Huge negative equity on apartments.

Monty Burnz

Zamboni wrote: »

Why didn't you rent then?

Didn't you hear? Rent is dead money!

not yet

Yep..you read it here folks, let anyone who bought a home between 2002 and 2007 go fook themselves, I'm not bailing anyone out brigade.

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

Yep..you read it here folks, let anyone who bought a home between 2002 and 2007 go fook themselves, I'm not bailing anyone out brigade.

Pretty much. Why don't you want to discuss bailing out other victims of the bust? You want your money, but f*ck everyone else? Is that it?

not yet

Leo: Were you stupid enough to but at the boom

Joe soap: eh, yeah Leo I was kind of advised to by banks,government etc thought I was simply putting a roof over my head.

Leo: Ah but that was then and this is now, we have a five year plan to contract everything oversees and pay back the ECB, so plaese roll up in a corner and die.

Joe Soap: Ok Leo no worries.

Leo: Happy days, another whinger we don't have to listen to.

not yet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Pretty much. Why don't you want to discuss bailing out other victims of the bust? You want your money, but f*ck everyone else? Is that it?

Show me where I said I wanted money, for that matter show me where I said fook everyone else. As far As I can see your the only one saying fook everyone.

Sappa

Any person who thought putting 300-500k into an apartment and thinking this was a good idea,well they deserve all they get.
Fools and there money

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

Show me where I said I wanted money, for that matter show me where I said fook everyone else.

Ah, so we are agreed - if you can, you pay back what you borrowed. If you can't, give up the property and go bankrupt.

Sounds fair.

stevedublin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

People were not speculating to get rich - they were putting their savings in 'safe' bank shares so they would have something to retire on.

In a climate like Ireland, people need to be indoors if they want to be in a fit state to go to work without smelling of rats pee from the ditch they slept in.
There is no need for people to speculate on bank shares, people can live comfortably without buying shares, its not a basic part of living.
Its quite simple really.

People can live comfortably without buying houses too

not yet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ah, so we are agreed - if you can, you pay back what you borrowed. If you can't, give up the property and go bankrupt.

Sounds fair.

I have continued to pay my mortgage to this point, But I do believe as do most paople that something needs to be done to help people move on from crippling debt. Now if you think having a generation crippled by debt is good for the country then I'll leave you and all the other Thatcherites to it.

viva la revolution

Monty Burnz

stevedublin wrote: »

In a climate like Ireland, people need to be indoors if they want to be in a fit state to go to work without smelling of rats pee from the ditch they slept in.

Uh...ok....

stevedublin wrote: »

There is no need for people to speculate on bank shares, people can live comfortably without buying shares, its not a basic part of living.
Its quite simple really.

I don't think you understand. What do you think people's pensions are invested in? Bonds and property and...?

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

I have continued to pay my mortgage to this point, But I do believe as do most paople that something needs to be done to help people move on from crippling debt. Now if you think having a generation crippled by debt is good for the country then I'll leave you and all the other Thatcherites to it.

viva la revolution

They crippled themselves with debt voluntarily. You can't always protect grown adults from doing stupid things.

not yet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They crippled themselves with debt voluntarily. You can't always protect grown adults from doing stupid things.

Man you are smug...

Hope you never Have to deal with someone like you.

stevedublin

bluewolf wrote: »

People can live comfortably without buying houses too

Okay, if you want to sleep in a ditch or pay someone else's mortgage go ahead, its not the sort of life i would willingly choose for myself.

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

Man you are smug...

Hope you never Have to deal with someone like you.

So basically you have no actual argument to make to back up your position - effectively admitting you are in the wrong - so instead you resort to insults?

What age are you?

Monty Burnz

stevedublin wrote: »

Okay, if you want to sleep in a ditch or pay someone else's mortgage go ahead, its not the sort of life i would willingly choose for myself.

Me neither. I'd just go bankrupt and start again.

Oh wait, when you refer to 'paying someone else's mortgage' - do you think you are too good to rent??

stevedublin

stevedublin wrote: »

Okay, if you want to sleep in a ditch or pay someone else's mortgage go ahead, its not the sort of life i would willingly choose for myself.

