Left Ireland for Australia, left keys in door

skyfall2012

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're confusing wanting to make someone squirm with not being willing to pay for the mistakes of those people on top of the mistakes of our politicians and bankers.

The FF government and bankers didn't make mistakes they committed crimes and because the people voted for FF doesn't absolve them of those crimes. We are paying for those crimes, they are not suffering in anyway for what they have done.

On the other hand people who did some investing or simply just bought homes based on normal economic fluctuations, are left suffering and suicidal, caused by the crimes of the aforementioned and they are being made pay for their debts even though they did not commit any crimes.

I would like to see justice and the bankers (who laugh and joke at how the taxpayer will be paying for their debts and them keeping their jobs once the bank is nationalized) in court and the leaders of the FF party from that era.

If this does not happen, those who invested during this period in a home should also not have to pay. Bringing their mortgages back to current house prices would bring them back from the brink.

oflahero

skyfall2012 wrote: »

If this does not happen, those who invested during this period in a home should also not have to pay. Bringing their mortgages back to current house prices would bring them back from the brink.

ahhh jayyyyysus. give. it. up.

The Corinthian

skyfall2012 wrote: »

The FF government and bankers didn't make mistakes they committed crimes and because the people voted for FF doesn't absolve them of those crimes. We are paying for those crimes, they are not suffering in anyway for what they have done.

Where it comes to the politicians, from what I can see the only crime they may have committed was criminal negligence. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Even with the bankers, developers and the rest, the vast majority appear not to have actually committed any criminal acts - some certainly do appear to have done so and should be called to task - only that they were as foolish, greedy and incompetent as everyone else, including Joe Bloggs who borrowed beyond a level that was sustainable to repay in the long term, for a property he presumed could never fall in value.

So, let's stick to the actual facts when we talk about crimes, rather than talk in hysterical clichés.

On the other hand people who did some investing or simply just bought homes based on normal economic fluctuations, are left suffering and suicidal, caused by the crimes of the aforementioned and they are being made pay for their debts even though they did not commit any crimes.

They did not investing based on normal economic fluctuations, but on a bubble market. Even those who refused to accept it was a bubble, despite all evidence to the contrary, knew it was at the very least a boom.

I would like to see justice and the bankers (who laugh and joke at how the taxpayer will be paying for their debts and them keeping their jobs once the bank is nationalized) in court and the leaders of the FF party from that era.

Those who committed crimes should be brought to account. No dispute there.

However, you're still using the flawed argument whereby someone got away with avoiding the consequences of their actions and using this to justify why others should also be allowed to avoid the consequences of their actions. It's not a valid moral justification - as the expression goes; two wrongs don't make a right.

If this does not happen, those who invested during this period in a home should also not have to pay. Bringing their mortgages back to current house prices would bring them back from the brink.

So now you're cool with sharing collective responsibility (those who did not gamble and lose footing the bill for those who did), while repeatedly rejecting the notion that we are collectively responsible for the government we repeatedly elected. Cherry pick much?

Indeed, pretty much none of your arguments here have stood up to any real scrutiny, but you've been selective in what rebuttals you even address or simply ignore.

cerastes

Potatoeman wrote: »

One thing landlords seem to forget though is that you are safer not raising rent if you might lose a tenant. They need to factor in the loss of having the place unoccupied. It frequently will take up to two years of the increased price to make up for every month the property is empty.

I agree it could take time to recover an increase by locating a new tenant within a certain timeframe, but how do you come to two years as a rule?
If its correct fine, but it really depends.

My original question before I saw the above was why did the banks ever get a say (veto) in dealing with personal insolvency??? what was the point of it ever if they could knock any aspect of it down and how much does it actually cost, been a while since I looked at it but is it accurate to say thousands and a person may still be refused??

Potatoeman

skyfall2012 wrote: »

The FF government and bankers didn't make mistakes they committed crimes and because the people voted for FF doesn't absolve them of those crimes. We are paying for those crimes, they are not suffering in anyway for what they have done.

On the other hand people who did some investing or simply just bought homes based on normal economic fluctuations, are left suffering and suicidal, caused by the crimes of the aforementioned and they are being made pay for their debts even though they did not commit any crimes.

I would like to see justice and the bankers (who laugh and joke at how the taxpayer will be paying for their debts and them keeping their jobs once the bank is nationalized) in court and the leaders of the FF party from that era.

If this does not happen, those who invested during this period in a home should also not have to pay. Bringing their mortgages back to current house prices would bring them back from the brink.

By artificially keeping prices high the people that enter the market after end up paying more than they would have.

There seems to be a large amount of Irish people that think we need to get back to where we were but that ignores that fact that most external studies see it as unsustainable. With the high rate on mortgages in arrears what is going to happen when interest rates go up?

Potatoeman

cerastes wrote: »

I agree it could take time to recover an increase by locating a new tenant within a certain timeframe, but how do you come to two years as a rule?
If its correct fine, but it really depends.

My original question before I saw the above was why did the banks ever get a say (veto) in dealing with personal insolvency??? what was the point of it ever if they could knock any aspect of it down and how much does it actually cost, been a while since I looked at it but is it accurate to say thousands and a person may still be refused??

It's not a rule, I was just pointing out that an increase that leaves the property empty can have a cost greater than a benefit.

