Glut of repossessed houses could depress prices ‘by up to 25%’

Villa05

RTE 9 News just reported a case where an unemployed person on a training course was asked to give up the training course to mind his child as condition for obtaining a split mortgage.

You could not make it up - Monty python material

Cookie Do u now see why split mortgage will not be the saviour, many make it out to be

Villa05

More monty python material. Classic face/palm moment from the bank official in the photo

A young mum who Enda Kenny has vowed to help get a mortgage told The Star she has been sharing a single bedroom with her husband and child for the past year.

The Taoiseach stunned Bank of Ireland staff in Ashbourne, Co Meath, yesterday when he marched Kelly Petit up to the bank’s manager and demanded that she be given a mortgage.
.............................
The couple have moved into her parents’ home in Ashbourne as they save for a dream four-bed €250,000 home in the town.

Kelly, a regional volunteer organiser for the ISPCC, and Joe, a self-employed musician, have been sharing a bed with five-year-old daughter Saian.

http://www.thestar.ie/star/enda-kenny-stuns-bank-staff-with-loan-request-for-mum/

Ray Darcy had her on the show during the week, promoting her plight, while in the same show wailing and lamenting about the plight of people in arrears.

Glenbhoy

Villa05 wrote: »

RTE 9 News just reported a case where an unemployed person on a training course was asked to give up the training course to mind his child as condition for obtaining a split mortgage.

You could not make it up - Monty python material

Cookie Do u now see why split mortgage will not be the saviour, many make it out to be

Should it not have been obvious to the guy that for the time being at least, it would be more sensible to minimise childcare costs rather that pursue a training course?

Glenbhoy

StillWaters wrote: »

Enda Kenny has come out and said there is no way one party will be asked to give up work. Childcare is a temporary expense whereas people (women) who give up work for a while to care for their children bear a wage scar for the rest of their career. It doesnt make long term economic sense.

I'd like to see some hard facts on this (not enough to search for them myself though), thinking about it, I would think that people (woman) who would incur a wage scar would not generally be those who would be earning less than the childcare expenses they incur by virtue of working.

Villa05

Glenbhoy wrote: »

Should it not have been obvious to the guy that for the time being at least, it would be more sensible to minimise childcare costs rather that pursue a training course?

As a beneficiary of a short course that immediately led to a job. No
Social welfare payments are not for the purpose of buying a house even if half of it is parked in no mans land.

Zamboni

Villa05 wrote: »

More monty python material. Classic face/palm moment from the bank official in the photo

http://www.thestar.ie/star/enda-kenny-stuns-bank-staff-with-loan-request-for-mum/

Ray Darcy had her on the show during the week, promoting her plight, while in the same show wailing and lamenting about the plight of people in arrears.

Extraordinary.

Really.

The_Conductor

cookie1977 wrote: »

There was discussions on Leo Varadkar's comment yesterday that people, struggling to pay mortgages, would have to give up work if child care costs were high. Most opposition parties in the dáil came out against this but to be honest I really dont see the problem. If you're struggling with a mortgage that you could afford if you stay (either parent) home instead of paying for child care then that should happen.

In my instance as long as I or my wife earn 1 euro more then out costs with child care then it's worth us going to work but if our costs rise such that it would be better for one of us to stay home then we will. I'm a bit puzzled by the outrage in the media against this.

I'm puzzled too.
We have two young children in creche.
Their monthly fee exceeds my NET salary.
We manage to pay the mortgage and our utility bills from my wife's salary (manage being a generous term- its not easy and we do make many sacrifices- I was laughing at the Sky TV, foreign holidays etc to be given up- we gave them up years ago- and are 'managing' to pay our mortgage and live).

The problem here- is a lack of affordable childcare. Even in the UK- it is tax deductable at the marginal rate (from May- its new)- nut, no, those of us selfish enough to bring up children here, are penalised for it.

Our local public health nurse has actively told us numerous times that we'd be better off on social welfare and have a far better quality of life- given mortgage interest supplement and a raft of other entitlements being unemployed would unlock. I'm more than a bit disgusted by this. We work and are damn lucky to have our jobs. We are being penalised nonetheless.

I'm also not sure why this is being made out to be a women's issue. I've spent all my leave for years- at least 4 years, caring for my wife or my children. Calling it a women's issue may be an attempt to focus women's ire on politicians, perhaps because as a gender they lobby for their own interests, unlike men. If they succeed with this- they'll be doing all of us a favour though.

