Left Ireland for Australia, left keys in door

skyfall2012

We bailed out the banks and that is going to do absolutely nothing for us, there is no advantage to this. But bailing out our own may well have benefits. This guy who took off to Australia, would come home if he could.

NIMAN

But it not just as simple as letting everyone off with their debts. Thats not possible.

There is no such thing as debt forgiveness, debt doesn't go away it just gets pushed on to someone else to pay, usually all the taxpayers, who have been hit hard enough since this recession started. Many cannot afford to pay for others peoples debt.

Do you think that every single person who took out a mortgage should be waived of their personal responsibility? Every one of them?

The Corinthian

skyfall2012 wrote: »

These people had good jobs and were being well paid, so they invested in property, they should not have been let, this outcome had being foretold in any half decent economics lecture.

So perhaps you would suggest debt forgiveness along with a lifetime ban on incurring any further debt? They're not competant enough to have that right, after all, according to you.

The banks and the government understood the markets, they knew this was not going to last. But I don't see any of them paying for what happened.

I think you're giving both the banks and government a bit too much credit here. I suspect this is one of those cases where Hanlon's razor applies.

When the banks are not being regulated by the government which they should have been this is not a new concept, they will run riot and they did and their friends in the government bailed them out, are we on the ground are looking at people in massive debt and wanting to see them suffer and I tell you that is not the answer.

Are we the people not ultimately responsible for the government we elect? Repeatedly, I might add.

skyfall2012 wrote: »

The people are sick and the government is watching and doing nothing, we need to start again.

To 'start again' would imply wiping the slate clean on that debt, but we've already established that all that we would end up doing is transferring it, not making is vanish.

Or perhaps I missed that particular lecture on making debt vanish as a freshman in economics.

skyfall2012 wrote: »

But bailing out our own may well have benefits. This guy who took off to Australia, would come home if he could.

Given the level of civic responsibility he displayed, I suggest we're better off without him.

Zambia

skyfall2012 wrote: »

We bailed out the banks and that is going to do absolutely nothing for us, there is no advantage to this. But bailing out our own may well have benefits. This guy who took off to Australia, would come home if he could.

Bollox we would its freezing back there.....

skyfall2012

Zambia wrote: »

Bollox we would its freezing back there.....

Put on a jumper.

Zamboni

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I am a strong believer in history repeating itself, so I am not so sure if lessons will be learnt. But I am living in the moment and I see a lot of people suffering people who didn't overstretch themselves, but based on their earning potential at that time bought a family home and since one or both have lost their jobs.

The people are sick and the government is watching and doing nothing, we need to start again. If the debt was sucked in with the banks debt which we are already paying, we would have a mentally healthier population that might be able to get up and rebuild, but as things stand we are getting sicker and sicker and nothing is changing.

They are doing something. The wrong thing.
Noonan gave increased tax relief to the crowd of FTBers from 2004-2008.
That is a direct transfer of money from us to them.
What else would you like us to give them that nobody else is getting?

The Spider

The debt will be forgiven, it's the only logical thing that can happen, moral hazard doesn't apply to the banks, so the precedent has been set, already the banks re doing deals and gagging people, the cost will rvert to the tax payer, however the terms of us paying back the debt have already been stretched out, they'll be stretched out again to decades further, inflation will then begin to eat the debt, the country has room to grow and the debt is manageable.

I posted this in a previous thread, Germany did the exact same thing when it came to paying it's war debts, and these are the people we should all aspire to which is constantly being mentioned on boards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315869/Germany-end-World-War-One-reparations-92-years-59m-final-payment.html


People shouldn't forget that everyone was told it was their patriotic duty to buy a house, not everyone is economically literate, and will go on what they read in the paper or hear on the news.

I stayed out of the bubble but plenty didn't, fact is their debts will be forgiven and yes they will get to keep the house.

lima

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I feel these people who have been caught in this mess which the banks created, should get off just like the bankers did, why should they bare the brunt of this mess and bankers get off scott free and get bonuses.

I was listening to the Joe Duffy show(aired on 12 April) and 'the' Ben Dunne was on and told people that the could travel abroad he suggested Newry or England, declare themselves bankrupt and return after 15 months debt free.

