Left Ireland for Australia, left keys in door

The Spider

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then let's just bar them from ever being allowed to purchase property, as it it is impossible to legislate against stupid opinions or advice. Shall we say that you need to be a university graduate to buy?

Maybe we can just not prosecute people if they're not aware that something is a crime?

Clearly they're not qualified to make informed decisions democratically either.

Or perhaps we have to accept that people do ultimately have personal responsibility for their actions and choices, especially if they have right to carry them out.

Oh come on the Taoiseach was telling people they were screwed for not buying, the leader of the country!

My own parents were shouting at me telling me I'd be priced out when I pointed out to anyone how it was a massive bubble I was laughed at, and they pointed towards all these reports and stories.

I remember my mother saying that prices wouldn't drop in her lifetime.

Like it or not the average person believed all of this (why wouldn't they?) if the bank tells them they can afford it they believe them, the banks are the financial experts.

If I go to a doctor I believe him he's the medical expert.
if I go to a solicitor I believe him, he's the legal expert.
If I go to an electrician I believe him he's the electrical expert.

People were told they can't lose, from the very top down, now because they've lost I think they do have a legitimate case.

The Corinthian

The Spider wrote: »

People were told they can't lose, from the very top down, now because they've lost I think they do have a legitimate case.

They may have a case if any advice that was given was done so fraudulently, but that's not the case, so they don't. Those who advise were ultimately just as incompetent.

Either they should be considered competent to have a right or they should not, and if the former they also have to accept at least some part of the responsibility for those actions. If the latter, they should not have those rights.

But if you insist, by all means let's bail them completely out but on condition that they may never buy or own property again. If they're too ignorant or incompetent to do so, then so be it.

You can't have it both ways.

If I go to a doctor I believe him he's the medical expert.
if I go to a solicitor I believe him, he's the legal expert.
If I go to an electrician I believe him he's the electrical expert.

More fool you.

The Corinthian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ow4X8tiMI

The Spider

The Corinthian wrote: »

They may have a case if any advice that was given was done so fraudulently, but that's not the case, so they don't. Those who advise were ultimately just as incompetent.

Either they should be considered competent to have a right or they should not, and if the former they also have to accept at least some part of the responsibility for those actions. If the latter, they should not have those rights.

But if you insist, by all means let's bail them completely out but on condition that they may never buy or own property again. If they're too ignorant or incompetent to do so, then so be it.

You can't have it both ways.

More fool you.

Well ok, but you can have it both ways, and it will happen because there's only two ways out of this, and that's house prices rise to wipe out the negative equity or the government bails out people.

Otherwise there's basically a generation of people stuck with massive bills some in places that are no longer fit for their lifestyles 1 bed apartments now they've got kids.

The only people a bailout will annoy are those that didn't buy and rent, and politically they're a minority concern for any government.

The Corinthian

The Spider wrote: »

Well ok, but you can have it both ways, and it will happen because there's only two ways out of this, and that's house prices rise to wipe out the negative equity or the government bails out people.

No, it's not black and white. There will likely be some form of policy implemented to help those worst affected, but it won't come without strings or consequences, no matter how much they bleat that that they're innocent (or ignorant) victims.

The only people a bailout will annoy are those that didn't buy and rent, and politically they're a minority concern for any government.

Incorrect; you're presuming that all mortgage holders will benefit. Those who have already paid their mortgage or are not in negative equity or careers and can afford it won't benefit or like it either.

You've just lost your majority - presuming you had one to being with.

quietsailor

The Spider wrote: »

Well ok, but you can have it both ways, and it will happen because there's only two ways out of this, and that's house prices rise to wipe out the negative equity or the government bails out people.

Otherwise there's basically a generation of people stuck with massive bills some in places that are no longer fit for their lifestyles 1 bed apartments now they've got kids.

The only people a bailout will annoy are those that didn't buy and rent, and politically they're a minority concern for any government.

I bought a house and in the last 4 years have been a Landlord (continuously), a Tenant and a Rent-a-Room Landlord.

During that time I continued to make mortgage repayments while at college - Previous to the 4 years in college I'd saved money to make sure I had enough to cover the repayments.

Any government that tells me that I have to now be part of a bailout for those people who refused to be prudent with their financial affairs will immediately and irrevocably lose my vote. I've talked abut this with my family and we're all of the same opinion. My brother is in N.E. at the moment but he accepts this as he bought an old house and restored it to a high standard recently. Including our mother that's 3 votes lost to the government forever out of only one N.E. - don't be so quick to say that we are a minority

One final point - N.E. DOESN'T MATTER. If your living in a house then you have a roof over your head. You don't need to get rid of that N.E. in order to live there. It only matters when you go to sell the house and can't meet the full mortgage price.