If they are going to absorb the cost they would be required to do due diligence (is this person actually insolvent or strategically defaulting). The insolvency law during the boom didn't have the American style option to have the debt written off and there is a cost in that too as it increases risk which will increase overall costs.

cerastes

Potatoeman wrote: »

It's not a rule, I was just pointing out that an increase that leaves the property empty can have a cost greater than a benefit.

If they are going to absorb the cost they would be required to do due diligence (is this person actually insolvent or strategically defaulting). The insolvency law during the boom didn't have the American style option to have the debt written off and there is a cost in that too as it increases risk which will increase overall costs.

Thats reasonable enough, but Ive read that BOI have stated they WONT be doing writedowns? so they have no intentions of doing writedowns regardless of ability. With a veto who decides? if a person can afford to have a writedown? what costs can be allowed? reasonable living/medical/educational costs or just enough to exist? because an outright veto seems different to assessing someones ability and needs.

I might be misinterpreting you, but if the ability to hand back the keys US style increases risk and costs, surely our system reduces risk and costs, but only for the bank?

RFOLEY1990

Just pay your debts. Running away is never the answer. Childish.

The Corinthian

cerastes wrote: »

I might be misinterpreting you, but if the ability to hand back the keys US style increases risk and costs, surely our system reduces risk and costs, but only for the bank?

Maybe people should have gotten their mortgages in the US then.

Potatoeman

cerastes wrote: »

Thats reasonable enough, but Ive read that BOI have stated they WONT be doing writedowns? so they have no intentions of doing writedowns regardless of ability. With a veto who decides? if a person can afford to have a writedown? what costs can be allowed? reasonable living/medical/educational costs or just enough to exist? because an outright veto seems different to assessing someones ability and needs.

I might be misinterpreting you, but if the ability to hand back the keys US style increases risk and costs, surely our system reduces risk and costs, but only for the bank?

The problems we have now are from the system in place at the time. The contract the person signed did not have the default option. So changing the law now and trying to retrospectively apply it would undermine legal contracts. Default sounds like a great option but you could end up needing a guarantor for a loan in that system.

gaius c

Also non-recourse rates are higher to cover the increased risk to the bank.

But right now, a significant portion of debtors seem to want their cake and to eat it too with losing the debt AND keeping the asset it's secured against.

cerastes

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe people should have gotten their mortgages in the US then.

That doesnt answer what I asked? what has what you are saying there got to do with anything? other than to make a smart arsed comment?
I never said people should be able to do this, but I do think debts should be looked at based on peoples ability to pay and some kind of reduction should be applied and I dont think the banks should have an outright veto over it, that decision should be made independantly, otherwise some people will never be able to have their lives back, if that means exchanging property for another lower valued one or some solution then fine, because the state will end uo supporting people when they become homeless and long term if that were to happen en masse thats less viable and going to cost even more.

The Corinthian

cerastes wrote: »

That doesnt answer what I asked? what has what you are saying there got to do with anything? other than to make a smart arsed comment?
I never said people should be able to do this, but I do think debts should be looked at based on peoples ability to pay and some kind of reduction should be applied and I dont think the banks should have an outright veto over it, that decision should be made independantly, otherwise some people will never be able to have their lives back, if that means exchanging property for another lower valued one or some solution then fine, because the state will end uo supporting people when they become homeless and long term if that were to happen en masse thats less viable and going to cost even more.

It was more in relation to how such observations are often used, if you read through much of this thread, are rationalizations on how people are entitled not to pay their own debts.

Laws relating to repossessions and evictions in Ireland are framed in the context of our history, which is why it is relatively (to other countries) difficult to do either. The down side is that you can also get lumbered with negative equity as many have been.

Changing the law has its consequence though; need for additional guarantees and collateral would end up being introduced, for example, so ultimately there would be a price to pay.

The_Conductor

The Corinthian wrote: »

Changing the law has its consequence though; need for additional guarantees and collateral would end up being introduced, for example, so ultimately there would be a price to pay.

According to The Economist- you can actually calculate the price.
In an Irish context- it would in or around 2%. If you were to compare what this does to Irish rates- with where rates are currently elsewhere on the continent- you'd also have to move the Irish model onto fixed rate, fixed term mortgages- with rates fixed for the entire term of the mortgage. A rate of in or around 6% perhaps slightly higher, is what you'd end up with- fixed for the entire term of the mortgage.

Most Europeans scratch their heads at Irish borrowers- they can't comprehend why we don't have that type product available here. Yes- it would be more costly immediately- but as rates went up- it would probably fall below what a variable rate product might charge- and it gives you the security of knowing exactly what your outgoings on the mortgage will be.

If you told Irish people they could have the mortgage they really want- but it costs 6%- they'd laugh at you.

There seems to be some type of 'short-term'ism built into the Irish psyche........

Potatoeman

cerastes wrote: »

That doesnt answer what I asked? what has what you are saying there got to do with anything? other than to make a smart arsed comment?
I never said people should be able to do this, but I do think debts should be looked at based on peoples ability to pay and some kind of reduction should be applied and I dont think the banks should have an outright veto over it, that decision should be made independantly, otherwise some people will never be able to have their lives back, if that means exchanging property for another lower valued one or some solution then fine, because the state will end uo supporting people when they become homeless and long term if that were to happen en masse thats less viable and going to cost even more.

So they skip to the top of the housing list or the bank plays swap the property. That is just impractical.