So go to the courts in Oz declare yourself bankrupt and in 15 months, you should be debt free, if it works.

How do people think this economy is going to get back on its feet, but only when people are no longer shackled to debt and the young educated people who have travelled abroad come home and put their skills and education to work in this country.

Mate, quit trolling will you. You are probably a vested interest indo journalist or something.

Ordinary people who walked into banks and asked for loans should have to pay back every single cent. It's called responsibility

The Spider

lima wrote: »

Mate, quit trolling will you. You are probably a vested interest indo journalist or something.

Ordinary people who walked into banks and asked for loans should have to pay back every single cent. It's called responsibility

Having a different viewpoint isn't trolling, in an ideal world, yes you're right, however this isn't an ideal world and life isn't fair, the vast majority of people will get to walk away from their debts, and mass repossessions won't happen.

Even if they did, politically the only way for them to happen is for the person in debt to walk away from any money they owe.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

The debt will be forgiven, it's the only logical thing that can happen, moral hazard doesn't apply to the banks, so the precedent has been set, already the banks re doing deals and gagging people, the cost will rvert to the tax payer, however the terms of us paying back the debt have already been stretched out, they'll be stretched out again to decades further, inflation will then begin to eat the debt, the country has room to grow and the debt is manageable.

I posted this in a previous thread, Germany did the exact same thing when it came to paying it's war debts, and these are the people we should all aspire to which is constantly being mentioned on boards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315869/Germany-end-World-War-One-reparations-92-years-59m-final-payment.html


People shouldn't forget that everyone was told it was their patriotic duty to buy a house, not everyone is economically literate, and will go on what they read in the paper or hear on the news.

I stayed out of the bubble but plenty didn't, fact is their debts will be forgiven and yes they will get to keep the house.

Pulling at straws here, people won't get let off as much as you think. In fact, most will have to pay, as they should.

No free lunches here mate.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

Having a different viewpoint isn't trolling, in an ideal world, yes you're right, however this isn't an ideal world and life isn't fair, the vast majority of people will get to walk away from their debts, and mass repossessions won't happen.

Even if they did, politically the only way for them to happen is for the person in debt to walk away from any money they owe.

nah-aahh, no they won't!

The Spider

lima wrote: »

Pulling at straws here, people won't get let off as much as you think. In fact, most will have to pay, as they should.

No free lunches here mate.

Wait and see, guaranteed already reporting it on the radio, people doing deals and beeing gagged by the bank, in other words don't tell anyone we told you that there's no need to pay back the 100 grand.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

Wait and see, guaranteed already reporting it on the radio, people doing deals and beeing gagged by the bank, in other words don't tell anyone we told you that there's no need to pay back the 100 grand.

Possibly, but only in the extreme cases.

By the way, I'm assuming these people will never get credit again and thus won't be able to enter property speculation again?

The Spider

lima wrote: »

Possibly, but only in the extreme cases.

By the way, I'm assuming these people will never get credit again and thus won't be able to enter property speculation again?

Dunno personal insolvancy bill is the first step towards proper bankruptcy reform, bankruptcy should be a year tops.

That's how the states recovers so quickly, the mortgages are non recourse, in other words you give the keys back that's the end of it.

Declare yourself bankrupt and be ready to start again, you can't have a proper functioning economy if people are stuck with their mistakes for the rest of their lives, people won't take risks, and risks are what propel the economy forward.

Donald Trump has declared himself bankrupt 4 times.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

Dunno personal insolvancy bill is the first step towards proper bankruptcy reform, bankruptcy should be a year tops.

That's how the states recovers so quickly, the mortgages are non recourse, in other words you give the keys back that's the end of it.

Declare yourself bankrupt and be ready to start again, you can't have a proper functioning economy if people are stuck with their mistakes for the rest of their lives, people won't take risks, and risks are what propel the economy forward.

Donald Trump has declared himself bankrupt 4 times.

I would prefer these people to be punished for me having to pay for their neg eq

The Spider

lima wrote: »

I would prefer these people to be punished for me having to pay for their neg eq

Never going to happen, they won't be punished I used to think the same, but realistically after talking to people who bought they genuinely thought prices wouldn't drop, the vast majority believed the government and newspapers.