Yes there are people who now cannot meet their mortgages, lost jobs, less hours per week, reduced rate per hour etc etc. Well you know what that's their own fault. They didn't stress test their finances when taking out a mortgage thinking "I'll never get caught out, everyone is getting away with it" - tough luck, in future arrange your finances properly and more importantly teach your children how to manage theirs so this doesn't happen again

Zamboni

The Spider wrote: »

Otherwise there's basically a generation of people stuck with massive bills some in places that are no longer fit for their lifestyles 1 bed apartments now they've got kids.

So you would let the next innocent generation pay for the mistakes of this one.
Disgusting attitude.

The Spider

quietsailor wrote: »

I bought a house and in the last 4 years have been a Landlord (continuously), a Tenant and a Rent-a-Room Landlord.
During that time I continued to make mortgage repayments while at college - Previous to the 4 years in college I'd saved money to make sure I had enough to cover the repayments.

Any government that tells me that I have to now be part of a bailout for those people who refused to be prudent with their financial affairs will immediately and irrevocably lose my vote. I've talked abut this with my family and we're all of the same opinion. My brother is in N.E. at the moment but he accepts this as he bought an old house and restored it to a high standard recently. Including our mother that's 3 votes lost to the government forever out of only one N.E. - don't be so quick to say that we are a minority

One final point - N.E. DOESN'T MATTER. If your living in a house then you
have a roof over your head. You don't need to get rid of that N.E. in order to live there. It only matters when you go to sell the house and can't meet the full mortgage price.

Yes there are people who now cannot meet their mortgages, lost jobs, less
hours per week, reduced rate per hour etc etc. Well you know what that's their own fault. They didn't stress test their finances when taking out a mortgage
thinking "I'll never get caught out, everyone is getting away with it" - tough luck, in future arrange your finances properly and more importantly teach
your children how to manage theirs so this doesn't happen again

Thanks for teaching me about Negative Equity:rolleyes:
You say your brother bought an old house and restored it? Grand job, however lots of people bought 1 and 2 bed apartments, kinda worthless really so I'd assume their mothers would vote for a government who did something about it, and having listened to god knows how many people say "the government has to do something!" I would assume they'd get their vote.

Now as for destroying a generations future on the grounds that it'll teach the following generation of children a lesson, let's see how long a government lasts that tries to implement that policy, if people didn't learn from past bubble behaviour ie tulip mania, Black Monday in the UK the wall street crash of the eighties, they won learn this time.

So as your ruling out bailing people out, the only option left really is price rises to wipe out the debt, so thank Christ property is rising in South County Dublin, let's hope the gains are massive, and we're off again!

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

So you would let the next innocent generation pay for the mistakes of this one.
Disgusting attitude.

That's how life works to be honest. People in the past ran up the national debt and the young people pay it off. The current working people are paying for the pensions of those retired. The young people of today are paying for the medical care of the current old people.

Is this news to you or something? As long as it's seen that everyone pays something I don't see a problem with it. You cannot destroy people lives just because you don't want to pay for what went before. That is life I'm afraid.

Zamboni

cookie1977 wrote: »

That's how life works to be honest. People in the past ran up the national debt and the young people pay it off. The current working people are paying for the pensions of those retired. The young people of today are paying for the medical care of the current old people.

Is this news to you or something? As long as it's seen that everyone pays something I don't see a problem with it. You cannot destroy people lives just because you don't want to pay for what went before. That is life I'm afraid.

The sheer hypocrisy from posters like you calling for empathy to failed borrowers, to make statements like the above is overwhelming and makes me sick to my stomach that I share a democracy with you.

You would wilfully help out people who took risks and lost and force their losses on your own children.
Twisted logic.

Lowest common denominator intelligence in the name of empathy.
You'd make a good politician.

cookie1977

Thankfully your way will probably not happen. And something more akin to a solution for all is what will come about.

skyfall2012

quietsailor wrote: »

Any government that tells me that I have to now be part of a bailout for those people who refused to be prudent with their financial affairs will immediately and irrevocably lose my vote. [/U]

We voted for a government that bailed out the banks- Fianna Fail, (this bank bailout does not benefit the economy at all) and left a huge number of the population who bought homes during this bubble to pay their debts, this has a very negative effect on the economy, as these people are not able to take part in the economy. Then we voted in Fianna Gael who continue with the austerity measures (but are getting better deals), but the opinion polls say that Fianna Fail's popularity is on the rise again! So I am not so sure if the parties give a sh1t because it is not like we have much choice and they do what they want when they are in power, despite what the people think.

