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

cookie1977

jay0109 wrote: »

I can't give you an example.
But that was'nt my point which your deliberately avoiding....how can you marry your just society with mass debt write off.

Your not dealing with reality in your posts

Because that's how society works. That's why we have social welfare to pay for those unemployed people. Your taxes pay for people who dont work so they can eat, sleep under a roof, get free healthcare all the while you pay for you and yours to get the same things at a price your taxes pay for others too.

jay0109

cookie1977 wrote: »

You dont think there might be a cost to the tax payer for supporting these bankrupt, possibly homeless, unemployed people who are still being chased down for all the debt they owe?

I'll ask again do you really believe there's a large proportion of people in significant arrears living the life of reilly out there? You've got to stop reading the Daily Mail.

Ah, the 'homeless' strawman argument:rolleyes:
They can rent either from their own resources or on rent allowance. Most in need of state support will eventually get back on their feet, and probably sooner than later if the country picks up.

But the country won't pick up anytime soon if it has to stump up billions for debt write-off's.

I see your points and would agree with them in 'normal' times, but these are'nt normal times. Mass debt write off is unaffordable.
So I believe your arguments are akin to those of most on the left, especially the hard left.....great on paper but 100% la la land stuff.

You refuse to join the dots of your arguments so not much point in continuing to debate them with you

jay0109

cookie1977 wrote: »

Because that's how society works. That's why we have social welfare to pay for those unemployed people. Your taxes pay for people who dont work so they can eat, sleep under a roof, get free healthcare all the while you pay for you and yours to get the same things at a price your taxes pay for others too.

again, and again and again...your ignoring the volume of the mass debt write off your advocating....there are not enough taxes to fund this and our borrowings are already way over anything realistic as things currently stand.

I'll leave you to it:o

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote: »

You dont think there might be a cost to the tax payer for supporting these bankrupt, possibly homeless, unemployed people who are still being chased down for all the debt they owe?

I'll ask again do you really believe there's a large proportion of people in significant arrears living the life of reilly out there? You've got to stop reading the Daily Mail.

I think there's a large proportion of people out there living in houses they can't afford/have decided not to pay for while others are struggling to find a place at all, or dealing with higher rents, while the government spin the resultant mini-bubble in South Dublin as a "great thing"

The first group - if an arrangement can't be reached - should be evicted, houses repossessed and resold and the difference something they pay over however number of years it takes until they have repaid what they owe. Again, I'm not saying people should be left homeless by this but a payment plan that changes to their circumstances (good and bad) must be agreed.

Only then will people maybe think a little harder before they sign themselves up to massive mortgages. Only then will the rental market be properly reformed as that option becomes the norm rather than the current stopgap to buying/poor man's choice.

cookie1977

jay0109 wrote: »

Ah, the 'homeless' strawman argument:rolleyes:
They can rent either from their own resources on on rent allowance. Most in need of state support will eventually get back on their feet, and probably sooner than later if the country picks up.

But the country won't pick up anytime soon if it has to stump up billions for debt write-off's.

I see your points and would agree with them in 'normal' times, but these are'nt normal times. Mass debt write off is unaffordable.
So I believe your arguments are akin to those of most on the left, especially the hard left.....great on paper but 100% la la land stuff.

You refuse to join the dots of your arguments so not much point in continuing to debate them with you

What if they cant afford to rent because they've no job and all income they get is being diverted into paying debts. What if they have kids? The children made no decision in taking out the mortgage and yet they're being made to pay for their parents mistakes.

If you're not into a rational debate that's fine. I dont need you to agree with me on everything but really, no need for name calling.

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote: »

What if they cant afford to rent because they've no job and all income they get is being diverted into paying debts. What if they have kids? The children made no decision in taking out the mortgage and yet they're being made to pay for their parents mistakes.

And yet your position will ensure that EVERY child (those who haven't been forced out of the country that is!) will be left to pick up the tab for complete strangers in most cases.

jay0109

cookie1977 wrote: »

What if they cant afford to rent because they've no job and all income they get is being diverted into paying debts. What if they have kids? The children made no decision in taking out the mortgage and yet they're being made to pay for their parents mistakes.

If you're not into a rational debate that's fine. I dont need you to agree with me on everything but really, no need for name calling.

no name calling there unless you don't like being compared to those on the left!!!

Perhaps you did'nt read clearly what I said...if they can't afford to rent, they'll get RA to cover it.
And if they have kids, they can go into the rented house with them....kids are allowed in rented houses!!!