StillWaters

Villa05 wrote: »

RTE 9 News just reported a case where an unemployed person on a training course was asked to give up the training course to mind his child as condition for obtaining a split mortgage.

You could not make it up - Monty python material

Cookie Do u now see why split mortgage will not be the saviour, many make it out to be

Surely he could have availed of the Childcare Education and Training Scheme. People will believe anything!

StillWaters

smccarrick wrote: »

I'm also not sure why this is being made out to be a women's issue. I've spent all my leave for years- at least 4 years, caring for my wife or my children. Calling it a women's issue may be an attempt to focus women's ire on politicians, perhaps because as a gender they lobby for their own interests, unlike men. If they succeed with this- they'll be doing all of us a favour though.

Its a woman's issue because you are the exception Shane. It is almost always women who park or surrender their careers. It also stinks a little bit like the marriage bar in the civil service, Forcing women to be economically inactive.

cookie1977

Villa05 wrote: »

RTE 9 News just reported a case where an unemployed person on a training course was asked to give up the training course to mind his child as condition for obtaining a split mortgage.

You could not make it up - Monty python material

Cookie Do u now see why split mortgage will not be the saviour, many make it out to be

I dont agree that split mortgages will not be the saviour. They will work in many situations. I think the current implementation is insane in that they do not seem to be giving any details of what they will do with the parked part of the mortgage. It just seems to be a, well we'll wait and see. I'd rather they made a decision on what to do with that part now. Such as saying they'll sell the house in 25 years when one half is paid off and split the sale 50:50 and walk away if there's any outstanding debt (which to be honest there shouldn't be after 25 years).

cookie1977

smccarrick wrote: »

I'm puzzled too.
We have two young children in creche.
Their monthly fee exceeds my NET salary.
We manage to pay the mortgage and our utility bills from my wife's salary (manage being a generous term- its not easy and we do make many sacrifices- I was laughing at the Sky TV, foreign holidays etc to be given up- we gave them up years ago- and are 'managing' to pay our mortgage and live).

The problem here- is a lack of affordable childcare. Even in the UK- it is tax deductable at the marginal rate (from May- its new)- nut, no, those of us selfish enough to bring up children here, are penalised for it.

Our local public health nurse has actively told us numerous times that we'd be better off on social welfare and have a far better quality of life- given mortgage interest supplement and a raft of other entitlements being unemployed would unlock. I'm more than a bit disgusted by this. We work and are damn lucky to have our jobs. We are being penalised nonetheless.

I'm also not sure why this is being made out to be a women's issue. I've spent all my leave for years- at least 4 years, caring for my wife or my children. Calling it a women's issue may be an attempt to focus women's ire on politicians, perhaps because as a gender they lobby for their own interests, unlike men. If they succeed with this- they'll be doing all of us a favour though.

I would love tax deductable childcare. I think it wouldn't cost the government too much either. They could offer it at the lower tax rate and they'd get to keep the cash for the year until I claim it back in Jan/Feb of the year after. The UK is also planning on offer bigger incentives in 2015. Funny thing is those children we're bringing up will be paying for our retirement. They are a major asset to the state.

One thing that's been hard to swallow for me is that I've had to put off (possibly forever) having a third child because I cannot afford it. Not that I cannot afford it if I went to the state for help but I do not want to do that.

StillWaters wrote: »

Its a woman's issue because you are the exception Shane. It is almost always women who park or surrender their careers. It also stinks a little bit like the marriage bar in the civil service, Forcing women to be economically inactive.

My wife earns more than me and her job is significantly more secure then mine so he's not alone.

Galego

cookie1977 wrote: »

I would love tax deductable childcare. I think it wouldn't cost the government too much either.

I'd love it to! But let's face the reality. The government is broke! Borrowing 1bn a month to keep the country running shouldn't be acceptable. We are not
far from 120% Government debts over GDP, this figure is up right there competing against the likes of Greece and Portugal. And this is also after kicking some debts down the road and let the future generations deal with it.

StillWaters

It's not for economic reasons we do not have tax deductible childcare. As cookie stated it would be fairly cost neutral.

cookie1977

Galego wrote: »

I'd love it to! But let's face the reality. The government is broke! Borrowing 1bn a month to keep the country running shouldn't be acceptable. We are not
far from 120% Government debts over GDP, this figure is up right there competing against the likes of Greece and Portugal. And this is also after kicking some debts down the road and let the future generations deal with it.