We should do what Iceland did and stick together and jail the bankers, as their economy is now growing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/iceland-the-broken-economy-that-got-out-of-jail-2349905.html
Excerpt from article:
Iceland was a pioneer in recklessness during the credit boom. And now the small nation in the north Atlantic is a pioneer in political accountability during the credit bust. Geir Haarde, the Icelandic prime minister between 2006 and 2009, appeared in a special constitutional court in Reykjavik yesterday on charges of "failures of ministerial responsibility" during the 2008 financial meltdown.

The Spider

Zamboni wrote: »

The sheer hypocrisy from posters like you calling for empathy to failed borrowers, to make statements like the above is overwhelming and makes me sick to my stomach that I share a democracy with you.

You would wilfully help out people who took risks and lost and force their losses on your own children.
Twisted logic.

Lowest common denominator intelligence in the name of empathy.
You'd make a good politician.

And that's the point it's a democracy, majority rules, if everyone wants a bailout, then a bailout it shall be.

You can't punish the majority of the population, even a third of the population, future generations take on the debts of the past, that my friend is life, and your children and grandchildren will be paying for the bank bailout, and more than likely the people bailout!

by the seaside

skyfall2012 wrote: »

We voted for a government that bailed out the banks- Fianna Fail, (this bank bailout does not benefit the economy at all) and left a huge number of the population who bought homes during this bubble to pay their debts, this has a very negative effect on the economy, as these people are not able to take part in the economy. Then we voted in Fianna Gael who continue with the austerity measures (but are getting better deals), but the opinion polls say that Fianna Fail's popularity is on the rise again! So I am not so sure if the parties give a sh1t because it is not like we have much choice and they do what they want when they are in power, despite what the people think.

We should do what Iceland did and stick together and jail the bankers, as their economy is now growing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/iceland-the-broken-economy-that-got-out-of-jail-2349905.html
Excerpt from article:
Iceland was a pioneer in recklessness during the credit boom. And now the small nation in the north Atlantic is a pioneer in political accountability during the credit bust. Geir Haarde, the Icelandic prime minister between 2006 and 2009, appeared in a special constitutional court in Reykjavik yesterday on charges of "failures of ministerial responsibility" during the 2008 financial meltdown.

Of course it will mean leaving the Euro, presumably redenominating debts in the new punt, default / reschedule of national debts, healthy dose of devaluation of new currency and inflation to deal with all debt.

All seems sensible to me but I'm not sure the Irish people and political class are ready for it - but then I'm not a national or resident, just a regular visitor.

Of course, those who say that failure to bail out would not be electorally palatable should consider whether the Cypriot bail in was electorally palatable.

lima

Zamboni wrote: »

The sheer hypocrisy from posters like you calling for empathy to failed borrowers, to make statements like the above is overwhelming and makes me sick to my stomach that I share a democracy with you.

You would wilfully help out people who took risks and lost and force their losses on your own children.
Twisted logic.

Lowest common denominator intelligence in the name of empathy.
You'd make a good politician.

He/She is a vested interest with two properties, so it is in their interest that prices rise, bailouts to boom speculators happen etc. It's what is sick about Ireland today.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

And that's the point it's a democracy, majority rules, if everyone wants a bailout, then a bailout it shall be.

You can't punish the majority of the population, even a third of the population, future generations take on the debts of the past, that my friend is life, and your children and grandchildren will be paying for the bank bailout, and more than likely the people bailout!

Since I more than likely won't be living here when I have kids (for personal reasons beyond refusing to pay for boom speculators bad investments) I don't really care. but still, it does make me sick to the stomach and has destroyed any empathy I will ever have for Irish people from that era.

Bullseye1

Zamboni wrote: »

So you would let the next innocent generation pay for the mistakes of this one.
Disgusting attitude.

There has been precedent. The Germans only recently paid off debts from WWII. The fact that our own government has gotten some of our debt pushed back a number of years means that there will already be people who were not even born during the boom paying back debts.

When we get down to a deficit of 3% we will still be borrowing €4.8 Billion annually and this too will be paid off for generations. So I don't really get this argument about innocent generations paying for our mistakes. It's always been that way.

Zamboni

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The fact that our own government has gotten some of our debt pushed back a number of years means that there will already be people who were not even born during the boom paying back debts.

When we get down to a deficit of 3% we will still be borrowing €4.8 Billion annually and this too will be paid off for generations. So I don't really get this argument about innocent generations paying for our mistakes. It's always been that way.

We had a sustainable deficit. Brian Lenihan unnecessarily incurred banking debts on behalf of the Irish state. Fine Gael changed the term of the borrowings. This is the intergenerational debt. It is NOT the way it has always been.