I'll pay someone else's salary when I go shopping
I'll pay someone else's salary when I use any service or transport or buy petrol

but pay their MORTGAGE OMG NO

Sleep in a ditch - total nonsense
if people want to buy houses then off you go, but don't start trying to tell the rest of us your only alternative was "sleeping in a ditch" or you were forced into it or the rest of the pre-"I need a bailout for personal debt" excuses

chickendinner

Don`t bother reading 18 pages of this thread.
I will sum it up.


18 pages of Captain Hindsights

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/403/978/d3d.jpg

not yet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Me neither. I'd just go bankrupt and start again.

Oh wait, when you refer to 'paying someone else's mortgage' - do you think you are too good to rent??

So please explain to me who picks up the debt if you go bankrupt. and then explain to me how this is any different from debt forgiveness.

dttq

Gauss wrote: »

If I were them I'd hand in the keys to the bank and say good luck. See ya later.

You probably have just about every solicitor representing banks wishing that there were more people like you about.

Monty Burnz

chickendinner wrote: »

Don`t bother reading 18 pages of this thread.
I will sum it up.


18 pages of Captain Hindsights

Except that plenty of people were predicting exactly this. I can understand why those who were burned would like to pretend otherwise.

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

So please explain to me who picks up the debt if you go bankrupt. and then explain to me how this is any different from debt forgiveness.

The state will ultimately bear the brunt if it is a state-owned bank, private banks will bear the brunt if it is one of the other banks that the mortgage is with.

The difference with debt forgiveness is that you have to surrender the property and any other goodies you have if you go bankrupt (although this also happens in some versions of debt forgiveness).

Zulu

Zamboni wrote: »

Why didn't you rent then?

Because they'd rather put their money towards an asset as opposed to paying for a service? Because mortgages offered were far cheaper than rental prices?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Didn't you hear? Rent is dead money!

Well, rent is paying for a service, but a mortgage yields an asset.

Some people here seem to revel in others misfortune. I'd suggest that say far more about them, than the people who made an honest mistake. I guess "compassion" was another quality lost during the boom years.

not yet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The state will ultimately bear the brunt if it is a state-owned bank, private banks will bear the brunt if it is one of the other banks that the mortgage is with.

The difference with debt forgiveness is that you have to surrender the property and any other goodies you have if you go bankrupt (although this also happens in some versions of debt forgiveness).

Bolocks...

The Bank that you sting will just increase charges to their customers, so ordinary people still pick up the tab.Anyone I know who has gone bankrupt got their ''goodies'' off side long before the banks came in sure you only have to look at the rat Quinn.

stevedublin

bluewolf wrote: »

I'll pay someone else's salary when I go shopping
I'll pay someone else's salary when I use any service or transport or buy petrol
but pay their MORTGAGE OMG NO

No, I don't like paying other peoples mortgage, whats wrong with that?
Yes, when I go to the shops and buy stuff it pays the salary of the producers and retailers etc, but I dont pay their mortgage for them.
I'll pay the salary of the builders and developers when I buy a house, but I don't pay their mortgage either.

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Except that plenty of people were predicting exactly this. I can understand why those who were burned would like to pretend otherwise.

And plenty weren't. But you seem to overlook that.

stevedublin

stevedublin wrote: »

No, I don't like paying other peoples mortgage, whats wrong with that?
Yes, when I go to the shops and buy stuff it pays the salary of the producers and retailers etc, but I dont pay their mortgage for them.
I'll pay the salary of the builders and developers when I buy a house, but I don't pay their mortgage either.

You better double check none of the staff whose salaries you pay own houses with mortgages so

bbam

not yet wrote: »

So please explain to me who picks up the debt if you go bankrupt. and then explain to me how this is any different from debt forgiveness.

I'd say when it comes down to it there is no real difference.
Except:
With bankruptcy you go to court, have a label attached. It's a form of punnishment for making a mistake. Then your allowed to start again.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

Because they'd rather put their money towards an asset as opposed to paying for a service? Because mortgages offered were far cheaper than rental prices?

I rented a house in Dublin between 2004-6 for €1500 that would have cost about €4000 per month to buy. I was able to bank the difference.

Zulu wrote: »

Well, rent is paying for a service, but a mortgage yields an asset.

Renting yielded me an asset too - about €25k per annum in cash.

