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

DebDynamite

lima wrote: »

Debt is living beyond your means.

Surely thinking ahead, planning and having the smarts not to get caught up in debt by keeping up with next door shows a lot more maturity.

e.g:
I'm off now to cycle home to my rented apartment as I don't need a 4br house and a new car, even though I can afford both (well not in SCD anyway!).

Sorry Lima, I've agreed with nearly everything you've said, but the above is pretty ridiculous.

Calina

cookie1977 wrote: »

Debt isn't a bad word. It shows maturity, something you clearly lack.

I'd like you to explain this. Debt itself does not, in and of itself, display maturity. Recognising that you have debts and have a duty to pay them off does demonstrate maturity. Equally mature is not taking on debts beyond your ability to repay in the first place.

Many people want get out clauses of the repayment bit. In this case, I don't think the word debt can be equated with maturity.

A little understanding that debt write down is not actually a human right would go a long way towards understanding why some people are unhappy that a) they were prudent b) didn't over borrow to their own detriment and c) did not overborrow contributing to the issues facing this country but d) are expected to cofund those who did.

Debt. Paying it off is mature. Not paying it off and expecting or demanding concessions is not.

cookie1977

Calina wrote: »

I'd like you to explain this. Debt itself does not, in and of itself, display maturity. Recognising that you have debts and have a duty to pay them off does demonstrate maturity. Equally mature is not taking on debts beyond your ability to repay in the first place.

Many people want get out clauses of the repayment bit. In this case, I don't think the word debt can be equated with maturity.

A little understanding that debt write down is not actually a human right would go a long way towards understanding why some people are unhappy that a) they were prudent b) didn't over borrow to their own detriment and c) did not overborrow contributing to the issues facing this country but d) are expected to cofund those who did.

Debt. Paying it off is mature. Not paying it off and expecting or demanding concessions is not.

Being entrusted with debt (as in a loan) shows that someone is confident that you'll pay it back based on your employment, your presence, your current financials, long term prospects etc...

Calina

cookie1977 wrote: »

Being entrusted with debt (as in a loan) shows that someone is confident that you'll pay it back based on your employment, your presence, your current financials, long term prospects etc...

I'm not sure that this is a support of your assertion that debt equals maturity.

lima

DebDynamite wrote: »

Sorry Lima, I've agreed with nearly everything you've said, but the above is pretty ridiculous.

Sorry, in this context I mean being in a debt situation that stretches you.

The_Conductor

We really have meandered off topic here.........

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

Being entrusted with debt (as in a loan) shows that someone is confident that you'll pay it back based on your employment, your presence, your current financials, long term prospects etc...

Lol

Being in arrears or pre-arrears means you are pretty stupid with your finances really.

anncoates

lima wrote: »

I guess my first world problem of not being able to get a cheap house is nothing compared to the pain, anguish and complete sense of failure all those who fail to pay their debts will feel for the rest of their lives. Oh well..

You come across as a really nice person.

gaius c

Lima
Too far. I'd withdraw that if I were you.

cookie1977

Anywhoo

This was interesting:
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/families-keep-health-cover-and-second-car-in-bank-debt-deals-29783753.html

Most of the people who have had deals with banks processed by personal insolvency specialists Grant Thornton Debt Solutions are in families with children and work in the PAYE sector.

And most managed to keep their homes despite having crippling debts.

Details of the deals being hammered out with the banks emerged as the first personal insolvency deal to be formally signed off by the banks and the courts was finalised yesterday.

In that case, a Donegal man in his 40s had 70pc of his debts written off. The arrangement follows a protective certificate being issued by the Circuit Court in Monaghan in October.

It has now been signed off on by the courts.

Will the deals be kept primarily secret or will they be revealed in the court records anyone know?

lima

gaius c wrote: »

Lima
Too far. I'd withdraw that if I were you.

The choices you make define your situation.


No one HAS to have kids

No one NEEDS a big house

No one NEEDS an SUV

No one NEEDS to compliment their private pension with a risky BTL

The Spider

lima wrote: »

The choices you make define your situation.


No one HAS to have kids

No one NEEDS a big house

No one NEEDS an SUV

No one NEEDS to compliment their private pension with a risky BTL

That's nonsense to be honest, it's called a society if people don't have kids where's the next generation going to come from?

You obviously don't have any.
People who bought houses in the boom, the majority weren't big houses as you say, they were 3 bed semi's to bring up families, and there's a lot more of them in the likes of Blanchardstown and Lucan rather than SCD, and when they couldn't afford them they bought apartments.

You may need an SUV or big car if you have more than 3 kids, live in a sprawling estate in west dublin with no reliable transport, not that public transport will allow you to do shopping etc. try buying anything other than a bag of groceries and bringing it on a bus.

Agree on the BTL.