Politically you can't punish such a large proportion of the electorate, your party will be wiped out, which is looking likely for labour now, because of austerity.

Any politician worth his salt knows this, life isn't black and white, you may not have bought in, I certainly didn't at the time, but it's a very hard sell to punish the people when they did what their government advised.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

Never going to happen, they won't be punished I used to think the same, but realistically after talking to people who bought they genuinely thought prices wouldn't drop, the vast majority believed the government and newspapers.

Politically you can't punish such a large proportion of the electorate, your party will be wiped out, which is looking likely for labour now, because of austerity.

Any politician worth his salt knows this, life isn't black and white, you may not have bought in, I certainly didn't at the time, but it's a very hard sell to punish the people when they did what their government advised.

Personally I wont stick around if it plays out like this. I wouldn't bring up kids in this place with the taste of bitterness in my mouth.

If house supply doesn't decrease dramatically in 2-3 years i'm outta here!

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

Personally I wont stick around if it plays out like this. I wouldn't bring up kids in this place with the taste of bitterness in my mouth.

If house supply doesn't increase dramatically in 2-3 years i'm outta here!

Stop teasing us

The Spider

lima wrote: »

Personally I wont stick around if it plays out like this. I wouldn't bring up kids in this place with the taste of bitterness in my mouth.

If house supply doesn't increase dramatically in 2-3 years i'm outta here!

Ok question for ya, 80k savings, you manage to get the repo of your dreams, you've put every penny you have into it, what way do you want prices to go then?

Do you hope they keep falling or do you hope they just stop, or do you hope that the one thing you've put your cash into is worth it and if you have to sell it you won't walk away owing more than you did at the start?

lima

The Spider wrote: »

Ok question for ya, 80k savings, you manage to get the repo of your dreams, you've put every penny you have into it, what way do you want prices to go then?

Do you hope they keep falling or do you hope they just stop, or do you hope that the one thing you've put your cash into is worth it and if you have to sell it you won't walk away owing more than you did at the start?

I'd just want it to stay around the same, because if they did start going up then everyone would turn into a d*ckhead like they did from 2002-2007 :rolleyes:

The Spider

lima wrote: »

I'd just want it to stay around the same, because if they did start going up then everyone would turn into a d*ckhead like they did from 2002-2007 :rolleyes:

They're usually going one way or the other though, so would you prefer down or up?

Zamboni

The Spider wrote: »

They're usually going one way or the other though, so would you prefer down or up?

You're asking a stupid question to lead the poster.
Of course anyone would want an investment to appreciate in value.
Some of us, however, realise that losses are an inherent risk.

The Spider

Zamboni wrote: »

You're asking a stupid question to lead the poster.
Of course anyone would want an investment to appreciate in value.
Some of us, however, realise that losses are an inherent risk.

It's not a stupid question when the whole thread is devoted to people paying money they owe on property that's worth less than they paid.

When everyone here says property price falls are great, however when asked the question if they'd still like property falls after they bought....silence.

Obviously they wouldn't just as every other person who bought doesn't think falls are good.

As soon as anyone buys their perspective changes, so while on the one hand we have people saying I want more stock so I can get a cheaper house as soon as they get that house, they don't want drops or any more stock coming on that's going to drive the value of their asset down.

It's also why there won't be mass repos or loads of stock released because the amount of people who've bought far outnumbers the amount of people waiting to buy, and the people who've bought are way more likely to vote rather than people who rent, who tend to move around a lot and more than likely don't reregister their vote with every move.

If you were a politician who would you keep happy?

lima

Zamboni wrote: »

You're asking a stupid question to lead the poster.
Of course anyone would want an investment to appreciate in value.
Some of us, however, realise that losses are an inherent risk.

My main concern is that vested interests (mortgage holders, politicians) want to do their best to prop up houses prices and talk up the market for their own gain. Screwing up chances for renters to get on the market. Therefore propping up the rental. It's this attitude that would make me renounce my Irish passport.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

It's not a stupid question when the whole thread is devoted to people paying money they owe on property that's worth less than they paid.