So please, don't mention rational debate when you misinterpret whats being written and continually refuse to explain how you see this mass debt write off that you seek will be paid for while maintaining the just society you also want!

cookie1977

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I think there's a large proportion of people out there living in houses they can't afford/have decided not to pay for while others are struggling to find a place at all, or dealing with higher rents, while the government spin the resultant mini-bubble in South Dublin as a "great thing"

The first group - if an arrangement can't be reached - should be evicted, houses repossessed and resold and the difference something they pay over however number of years it takes until they have repaid what they owe. Again, I'm not saying people should be left homeless by this but a payment plan that changes to their circumstances (good and bad) must be agreed.

Only then will people maybe think a little harder before they sign themselves up to massive mortgages. Only then will the rental market be properly reformed as that option becomes the norm rather than the current stopgap to buying/poor man's choice.

I really would love to know the stats on that and as I've said before if there are those that can pay but wont pay then they should have the book thrown at them. But I dont believe there is mass numbers of these people.

Perhaps after repossession/bankruptcy if a family/person still had significant income to support themselves then maybe they should have some sort of continued debt repayment as long as it isn't penal and doesn't prevent them getting on with their lives, maybe even a debt write down on the outstanding sum so it isn't a life long repayment process hanging around their necks. Although god forbid if I was in this situation I'd still pursue bankruptcy to offer me some reset button (like in other countries/jurisdictions).

I think people have learned a lot from this and certainly I dont believe this generation will make the same mistakes but future generations probably will. History is doomed to repeat it self as memories are short lived.

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote:

Perhaps after repossession/bankruptcy if a family/person still had significant income to support themselves then maybe they should have some sort of continued debt repayment as long as it isn't penal and doesn't prevent them getting on with their lives, maybe even a debt write down on the outstanding sum so it isn't a life long repayment process hanging around their necks. Although god forbid if I was in this situation I'd still pursue bankruptcy to offer me some reset button (like in other countries/jurisdictions).

No-one is saying people should be paying 99% of whatever income they have to service their debt. If you read back over what I've been saying, I've been advocating that a reasonable payment plan should be agreed that changes according to circumstance - so if times are hard they pay less, but if times are good they pay more .. but either way they are still servicing their debt)

I really don't see what's so wrong with that idea. We pay off our credit cards and loans don't we? Just because it's a mortgage doesn't change the principal behind it.

I think people have learned a lot from this and certainly I dont believe this generation will make the same mistakes but future generations probably will. History is doomed to repeat it self as memories are short lived.

I'd have to disagree. There are several threads on even this forum that show there are a lot of people just itching to get "back on the property ladder"

Take the thread about the houses in Stepaside that's going on here. They seem to have been thrown up, layout issues, quality issues, contract issues and sold in the same "Celtic tiger" mindset as before .. yet people are queuing up to buy them and others are taking the "it'll all work out in the end" approach that left people stuck with poorly built, overpriced shoe boxes in the first place!

I'd say most people haven't learned a thing to be honest

cookie1977

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

No-one is saying people should be paying 99% of whatever income they have to service their debt. If you read back over what I've been saying, I've been advocating that a reasonable payment plan should be agreed that changes according to circumstance - so if times are hard they pay less, but if times are good they pay more .. but either way they are still servicing their debt)

I really don't see what's so wrong with that idea. We pay off our credit cards and loans don't we? Just because it's a mortgage doesn't change the principal behind it.



I'd have to disagree. There are several threads on even this forum that show there are a lot of people just itching to get "back on the property ladder"

Take the thread about the houses in Stepaside that's going on here. They seem to have been thrown up, layout issues, quality issues, contract issues and sold in the same "Celtic tiger" mindset as before .. yet people are queuing up to buy them and others are taking the "it'll all work out in the end" approach that left people stuck with poorly built, overpriced shoe boxes in the first place!

I'd say most people haven't learned a thing to be honest

Deals are on done on long term credit card debts all the time involving debt reduction/once off reduced payments. Why in other countries can you suffer if you go into arrears but you dont get handed a mill stone to carry around for ever.

There needs to be some sort of reset button that allows for certainly punishment but not penal servitude.