Well as of the most recent figures we're 108% of GDP.
http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/historical-information/

There could be benefits to tax relief on childcare that could make it cost neutral for the government. Apart from the interest they can earn by not having to refund us until the following year there's also a cost saving in relation to economic production by keeping parents in employment and also off social welfare support.

StillWaters

Exactly, it's a political hot potato though! It will be a brave Minister introduces it.

Galego

cookie1977 wrote: »

Well as of the most recent figures we're 108% of GDP.
http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/historical-information/

There could be benefits to tax relief on childcare that could make it cost neutral for the government. Apart from the interest they can earn by not having to refund us until the following year there's also a cost saving in relation to economic production by keeping parents in employment and also off social welfare support.

Last figures which I saw (Q3 12), Ireland was almost in the 120%. And this is after a lot manipulation of numbers so the real percentage must be around 125-130%.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-23012013-AP/EN/2-23012013-AP-EN.PDF


Anyway, if the childcare tax relief has zero economic impact then I am all up for it, of course!

cookie1977

Galego wrote: »

Last figures which I saw (Q3 12), Ireland was almost in the 120%. And this is after a lot manipulation of numbers so the real percentage must be around 125-130%.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-23012013-AP/EN/2-23012013-AP-EN.PDF


Anyway, if the childcare tax relief has zero economic impact then I am all up for it, of course!

NTMA Projections:
http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/debt-projections/

It may even cost less if you took away the Early Childhood Care and Education Scheme and instead just offered tax relief on the cost over the whole duration of the childcare. But as stillwaters said, that would require some imagination from the government

Shedite27

"Glut of repossessed houses could depress prices ‘by up to 25%’"

Should we just change the title at this stage?

murphaph

StillWaters wrote: »

It's not for economic reasons we do not have tax deductible childcare. As cookie stated it would be fairly cost neutral.

I actually think heavily subsidised state run child care (contracted out) would be one of the rare places where government intervention in a market would be positive for just about everyone (with the possible exception of the legal and insurance industries)

Childcare is (IMO) expensive for a couple of reasons:
-It's done on a small, inefficient scale (playgroups and creches etc. usually only have a handful of children)
-There are very high insurance costs associated with running these businesses

The government could establish (not overnight, this would be a long term strategy) state run creches on a larger scale (attached to existing schools where possible to keep land acquisition costs down). We've recently become parents here in Germany and our son will be going to a creche when he is 12 months old (me or my partner can stay at home with him until then at 67% of average net pay, paid for by the state). The place he'll be going to has in excess of 100 children. It's like a little school really with each group having their own so called "nest" instead of classrooms.

The Irish government would, in addition to setting up the facilities (the running should be tendered out to get private sector efficiency) would need to seriously address the litigation that can be faced by such childcare facilities. Parents must accept that accidents can happen and that suing places at the drop of a hat will drive up insurance costs to insane levels (where they are now). Children should be cared for to the proper standard of course, but a broken arm should not result in a massive payout if it were to happen.

Imagine a country where working people (the ethos we need to be passed on to future taxpayers) were supported and encouraged to have families and in which those with sticky mattress syndrome were NOT encouraged to have families at all.

We will face a bill of about 300 per month (determined by our wages) for our little one until he is 3 years old. An unemployed person here gets no "voucher" as they are deemed capable of looking after their own children. After the third year his childcare will be completely free at the point of delivery (excluding food, which will cost 28 pm). IMO Ireland supports the wrong type of person and fails to support the right kind.

Glenbhoy

cookie1977 wrote: »

Well as of the most recent figures we're 108% of GDP.
http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/historical-information/

There could be benefits to tax relief on childcare that could make it cost neutral for the government. Apart from the interest they can earn by not having to refund us until the following year there's also a cost saving in relation to economic production by keeping parents in employment and also off social welfare support.

Would it really be cost neutral though? Are the benefits actually attainable, surely the fact that one parent stays at home to look after children frees up a job for someone else? If we were in a position of full employment, then, yes, I agree with your point, but as is, we have approx 15% unemployment.

Re welfare support, can people who are stay at home parents actually claim benefits? Legally at any rate?

Villa05

StillWaters wrote: »

Surely he could have availed of the Childcare Education and Training Scheme. People will believe anything!

And that of course is available to everyone who needs it in our 12 billion deficit state

The number of CETS places is limited and service providers have no initial allocation of CETS places from September 2012. CETS providers are not guaranteed to get the same number of places that they had last year, or indeed any places.