The fact is anyone who gives their house back will have the debt written off, I'm sick and tired of hearing about the prudent who didn't buy a house, the fact is if you held out (like I did), well done it paid off you can now buy a house 50% below the peak, what's the problem? go buy the house.

Your taxes will pay for the good of society and that good means hospitals roads and people not being in debt for the rest of their lives, sorry but this is part of the gamble you engaged in when you didn't buy, do you honestly think any society is going to keep a huge amount of it's citizen in perpetual poiverty for the rest of their lives?

Cop on.

Brussels Sprout

Property prices up 6% nationally year on year. 15% in Dublin alone. I'm confounded by all this.

link

cookie1977

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Property prices up 6% nationally year on year. 15% in Dublin alone. I'm confounded by all this.

link

Take Dublin out of the equation though and it's a different picture in the rest of the country.

lima

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Property prices up 6% nationally year on year. 15% in Dublin alone. I'm confounded by all this.

link

"However, the CSO points out that the data for apartments are based on a small number of transactions. "

It's just old people with cash buying apartments with their pension lump sums. Most of the apartments are not livable for an owner.

jmayo

The Spider wrote: »

The fact is anyone who gives their house back will have the debt written off, I'm sick and tired of hearing about the prudent who didn't buy a house, the fact is if you held out (like I did), well done it paid off you can now buy a house 50% below the peak, what's the problem? go buy the house.

OPh FFS will you stop comparing prices to the peak and then by extension claiming they are value.
Anything and everything looks like value when compared to the peak. :rolleyes:

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Property prices up 6% nationally year on year. 15% in Dublin alone. I'm confounded by all this.

link

It is mindboggling that we are having increases at the very time
a) we have high unemployment and emigration of what could be the current or next line of FTBs
b) a huge chunk of property owners that are stuck and unable to move due to massive negative equity
c) a huge chunk of property owners are not actually repaying their mortgage loans
d) all of our indigeneous banks are probably still dependent on taxpayer support due to fact they have not realised the huge losses due to c.
e) and a banking structure not being able to adeuqately lend due to d and a drastically shrinking banking market as foreign banks leave the jurisdiction.

As others have said it is a strange market and the big thing is the limited number and location of those transactions.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

it's called a society

What is called a society? Life?

Without getting spiritual about it, there is no obligation on anyone to have children. If you have a career path that will clearly not lead to a financial ability to live comfortably with three children then you shouldn't have them, because you can't afford them.

It's bad enough watching benefit scroungers having kids to get SW (I have cousins like that), but watching people who clearly can't afford kids to have 1, 2 or 3 kids is crazy.

I have many friends in London, and they are in early 30's and are not planning to have kids until 5-6 years when they see themselves in senior management roles in ICT. It is only then they will feel that they can afford kids whilst paying for a mortgage and a reasonable car (it they need one).

..Whereas in Ireland it's the whole catholic tradition of having kids and then planning after. How many of our parents/grandparents came from poor, large families? Mine did anyway. It's an Irish thing, this obligation to have a family whilst clearly not being able to afford it.

And this society thing, why can you not understand that I have no obligation to empathize with someone who is costing me money? They are total strangers to me.

If this was the boom and people were making a killing on profits from their 'investments' do you think they would be sharing their cash? They would be isolating themselves from society with their high-walled houses and would not care about anyone else but their own families.

roro2

jmayo wrote: »

It is mindboggling that we are having increases at the very time
a) we have high unemployment and emigration of what could be the current or next line of FTBs
b) a huge chunk of property owners that are stuck and unable to move due to massive negative equity
c) a huge chunk of property owners are not actually repaying their mortgage loans
d) all of our indigeneous banks are probably still dependent on taxpayer support due to fact they have not realised the huge losses due to c.
e) and a banking structure not being able to adeuqately lend due to d and a drastically shrinking banking market as foreign banks leave the jurisdiction.
.

But b) and c) are two of the main reasons there are increases at the minute.

ezra_pound

lima wrote: »

What is called a society? Life?

Without getting spiritual about it, there is no obligation on anyone to have children. If you have a career path that will clearly not lead to a financial ability to live comfortably with three children then you shouldn't have them, because you can't afford them.

It's bad enough watching benefit scroungers having kids to get SW (I have cousins like that), but watching people who clearly can't afford kids to have 1, 2 or 3 kids is crazy.

I have many friends in London, and they are in early 30's and are not planning to have kids until 5-6 years when they see themselves in senior management roles in ICT. It is only then they will feel that they can afford kids whilst paying for a mortgage and a reasonable car (it they need one).

..Whereas in Ireland it's the whole catholic tradition of having kids and then planning after. How many of our parents/grandparents came from poor, large families? Mine did anyway. It's an Irish thing, this obligation to have a family whilst clearly not being able to afford it.

And this society thing, why can you not understand that I have no obligation to empathize with someone who is costing me money? They are total strangers to me.