Going back to soon after the crisis a report (cant find it now) that went in to the planning of MARP and repossessions recommended that once property is repossessed and then sold the outstanding debt should be eliminated to allow people a chance to start again. It wasn't taken up by the government at the time but it might have improved the repossession rates if people could see finality about the situation they were in. Davy even recommends things go further with:

repossessions and debt write-downs, via split mortgages, will have to rise to provide more clarity on banks’ true loan losses.

I would agree with all of this:


http://www.davy.ie/content/pubarticles/mortgage20130729_29072013.pdf

The Spider

jay0109 wrote: »

I can't give you an example.
But that was'nt my point which your deliberately avoiding....how can you marry your just society with mass debt write off.

Your not dealing with reality in your posts

Well every other society does it, unless you can give an example, I'd ask you how can you marry a just society with one that keeps it's citizens in debt for the rest of their lives?

Especially when the government of that society encouraged all these people to get into debt, for fear that they'd never have a house? While the financial institutions of that country told people who are not financial experts that they can afford to buy these houses?

You can say nobody forced them, true but the banks who were aware of their financial standing told them they can afford it, people listened to the banks financial advisors, just as they'd listen to their doctors or solicitors.

A doctor would be dragged into court for giving bad medical advice, true you don't have to take your doctors advice, but not many people would ignore him.

The same when people wanted a house they took the advice.

Sorry but your whole argument is flawed, you just want your pound of flesh.

And this whole taxpayer has to pay is nonsense, the taxpayer will have to pay anyway if people can't afford the debt, or refuse to find work because they have a massive debt hanging over them, when they get a job it's not worth their while because they lose RA, medical card and social welfare payments.

Seriously if I was looking at paying back between 500-1000 euros a month for the rest of my life out of an average wage, that maybe gave me 2400 a month and then try and pay health insurance, rent food, transport, I'd stay on social welfare, say I can't afford it keep the medical card for the family, get the Rent Allowance.

jay0109

The 2 of you can play the 'peace and love to all' card all day long......you are talking about MASS debt write off to a tune not happening in all these other countries you refer to or probably never tried in any country in history.
You cannot just magically disappear tens of billions worth of debt without having an entry on the other side of the balance sheet.....and still have a 'just' society.

If you could, believe me I'd agree to it. I don't want a pound of flesh...I don't want people saddled with debt all their lives that some may never pay off (and no one forced them to take it on...despite what you say about being influenced by Govt's etc...we're all grown ups, you make your own decisions).
But I'm being realistic here and dealing in facts...you 2 are just dealing in wishy washy rhetoric, so beloved of those on the left.

So I give up and I'll leave you to it

cookie1977

jay0109 wrote: »

The 2 of you can play the 'peace and love to all' card all day long......you are talking about MASS debt write off to a tune not happening in all these other countries you refer to or probably never tried in any country in history.
You cannot just magically disappear tens of billions worth of debt without having an entry on the other side of the balance sheet.....and still have a 'just' society.

If you could, believe me I'd agree to it. I don't want a pound of flesh...I don't want people saddled with debt all their lives that some may never pay off (and no one forced them to take it on...despite what you say about being influenced by Govt's etc...we're all grown ups, you make your own decisions).
But I'm being realistic here and dealing in facts...you 2 are just dealing in wishy washy rhetoric, so beloved of those on the left.

So I give up and I'll leave you to it

Less with the dramatics and hyperbole. It's not MASS anything. It's a portion of debt that is unsustainable that we're talking about here. Just like the country has burned bond holders and gotten discounted loans while in the bailout these things happen all the time.

The Spider

jay0109 wrote: »

The 2 of you can play the 'peace and love to all' card all day long......you are talking about MASS debt write off to a tune not happening in all these other countries you refer to or probably never tried in any country in history.
You cannot just magically disappear tens of billions worth of debt without having an entry on the other side of the balance sheet.....and still have a 'just' society.

If you could, believe me I'd agree to it. I don't want a pound of flesh...I don't want people saddled with debt all their lives that some may never pay off (and no one forced them to take it on...despite what you say about being influenced by Govt's etc...we're all grown ups, you make your own decisions).
But I'm being realistic here and dealing in facts...you 2 are just dealing in wishy washy rhetoric, so beloved of those on the left.

So I give up and I'll leave you to it

You refuse to see the point that the taxpayer will ultimately pay anyway, if people are kept in debt, they will refuse to find jobs and stay on the social welfare, with all the costs that incurs.