Zulu wrote: »

Some people here seem to revel in others misfortune. I'd suggest that say far more about them, than the people who made an honest mistake. I guess "compassion" was another quality lost during the boom years.

There's no revelling going on - just a reluctance to allow people foist their misfortune onto everyone else.

not yet

Zulu wrote: »

And plenty weren't. But you seem to overlook that.

The doom merchants were few and far between up untill 9 months or so before the crash. up to that point every single agency in the state pushed people into buying property.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

And plenty weren't. But you seem to overlook that.

Not at all. But I don't see why it is relevant. People took bad advice and listened to the wrong people. They will know better next time (or perhaps not).

Monty Burnz

stevedublin wrote: »

No, I don't like paying other peoples mortgage, whats wrong with that?
Yes, when I go to the shops and buy stuff it pays the salary of the producers and retailers etc, but I dont pay their mortgage for them.
I'll pay the salary of the builders and developers when I buy a house, but I don't pay their mortgage either.

Uh...what do you think they do with the income that you provide them?

Zamboni

Zulu wrote: »

Because they'd rather put their money towards an asset as opposed to paying for a service? Because mortgages offered were far cheaper than rental prices?

So you accept that they chose poorly?

Anybody who decides to Rent or Buy based on rent prices versus mortgage repayments deserves everything they get.
It's like investing in a business because of the P&L without looking at the balance sheet.

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

Bolocks...

The Bank that you sting will just increase charges to their customers, so ordinary people still pick up the tab.

I don't think you have any idea of the scale of money we are talking about here if you think the banks can recoup it by 'increasing charges' - but you are right in that the burden that falls on the 'state' will ultimately fall on us taxpayers.

Zamboni

not yet wrote: »

The doom merchants were few and far between up untill 9 months or so before the crash. up to that point every single agency in the state pushed people into buying property.

Lot's of people wilfully entered contracts to purchase accomodation.
Most are willing to abide by the contractual obligation.
But some want to whinge and look for other people to carry their burden.
And this is despite the fact that between purchasers between 2004-2008 ALREADY receive increased tax relief which is being covered by the tax payer.

What else do you want?

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

The doom merchants were few and far between up untill 9 months or so before the crash. up to that point every single agency in the state pushed people into buying property.

By the way, I love how the people who made a correct and sober analysis of the situation are labelled 'doom merchants', as if they were like the guys walking around town wearing sandwich boards saying 'the end is nigh'.

not yet

Whatever people think smug or otherwise some kind of plan will need to be put in place at some stage in the next couple of years.

The market is stagnant and will be for years unless we do something radical. As unpleasant as this may be for the clever/smart people we need to free up people so they can move upwards or downsize.

bbam

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think you have any idea of the scale of money we are talking about here if you think the banks can recoup it by 'increasing charges' - but you are right in that the burden that falls on the 'state' will ultimately fall on us taxpayers.

Are there any figures on what it would cost, seriously.
Say all negative equity was wiped out.

Add a levi to all future payments for say 50 years, they did it with insurance and weahead no choice.

Just thinking out loud really

not yet

not yet wrote: »

Whatever people think smug or otherwise some kind of plan will need to be put in place at some stage in the next couple of years.

The market is stagnant and will be for years unless we do something radical. As unpleasant as this may be for the clever/smart people we need to free up people so they can move upwards or downsize.

No, it won't.
No, we don't.

The house bubble was a blip. We don't need a "plan" to re-kindle it. It wasn't normality.

Zamboni

Monty Burnz wrote: »

By the way, I love how the people who made a correct and sober analysis of the situation are labelled 'doom merchants', as if they were like the guys walking around town wearing sandwich boards saying 'the end is nigh'.

Y'know...I've learned something today. This thread has shown me that a lot of people still don't get it.
Any of it.
The rent v buy, the value of your investment may rise and fall, the personal responsibility with entering a contract, the implication to the tax payer for mortgage defaulters in state owned banks, where tax relief comes from and your favourite...compound interest...

There is no delight in people's unfortunate situations..but there is sheer horror at the education system.

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I rented a house in Dublin between 2004-6 for €1500 that would have cost about €4000 per month to buy. I was able to bank the difference.

A mortgage on €400K worked out for €1K per month. Depending on circumstances you may have been paying a €500 premium for renting. It worked out more expensive for me to rent. So where's your asset in that circumstance?