If this was the boom and people were making a killing on profits from their 'investments' do you think they would be sharing their cash? They would be isolating themselves from society with their high-walled houses and would not care about anyone else but their own families.

Have you ever heard of a biological clock? Or of another ticking clock called a pensions crisis?

Women need to have babies before a certain age in order to provide the economy with future taxpayers to pay for your pension and fund the state when you're an OAP.

ezra_pound

Believe me your friends in the UK will change their plans and have children sooner than 5-6 years.

ChRoMe

lima wrote: »

What is called a society? Life?

Without getting spiritual about it, there is no obligation on anyone to have children. If you have a career path that will clearly not lead to a financial ability to live comfortably with three children then you shouldn't have them, because you can't afford them.

It's bad enough watching benefit scroungers having kids to get SW (I have cousins like that), but watching people who clearly can't afford kids to have 1, 2 or 3 kids is crazy.

I have many friends in London, and they are in early 30's and are not planning to have kids until 5-6 years when they see themselves in senior management roles in ICT. It is only then they will feel that they can afford kids whilst paying for a mortgage and a reasonable car (it they need one).

..Whereas in Ireland it's the whole catholic tradition of having kids and then planning after. How many of our parents/grandparents came from poor, large families? Mine did anyway. It's an Irish thing, this obligation to have a family whilst clearly not being able to afford it.

And this society thing, why can you not understand that I have no obligation to empathize with someone who is costing me money? They are total strangers to me.

If this was the boom and people were making a killing on profits from their 'investments' do you think they would be sharing their cash? They would be isolating themselves from society with their high-walled houses and would not care about anyone else but their own families.

We should just stamp out the problem and steralise the poor really?

ezra_pound

lima wrote: »

What is called a society? Life?

Without getting spiritual about it, there is no obligation on anyone to have children. If you have a career path that will clearly not lead to a financial ability to live comfortably with three children then you shouldn't have them, because you can't afford them.

It's bad enough watching benefit scroungers having kids to get SW (I have cousins like that), but watching people who clearly can't afford kids to have 1, 2 or 3 kids is crazy.

I have many friends in London, and they are in early 30's and are not planning to have kids until 5-6 years when they see themselves in senior management roles in ICT. It is only then they will feel that they can afford kids whilst paying for a mortgage and a reasonable car (it they need one).

..Whereas in Ireland it's the whole catholic tradition of having kids and then planning after. How many of our parents/grandparents came from poor, large families? Mine did anyway. It's an Irish thing, this obligation to have a family whilst clearly not being able to afford it.

And this society thing, why can you not understand that I have no obligation to empathize with someone who is costing me money? They are total strangers to me.

If this was the boom and people were making a killing on profits from their 'investments' do you think they would be sharing their cash? They would be isolating themselves from society with their high-walled houses and would not care about anyone else but their own families.

I'm from a well to do middle class background. Growing up in the 80s recession I can tell you that the middle class back then had to compromise financially in order to have children, in general. Its normap for people to defer financial comfort with yhe need to have kids. Also just to clarify the people I'm talking about were not into Catholic mumbo jumbo and were esssentially protestant vis a vis family planning.

Zamboni

roro2 wrote: »

But b) and c) are two of the main reasons there are increases at the minute.

He means if they were correctly turfed out, prices would decrease.

Zamboni

ChRoMe wrote: »

We should just stamp out the problem and steralise the poor really?

There is no such thing as poverty in the Republic of Ireland.
There are only people with poor priorities.

invpat

ChRoMe wrote: »

We should just stamp out the problem and steralise the poor really?

Yes and shoot everybody over seventy,and maybe the long term unemployed,voila end of recession.

Zamboni

Lima is not attacking people with no money or people that are old.
He attacking lazy morons who make poor decisions.

lima

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'm from a well to do middle class background. Growing up in the 80s recession I can tell you that the middle class back then had to compromise financially in order to have children, in general. Its normap for people to defer financial comfort with yhe need to have kids. Also just to clarify the people I'm talking about were not into Catholic mumbo jumbo and were esssentially protestant vis a vis family planning.

Why the 'Need' to have kids? Are you seriously saying that you need to have kids so that they will pay taxes that will contribute towards your state pension?

lima

ezra_pound wrote: »

Have you ever heard of a biological clock? Or of another ticking clock called a pensions crisis?

Women need to have babies before a certain age in order to provide the economy with future taxpayers to pay for your pension and fund the state when you're an OAP.

Really? oh god quick, everyone get yisser women preggers else you won't get your state pension!

ezra_pound

lima wrote: »

Why the 'Need' to have kids? Are you seriously saying that you need to have kids so that they will pay taxes that will contribute towards your state pension?

Yes. Look up Japanese economy!

ezra_pound

lima wrote: »

Why the 'Need' to have kids? Are you seriously saying that you need to have kids so that they will pay taxes that will contribute towards your state pension?

Well in order to ensure that the economy stays productive after you retire , yes.