If the debts are wiped out they can become productive members of society, finding and creating jobs which bring in more taxes, what you suggest will bring the economy to a shuddering halt as thousands of people decide they're better off on social welfare because the cost of going to work is too much.

You'd multiply the welfare trap by 10'000 percent.

cookie1977

The Spider wrote: »

You refuse to see the point that the taxpayer will ultimately pay anyway, if people are kept in debt, they will refuse to find jobs and stay on the social welfare, with all the costs that incurs.

If the debts are wiped out they can become productive members of society, finding and creating jobs which bring in more taxes, what you suggest will bring the economy to a shuddering halt as thousands of people decide they're better off on social welfare because the cost of going to work is too much.

You'd multiply the welfare trap by 10'000 percent.

Sure look at how the increasing costs the government keeps passing on to private health care insurance is driving people out of the private market and into the public system which puts more pressure on it. A never ending spiral which the government dont seem to grasp fully.

The Spider

cookie1977 wrote: »

Sure look at how the increasing costs the government keeps passing on to private health care insurance is driving people out of the private market and into the public system which puts more pressure on it. A never ending spiral which the government dont seem to grasp fully.

Yep I don't think people in this thread are grasping that, ultimately the taxpayer will pay one way or the other, if people surrender the house and start with a clean slate, they can contribute to society again.

Having money to spend in the shops, so the shops employ people, and all the rest, that's how an economy works.

If someone surrenders their house, and has a debt of 150'000 hanging over them with nothing to show for it, where is the impetuous to do anything, everything you do or aspire to, will just be to pay off a debt, why would you bother?

Daith

The Spider wrote: »

Yep I don't think people in this thread are grasping that, ultimately the taxpayer will pay one way or the other, if people surrender the house and start with a clean slate, they can contribute to society again.

Yet while they "surrender" their house they (or the vast majority) will still end up living in the same house. So while the tax payer pays to keep them there they also pay if they wanted the property market to become normal and not artificially propped up. (Though having saying that, it's not the tenants who are doing this).

While obviously I don't want anybody homeless I don't see why social housing (which is also paid by the taxpayer) shouldn't be an option for them. Or cheaper accommodation which they probably can't get because there's little supply which keeps house prices up (Dublin mostly of course).

lima

The Spider wrote: »

You refuse to see the point that the taxpayer will ultimately pay anyway, if people are kept in debt, they will refuse to find jobs and stay on the social welfare, with all the costs that incurs.

If the debts are wiped out they can become productive members of society, finding and creating jobs which bring in more taxes, what you suggest will bring the economy to a shuddering halt as thousands of people decide they're better off on social welfare because the cost of going to work is too much.

You'd multiply the welfare trap by 10'000 percent.

Do you agree that anyone who would get a debt write off would have to give up 'their' property?

No only is it not fair for me (and my 'vested interest' of wanting to buy a house at a fair price lol) its not fair for everyone under 35 who doesn't currently have a property. Yes property is down from the 'boom' price, but I and others weren't here for that so it is irrelevant to us. The fact is that property prices should be lower. But a large contribution to high property prices is the fact that people in this country are not getting their property repossessed, despite not paying their mortgages, because they over borrowed despite not thinking about any 'what if' situations that they should have thought about, since they are adults.

So for me, and 1000's of other under 35's, all we see is unaffordable/overpriced property, and at the same time over 35's not paying their mortgages, not getting repossessed and having the cheek to lobby for debt forgiveness. All the while rents are going up and investors/speculators are buying up any available property.

There is more to society than the people who got caught up in the 'boom'.

lima

Daith wrote: »

Yet while they "surrender" their house they (or the vast majority) will still end up living in the same house. So while the tax payer pays to keep them there they also pay if they wanted the property market to become normal and not artificially propped up. (Though having saying that, it's not the tenants who are doing this).

While obviously I don't want anybody homeless I don't see why social housing (which is also paid by the taxpayer) shouldn't be an option for them. Or cheaper accommodation which they probably can't get because there's little supply which keeps house prices up (Dublin mostly of course).

No-ones going to be homeless
Not everyone is going to kill themselves
It was not ALL the banks fault

Repossess houses, chase the rest of the debt via a managed debt plan and maybe then a bubble will never happen again and this country will become tolerable.

spockety

In cases where the debt simply cannot realistically be paid back, I can picture write downs as part of an insolvency or bankruptcy process. There is nothing wrong with this, it's fairly normal.

