homeless and starving!

To be honest, I'd be happy if losers just stopped whining.

Zamboni

not yet wrote: »

So can I take it you believe that someone who bought a home in 2003-2007 was greedy, because thats what I'm taking from your post.

I, and others bought apartments during this period, not to make money,not to invest, not to be greedy but simply to have a home.

Why didn't you rent then?