In a course I did 5 qualified for it, but none received it - Allocations filled

Villa05

Important point that may have slipped under the radar made on Vincent Brown the other night. In the way that the whole thing is structured;
Targets set for resolution i.e 50% by year end
Banks have the final say.

Banks may well repossess from borrowers who have equity in their homes but who are in arrears. When these are repossessed the Banks will not loose any money as the sale of the house will cover the outstanding mortgage. This will leave the worst cases to fester for longer.

StillWaters

Villa05 wrote: »

And that of course is available to everyone who needs it in our 12 billion deficit state



In a course I did 5 qualified for it, but none received it - Allocations filled

That's outrageous. That is not how it works. There aren't allocations, anyone who qualifies can get it.

Villa05

StillWaters wrote: »

That's outrageous. That is not how it works. There aren't allocations, anyone who qualifies can get it.

Sorry should have posted a link

CCCs allocate places on a first-come first-served basis, up to a pre-determined maximum number of places available.

http://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/childcare/CETSMainPage.htm

Galego

Ladies and gentlemen, the show is about to start........

New law will allow banks to repossess homes by summer
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/new-law-will-allow-banks-to-repossess-homes-by-summer-29162034.html

The_Conductor

Galego wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen, the show is about to start........

New law will allow banks to repossess homes by summer
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/new-law-will-allow-banks-to-repossess-homes-by-summer-29162034.html

The actual bill is to be distributed to TDs next week, for discussion in the next session. From the sounds of it- it will be more onerous than many have speculated- which is fine, as people won't be rewarded for their foolishness, but will be given an opportunity over time, to get back on their feet.

They are saying that the terms of this are such that folk may be inclined to continue going to the UK to seek bankruptcy as the terms may not be sufficiently generous to satisfy them. So be it.

cookie1977

Galego wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen, the show is about to start........

New law will allow banks to repossess homes by summer
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/new-law-will-allow-banks-to-repossess-homes-by-summer-29162034.html

You still wont see the glut of ppr/pdh repossessions many hope for. It'll primarily focus on btl's which again are probably more made up of apartments all over the country which not many are going to be rushing after to buy.

Villa05

A balanced view from the journal on the personal insolvency laws, unlike the rubbish from the Indo Rags

Similarly, where a family has a vehicle, it will not normally be the case that the vehicle should be sold, unless the vehicle is not fit for purpose, or a cheaper alternative may be available. It is unlikely that a debtor would be able to keep a 2011 BMW, however the family could trade down to a more reasonable or economical vehicle. Remember that in bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep a vehicle up to the value of €2,000.
The surrender of private health insurance is a contentious issue, but it may also not necessarily have to be surrendered, as there are other factors which PIPs will have to take into account, for example if there is a history of illness or the age of the debtor, as an illness could cause an acceptable arrangement to fail.
You may not be allowed to have a full Sky package, but that does not mean you have to cancel it. You may be allowed to keep the basic package. You are entitled to have a life, not just an existence.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-debtors-are-entitled-to-a-life-not-just-an-existence-under-the-new-personal-insolvency-act-847166-Mar2013/

To many of us some of the above are luxuries

But the Fianna Fail, Property Bubble loving Indo see this as penal Servitude

Get ready for years of 'penal servitude'

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/get-ready-for-years-of-penal-servitude-29165105.html

Galego

cookie1977 wrote: »

You still wont see the glut of ppr/pdh repossessions many hope for.

I do not expect tons of repossessions, no. But any repossessions or threat of repossessions will stop this non-sense carrying on which Ireland has had for the past few years. At least, that is what I am hoping for.

cookie1977 wrote: »

It'll primarily focus on btl's which again are probably more made up of apartments all over the country which not many are going to be rushing after to buy.

Yes many apartments but also many family homes AND yes some in desirable areas in Dublin. I've been reviewing arrears cases lately and some of the stuff is shocking. The country went completely bonkers lending and borrowing....

cookie1977

Villa05 wrote: »

A balanced view from the journal on the personal insolvency laws, unlike the rubbish from the Indo Rags



http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-debtors-are-entitled-to-a-life-not-just-an-existence-under-the-new-personal-insolvency-act-847166-Mar2013/

To many of us some of the above are luxuries

But the Fianna Fail, Property Bubble loving Indo see this as penal Servitude

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/get-ready-for-years-of-penal-servitude-29165105.html

What would many of you have an issue with (in relation to luxuries) in that article to be honest?