However, what would not be normal in those situations is the debtor retaining the house/asset. It goes against economic, moral, and ethical principles. The moral hazard it introduces could create a hideously unjust society.

Lose the debt, lose the asset.

Nobody will be sleeping rough in a ditch with their kids, in spite of what some people would like you to believe would happen.

cookie1977

spockety wrote: »

In cases where the debt simply cannot realistically be paid back, I can picture write downs as part of an insolvency or bankruptcy process. There is nothing wrong with this, it's fairly normal.

However, what would not be normal in those situations is the debtor retaining the house/asset. It goes against economic, moral, and ethical principles. The moral hazard it introduces could create a hideously unjust society.

Lose the debt, lose the asset.

Nobody will be sleeping rough in a ditch with their kids, in spite of what some people would like you to believe would happen.

100% agree

The Spider

lima wrote: »

Do you agree that anyone who would get a debt write off would have to give up 'their' property?

No only is it not fair for me (and my 'vested interest' of wanting to buy a house at a fair price lol) its not fair for everyone under 35 who doesn't currently have a property. Yes property is down from the 'boom' price, but I and others weren't here for that so it is irrelevant to us. The fact is that property prices should be lower. But a large contribution to high property prices is the fact that people in this country are not getting their property repossessed, despite not paying their mortgages, because they over borrowed despite not thinking about any 'what if' situations that they should have thought about, since they are adults.

So for me, and 1000's of other under 35's, all we see is unaffordable/overpriced property, and at the same time over 35's not paying their mortgages, not getting repossessed and having the cheek to lobby for debt forgiveness. All the while rents are going up and investors/speculators are buying up any available property.

There is more to society than the people who got caught up in the 'boom'.

If the debt is written down, the house should be surrendered of course, clean slate without the house obviously, this is especially true for the highly desirable areas in the country.

Now I have a question for you Lima, as you're thinking about buying, if and when you do buy a house/apartment that you're happy with, would you becontent to see property prices suddenly start to fall to a point that would allow others to purchase houses, possibly for two thirds of the price you paid in the same area?

Honest answer.

gaius c

Villa05 wrote: »

There seems to be an attitude here that loosing the house and writing off the outstanding loan is somehow sharing the pain between the borrower and the the bank. This could not be further from the truth. Sharing the pain would involve the borrower loosing the house and the outstanding mortgage balance being shared 50/50 by the bank and the borrower

This is the lattest wheeze from my "interest-only with 9 BTL's and 4 foreign holidays a year" buddy at work. He's made a offer to the bank of handing back the keys on 5 properties which are security against the IO mortgage, while he keeps the other 4 that he owns outright. In return, he wants the IO mortgage to just "disappear". I'm having trouble explaining to him how that isn't going to work.

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're being facetious. I do not for an instant believe that there are significant numbers of people living the life of Reilly without a care in the world while in serious arrears.

Where do people think all the punters in the jammed restaurants are getting their money from? We've been in recession for most of the last six years but restaurants are doing better than ever!
It's quite hard to pay your mortgage when you've blown cash on the necessities of life, like eating out and the best thing of all is that there's nothing left after for the banks to take back.

riclad wrote: »

Everyone seems to hate landlords,
i know its stupid, there,s alot of people bought houses,
for say 150k,,
house is now worth 80k,
as an example.
The rent is maybe 80- 90 per cent of the mortgage per month.
BECAUSE of negative equity ,they cant sell up,
so they are working for nothing,
profit = zero cent ,and they might still be liable for tax in the future.
IF some one does,nt pay loan for 4 years,
the bank can go to court ,repossess the property.
MAYBE they do,nt have the staff to handle 1000,s of empty propertys ,or are afraid of causing more price drops in the market by mass repossessions.

If we had no landlords ,
WE, d have no rental market ,
a rental market is part of a strong economy.

A lot of single people prefer to rent for various reasons.
even if they are on a good wage.

I presume new insolvency act, will see more people giving houses
back to the bank ,
especially btl investors.

Insolvent landlords are no use to a "strong economy". Get them out and let solvent ones take their place.

cookie1977 wrote: »

What if they cant afford to rent because they've no job and all income they get is being diverted into paying debts. What if they have kids? The children made no decision in taking out the mortgage and yet they're being made to pay for their parents mistakes.

If you're not into a rational debate that's fine. I dont need you to agree with me on everything but really, no need for name calling.

