Left Ireland for Australia, left keys in door

lima

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I understand why people left, but I would love to see them come back.

I think that once people see how other countries operate, they don't want to come back.

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

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.

Here we go again with you assuming things. My posts speak for themselves. I do not care whether house prices fall more or rise. I'm not selling my PPR as it's my home for life and my apt is for my retirement.

What I do want is for the economy to recover and for a long term solution to be found to the debt crisis that results in the least detrimental effect on both society and the economy.

skyfall2012

lima wrote: »

I think that once people see how other countries operate, they don't want to come back.

It is the people that ensure that those other countries operate effectively. We let our politicians and our bankers do what they like. But we need to stay here in Ireland and set up businesses, work hard, use the wonderful educations that we have to get Ireland out of this mess and deal with the corruption.

gaius c

The Spider wrote: »

Yes and you're accountable by not buying a house, you didn't pay stamp duty to contribute to the economy, you didn't furnish a house to contribute to the economy, you didn't pay all the other costs associated with buying a house.

And now the consequences of your actions mean that you won't get a bailout and will have to continue renting.

Just in case others hadn't cottoned on to the intentions of the latest "recent registration, low post count, single issue poster", he/she kindly makes it very obvious here.

The Spider

gaius c wrote: »

Just in case others hadn't cottoned on to the intentions of the latest "recent registration, low post count, single issue poster", he/she kindly makes it very obvious here.

Oh you're right far be it for anyone to disagree with your point of view, you know the funny thing is right up to the end of 2011 I would have been on your side, as regards house prices anyway.

As time has gone on, I've realised that there is only one way out and that's forgive the debt or house prices rise, any other suggestions as opposed to they should be made suffer for the rest of their lives are welcome.

Fact is house prices are rising, I remember in the bubble there was that massive thread on askaboutmoney which was locked when people said they could drop, and anyone who said such a thing was ridiculed. I think the propertypin was set up on the back of it.

Now it's the opposite anyone who says we reached the bottom is ridiculed people have become so polarised about being right about prices dropping that they think they're going to be right forever.

I have one simple rule in life always do the opposite of what the herd is doing, in the past year you were an idiot if you bought a house, that meant it was the right time to buy a house, as will be shown this year.

I have no doubt you'll be on saying you knew 2012 was the bottom all along.

gaius c

cookie1977 wrote: »

Here we go again with you assuming things. My posts speak for themselves. I do not care whether house prices fall more or rise. I'm not selling my PPR as it's my home for life and my apt is for my retirement.

What I do want is for the economy to recover and for a long term solution to be found to the debt crisis that results in the least detrimental effect on both society and the economy.

And you honestly think that the road to economy is by taking money off financially prudent people so that financially imprudent people can get their debts waved away?

There's over 4 times as many households renting as households in mortgage arrears and they are only 28 days away from eviction if they fall behind in payments in what can be a volatile market.

Your lack of concern for the people trapped in the rental market and unable to buy homes of their own suggests that you have an agenda.


Edit: Thanks for your concern Spidey but I'll hold onto my cash all the same.

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

And you honestly think that the road to economy is by taking money off financially prudent people so that financially imprudent people can get their debts waved away?

There's over 4 times as many households renting as households in mortgage arrears and they are only 28 days away from eviction if they fall behind in payments in what can be a volatile market.

Your lack of concern for the people trapped in the rental market and unable to buy homes of their own suggests that you have an agenda.

Not everyone is going to be happy with what ever solution is arrived upon (if there ever is one). And have you ever tried evicting someone from rented accommodation if they stop paying? We dont live in this "28 days to eviction" world of yours.

That ridiculous point aside. Yes I see your point about who helps the renters but to be honest they are not in the same situation as many of those in arrears. They are not facing life long oblivion/penal servitude. I am not for outright debt forgiveness by the way and I would like to see those that can pay but wont chased up.

D3PO

No debt should be forgiven. If you cant pay your bills apply for Bankruptcy.

There is a process people just don't want to follow it they want their cake and to eat it. All this nonsense from people just looking out for societies interest is just that.

Nobody argues that people shouldn't be burdened for life regardless of weather they were financially wreckless or not, BUT they should not get handouts.