When everyone here says property price falls are great, however when asked the question if they'd still like property falls after they bought....silence.

Obviously they wouldn't just as every other person who bought doesn't think falls are good.

As soon as anyone buys their perspective changes, so while on the one hand we have people saying I want more stock so I can get a cheaper house as soon as they get that house, they don't want drops or any more stock coming on that's going to drive the value of their asset down.

It's also why there won't be mass repos or loads of stock released because the amount of people who've bought far outnumbers the amount of people waiting to buy, and the people who've bought are way more likely to vote rather than people who rent, who tend to move around a lot and more than likely don't reregister their vote with every move.

If you were a politician who would you keep happy?

Sadly you are right. It's just the way it is. What a failed state.

Zamboni

The Spider wrote: »

It's not a stupid question when the whole thread is devoted to people paying money they owe on property that's worth less than they paid.

When everyone here says property price falls are great, however when asked the question if they'd still like property falls after they bought....silence.

Obviously they wouldn't just as every other person who bought doesn't think falls are good.

As soon as anyone buys their perspective changes, so while on the one hand we have people saying I want more stock so I can get a cheaper house as soon as they get that house, they don't want drops or any more stock coming on that's going to drive the value of their asset down.

It's also why there won't be mass repos or loads of stock released because the amount of people who've bought far outnumbers the amount of people waiting to buy, and the people who've bought are way more likely to vote rather than people who rent, who tend to move around a lot and more than likely don't reregister their vote with every move.

If you were a politician who would you keep happy?

The problem with democracy is that it is full of morons.

Ritchi

The Spider wrote: »

Ok question for ya, 80k savings, you manage to get the repo of your dreams, you've put every penny you have into it, what way do you want prices to go then?

Do you hope they keep falling or do you hope they just stop, or do you hope that the one thing you've put your cash into is worth it and if you have to sell it you won't walk away owing more than you did at the start?

I just bought a house. If it's value goes down, if my wages stay the same or go up marginally, I can buy a bigger house cheaper in a few years. If it goes up, I probably won't be able to buy a bigger house unless my wages go up substantially. The problem is, that if your house value goes up, so do most others.

I don't really intend on moving any time in the next 20 years, but if I did intend on moving in 5 years, I'd prefer if house prices hadn't gone up any more than inflation.

The Spider

Ritchi wrote: »

I just bought a house. If it's value goes down, if my wages stay the same or go up marginally, I can buy a bigger house cheaper in a few years. If it goes up, I probably won't be able to buy a bigger house unless my wages go up substantially. The problem is, that if your house value goes up, so do most others.

I don't really intend on moving any time in the next 20 years, but if I did intend on moving in 5 years, I'd prefer if house prices hadn't gone up any more than inflation.

Well only if you bought your house for cash, if the value goes down and you have a mortgage then you can't sell your house, you'll be on the hook for the outstanding amount that you owe, however if your house goes up and you sell, you have the option of moving to another area where house prices may be cheaper and that will allow you to keep the gain.

If prices go down and you have a mortgage, your options are shall we say limited.

Ritchi

The Spider wrote: »

Well only if you bought your house for cash, if the value goes down and you have a mortgage then you can't sell your house, you'll be on the hook for the outstanding amount that you owe, however if your house goes up and you sell, you have the option of moving to another area where house prices may be cheaper and that will allow you to keep the gain.

If prices go down and you have a mortgage, your options are shall we say limited.

I used enough to cash to account for a small drop, if it goes down much more, then yes, I'll be stuck where I am. But I bought knowing that.

If they go up, my only chance of moving would be to an area where houses are relatively cheaper, and I don't want to do that. So I'm stuck either way if they go up.

I'd be fairly free to move in both circumstances if my wages went up substantially, but I imagine that is not going to happen any time soon.

FamousSeamus

Does anybody buy a house to live in for the rest of their life anymore or do people only care about, selling it on later for profit to get a bigger house to sell for profit, to get a bigger house to sell later for profit, etc etc!!

EDIT: I'm confused, was the OP genuine or troll? What happened there? (I think I missed something!!)