I can't remember the exact figures but 60-70% of households in arrears have employed people working within them. They can afford accommodation no problem. It just won't be the accommodation they are living in at present.

gaius c

lima wrote: »

If someone loses a house and has the means to pay back the rest of the money they owe then they should do that. It is in no way fair that I should have to pay taxes towards some stranger that I wouldn't care about whether they were alive or dead.

Banks are also (finally) repossessing thank god. A few places out there but the begrudgers have ripped out the kitchens

Seeing as these people have deliberately reduced the value of the bank's security and thus increased the outstanding debt after the house is re-sold, do the debt-relief folk here still believe that these people should have that debt written off?

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

Seeing as these people have deliberately reduced the value of the bank's security and thus increased the outstanding debt after the house is re-sold, do the debt-relief folk here still believe that these people should have that debt written off?

And what about banks that have held property after repossession that has decreased in value when if they'd sold it sooner there would be less outstanding debt (plenty of examples of this occuring). Should the indebted owner still have to pay the debt? Also many banks have not properly maintained property after repossession and it's been damaged by looters/vandels again devaluing the property. Should the indebted pay for the banks ineptitude?

I mean here come on. We can all come up with examples to counter each others points but it's not going to change our views.

gaius c

cookie1977 wrote: »

And what about banks that have held property after repossession that has decreased in value when if they'd sold it sooner there would be less outstanding debt (plenty of examples of this occuring). Should the indebted owner still have to pay the debt? Also many banks have not properly maintained property after repossession and it's been damaged by looters/vandels again devaluing the property. Should the indebted pay for the banks ineptitude?

I mean here come on. We can all come up with examples to counter each others points but it's not going to change our views.

That one is easy. Fix the asset value at the time of repossession, not at the time of sale (unless the former owner has caused the delay).

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

That one is easy. Fix the asset value at the time of repossession, not at the time of sale (unless the former owner has caused the delay).

That would be fine as long as there is an independent process to do the valuation and that the bank hasn't delayed repossession proceedings unduly. I still think though that the outstanding debt should be written off after repossession and sale. It does make economic sense to me despite what others say on here. We need to close off this whole thing not have it dragging on with unproductive members of society lumbered for years with debt following repossession/bankruptcy.

Zamboni

The Spider wrote: »

If the debt is written down, the house should be surrendered of course, clean slate without the house obviously, this is especially true for the highly desirable areas in the country.

Now I have a question for you Lima, as you're thinking about buying, if and when you do buy a house/apartment that you're happy with, would you becontent to see property prices suddenly start to fall to a point that would allow others to purchase houses, possibly for two thirds of the price you paid in the same area?

Honest answer.

I know it was addressed to Lima but what about interest rates?!?!

I can buy a house next to a person who bought a house in 2007 for two thirds of the price but they are on a fecking tracker!
Over the course of a new term we would both end up paying similar outlays for the property + interest.
And the kicker is I would have to pay HIGHER interest rates because servicing the trackers is costing the bank.

I would rather be in NE now on a tracker than being an FTB with today's interest rates.

MysticalRain

The Spider wrote: »

If the debt is written down, the house should be surrendered of course, clean slate without the house obviously, this is especially true for the highly desirable areas in the country.

Now I have a question for you Lima, as you're thinking about buying, if and when you do buy a house/apartment that you're happy with, would you becontent to see property prices suddenly start to fall to a point that would allow others to purchase houses, possibly for two thirds of the price you paid in the same area?

Honest answer.

You need to think outside your box a little more. Most people are not speculators and investors, so a house is only a place to live in, not an asset to be flipped on to the next gullible idiot on the pyramid scheme known as the "property market". If it does get sold on, it will likely be when I die of old age. So I’m not going to be in a position to care at that point.

What my neighbour paid for his house down the road is of no concern of mine, so long as I am not expected to pick up the tab for it as a taxpayer.

The Spider

MysticalRain wrote: »

You need to think outside your box a little more. Most people are not speculators and investors, so a house is only a place to live in, not an asset to be flipped on to the next gullible idiot on the pyramid scheme known as the "property market". If it does get sold on, it will likely be when I die of old age. So I’m not going to be in a position to care at that point.

What my neighbour paid for his house down the road is of no concern of mine, so long as I am not expected to pick up the tab for it as a taxpayer.

I'm not asking if you're a speculator or investor, I'm asking if you bought a house, to live in are you happy for the price you could sell it for to be less than what you paid, so that others can get cheaper houses, it's a simple question yes or no?