Renting yielded me an asset too - about €25k per annum in cash.

Good for you. It would have yielded me a liability of €6K per annum. So yeah, I was "greedy". I shouldn't have taken out the mortgage. :rolleyes:

There's no revelling going on.

Oh there's plenty.

Monty Burnz

not yet wrote: »

Whatever people think smug or otherwise some kind of plan will need to be put in place at some stage in the next couple of years.

Agreed, but I think this is what the bankruptcy reform is for. Instead of the ridiculous situation where people used to be potentially undischarged bankrupts for their whole lives, people can now start with a clean slate after a couple of years.

not yet

bluewolf wrote: »

No, it won't.
No, we don't.

The house bubble was a blip. We don't need a "plan" to re-kindle it. It wasn't normality.

Nobody is talking about a ''plan'' to rekindle anything, what informed thinkers are saying is we need to free up people to downsize or move up. At the moment a couple who bought an apartment in 2004 are approx 200k in neg equity so cannot move up even after having a child.

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Not at all. But I don't see why it is relevant.

It's as relevant as saying "that plenty of people were predicting" a crash

Zamboni wrote: »

So you accept that they chose poorly?

Some did, some didn't.

who_me

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They crippled themselves with debt voluntarily. You can't always protect grown adults from doing stupid things.

That's a vast oversimplification. They didn't "cripple themselves with debt voluntarily". They took on debt voluntarily, and in a vastly changed economy are now struggling with it.

There's a huge amount of unwarranted smugness in this thread. As if to say "I'm careful with my money, I'm immune to risk. Only fools find themselves in debt". But no person is immune to risk, everyone is dependant on the health of the economy. It'd be nice if people bore that in mind.

not yet

Zamboni wrote: »

Y'know...I've learned something today. This thread has shown me that a lot of people still don't get it.
Any of it.
The rent v buy, the value of your investment may rise and fall, the personal responsibility with entering a contract, the implication to the tax payer for mortgage defaulters in state owned banks, where tax relief comes from and your favourite...compound interest...

There is no delight in people's unfortunate situations..but there is sheer horror at the education system.

Well ain't smugness alive and well.

Monty Burnz

bbam wrote: »

Are there any figures on what it would cost, seriously.
Say all negative equity was wiped out.

It's hard to say - you could work out a reasonable guesstimate with a bit of work, but the number would be in the tens of billions - I'd guess off the top of my head something in the neighbourhood of €50,000,000,000 (but don't hold me to it).

bbam wrote: »

Add a levi to all future payments for say 50 years, they did it with insurance and weahead no choice.

That would mean that people buying in future would be paying for their mortgage plus the mortgage of their neighbours. It would also drive mortgage costs up massively, forcing property prices down massively, forcing more people into negative equity...

Unworkable (and probably unjust), in short.

bbam wrote: »

Just thinking out loud really

No harm at all in that.

bbam

There is allot of you entered into a
Contract so you must continue to be held responsible no matter what?

Remember there was another party in the contract, the bank. In many cases the banks acted improperly, gave bad financial advice because it suited them to do so. They continually ignored recommendations on earnings versus loan value. I'd guess in many cases the banks behaviour was improper, maybe illegal by intentionally giving bad advice. This leaves the contract of the mortgage meaningless.

Bank officials encouraged higher borrowings because they earned more
Commision on the sales, how they got the money out the door was of little interest to them. Allot of ordinary people were led into borrowing large sums of money, surely this can't be enforceable.
Now that the taxpayer own these banks they also own the responsibility of previous poor dealings and improper conduct.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

It's as relevant as saying "that plenty of people were predicting" a crash

This is in response to people saying 'nobody was predicting a crash' - highly relevant, I would have thought.

bbam

bbam wrote: »

There is allot of you entered into a
Contract so you must continue to be held responsible no matter what?

Remember there was another party in the contract, the bank. In many cases the banks acted improperly, gave bad financial advice because it suited them to do so. They continually ignored recommendations on earnings versus loan value. I'd guess in many cases the banks behaviour was improper, maybe illegal by intentionally giving bad advice. This leaves the contract of the mortgage meaningless.

If that's the case then have the contract legally challenged, sue them etc.