Bullseye1

Regardless of how well the country has been doing we have always run a deficit so yes it has always been that way. Each generation has ways left a debt to be paid by the next.

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

He/She is a vested interest with two properties, so it is in their interest that prices rise, bailouts to boom speculators happen etc. It's what is sick about Ireland today.

When you assume you make... ah whats the point. You clearly dont understand. Everyone is a vested interest (with or without property).

There's a huge amount of lead being swung in this country right now.

12gauge dave

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There has been precedent. The Germans only recently paid off debts from WWII. The fact that our own government has gotten some of our debt pushed back a number of years means that there will already be people who were not even born during the boom paying back debts.

When we get down to a deficit of 3% we will still be borrowing €4.8 Billion annually and this too will be paid off for generations. So I don't really get this argument about innocent generations paying for our mistakes. It's always been that way.

Your mentioning of germany and ww2 made me think how hitler must be a happy man now with germany the powerhouse of europe again:)

Zamboni

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Regardless of how well the country has been doing we have always run a deficit so yes it has always been that way. Each generation has ways left a debt to be paid by the next.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=992

Ray Palmer

Zamboni wrote: »

We had a sustainable deficit. Brian Lenihan unnecessarily incurred banking debts on behalf of the Irish state. Fine Gael changed the term of the borrowings. This is the intergenerational debt. It is NOT the way it has always been.

Actually we were paying the debts of our grandparents. We managed to pretty much eliminate it and then we bailed out the banks. The country carried debits from pretty much the start of the nation. The difference is it was running costs as we spent more than we earned.

Zamboni

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Actually we were paying the debts of our grandparents. We managed to pretty much eliminate it and then we bailed out the banks. The country carried debits from pretty much the start of the nation. The difference is it was running costs as we spent more than we earned.

Christ. Almighty.

There is a difference between the state passing on a deficit through its operating costs and what cookies/spider suggest in socialising private debt to future generations.

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

Christ. Almighty.

There is a difference between the state passing on a deficit through its operating costs and what cookies/spider suggest in socialising private debt to future generations.

Why? Why is it ok in your mind for current generations paying for past generations debts in relation to pensions, health care etc... but it isn't in relation to the current crisis. I'm not talking here of people who can pay wont pay or people trying to screw the system. I'm speaking of ordinary people who did what they thought was right at the time and are still trying to work things out.

Not everyone who is struggling is struggling due to lack of prudence. There are people out there who did everything properly when buying their home. They ensured they had surplus cash for any changes but the changes that have occurred due to bailing out the banks and the recession (job losses, increased taxes and levies, wage cuts, mortgage rate increases out of step with the previous rate increases etc...) where so excessive as to dramatically eat into their reserves and thus put them in a situation that was not necessarily of their own making.

You've a very monochrome view of the whole debt crisis.

StillWaters

Zamboni wrote: »

Christ. Almighty.

There is a difference between the state passing on a deficit through its operating costs and what cookies/spider suggest in socialising private debt to future generations.

Isn't that what past revenue amnesties were?

gaius c

FamousSeamus wrote: »

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!!)

Why do you think SoCoDu is showing price stability/increases while the outer commuter belt is still dropping like a stone? Nobody who has the capability to buy now will spend their cash on a house in Newbridge that they'll need to move from in 5-10 years, which will drop in value preventing that move. That's why people are most interested in Dublin...it would be a house for life.

When the commuter belt stablises (and it will stabilise at a very low level I reckon), people will take the risk and buy there instead of Dublin.

skyfall2012

We pay our politicians and consultants exorbitant salaries, in comparisons to countries three and four times our size. An independant TD on radio this morning telling how we are paying a part time banker €10,000 a week! They allowed developers build houses that nobody can live in during the boom.

So where do you think most of our money is going? How do you think we will get out of this crisis?

In the past it was the people who emigrated abroad and sent home money that help our economy grow and it will be the people who do it again, but not unless they given debt forgiveness and we deal with the corruption that is even happening now under our noses after all that has happened. We are a nation of idiots if we don't wake up.

I am not planning to go anywhere, I love this country, I don't think the politician are going to do anything they are not the ones suffering, we need to make the changes.

I have recently bought a house and my husband is working in an SME and I want to see things improve, but I am not sure what it is the Irish refuse to see what is really going on. I understand why people left, but I would love to see them come back.

It seems we won't point the finger at the politicians and take them to task, but will sit around in this mess pointing the finger at each other.

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

When you assume you make... ah whats the point. You clearly dont understand. Everyone is a vested interest (with or without property).

You act like you have sympathy towards people who got screwed over in the boom but in actual fact you only want peoples debts written off so that repossessions won't happen and property won't fall lower than it already is.