You want out of your sh1tty unsustainable financial position go to the courts and go through MARP or Bankrupty proceedings and restart afterwards, but don't expect to keep your house your car your sun holiday and just get a handout

StillWaters

gaius c wrote: »

Just in case others hadn't cottoned on to the intentions of the latest "recent registration, low post count, single issue poster", he/she kindly makes it very obvious here.

This hunting of people with a contrarian view to the herd is endemic on these boards. One is accused of being a troll, an Estate Agent etc. We took it back in the bubble, and we take it now, cos guess what - we will be proved right again!

The Corinthian

skyfall2012 wrote: »

It is the people that ensure that those other countries operate effectively. We let our politicians and our bankers do what they like. But we need to stay here in Ireland and set up businesses, work hard, use the wonderful educations that we have to get Ireland out of this mess and deal with the corruption.

I think you're missing the point. How other countries operate often begins with the attitudes of the people themselves. For someone to suggest that debtors should be forgiven their debts, in as cavalier a fashion as here, on a German-speaking board, for example, would be met with universal disgust.

gaius c

StillWaters wrote: »

This hunting of people with a contrarian view to the herd is endemic on these boards. One is accused of being a troll, an Estate Agent etc. We took it back in the bubble, and we take it now, cos guess what - we will be proved right again!

It's all about tone and while Spidey is trying to be subtle about it, he/she is clearly trying to wind people up and provoke anger.
I've never tackled you about it for instance because you are not actually trolling and while Cookie clearly has an agenda the size of the moon, he's not actually trolling either.

As for being contrarian, going against the grain and trying to flip the bulls/bears argument on his head, ask Donie Cassidy how he's getting on.

The Spider

gaius c wrote: »

It's all about tone and while Spidey is trying to be subtle about it, he/she is clearly trying to wind people up and provoke anger.
I've never tackled you about it for instance because you are not actually trolling and while Cookie clearly has an agenda the size of the moon, he's not actually trolling either.

As for being contrarian, going against the grain and trying to flip the bulls/bears argument on his head, ask Donie Cassidy how he's getting on.

Nah I'm not trying to provoke anger, I'm just pointing out what's going to happen, it's either debt forgiveness or high house prices. Of course deals are already being done behind closed doors, and the people who get it aren't allowed tell anyone as a condition, so this could happen either way and no one will be any the wiser.

In fact I'd say it's probably a better course of action, that way prices can continue their creep upwards and eventually the banks exposure to property will be covered.

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

It's all about tone and while Spidey is trying to be subtle about it, he/she is clearly trying to wind people up and provoke anger.
I've never tackled you about it for instance because you are not actually trolling and while Cookie clearly has an agenda the size of the moon, he's not actually trolling either.

As for being contrarian, going against the grain and trying to flip the bulls/bears argument on his head, ask Donie Cassidy how he's getting on.

What's my agenda pray tell? Stillwater is right. If you dont agree with us you call us trolls or people with agenda's yet you dont realise you (plural) probably have more of an agenda then me. This isnt a discussion anymore, it's just collapsed into name calling just so some people can make their point. It's disappointing really but how and ever. There are crack pots on all sides but nothing seems to be done about them.

The Spider

It's like a religion at this stage, people don't want to hear anything that contradicts their world view.

It was the same in the bubble and the impending collapse, no one wanted to hear about the possibility of prices imploding, in case they'd bought at the top, and couldn't get out in time.

Now it's the same at the bottom people don't want to hear about the fact that they could have missed the bottom, or that prices in their ideal areas are not low enough for them to conceive of the fact that this is in fact the bottom, or that it was six months ago they want them to fall just that little bit further.

Like I say always do the opposite of what the majority are doing, and this thread alone confirms that for me, there's maybe three or four of us saying the bottom's been and gone in ideal areas of Dublin (maybe hasn't been reached in others) and we're called Trolls, Heretics who can't see the true way of endless drops.

The Corinthian

The Spider wrote: »

It's like a religion at this stage, people don't want to hear anything that contradicts their world view.

Ironically, I was thinking this of you.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

It's like a religion at this stage, people don't want to hear anything that contradicts their world view.

It was the same in the bubble and the impending collapse, no one wanted to hear about the possibility of prices imploding, in case they'd bought at the top, and couldn't get out in time.

Now it's the same at the bottom people don't want to hear about the fact that they could have missed the bottom, or that prices in their ideal areas are not low enough for them to conceive of the fact that this is in fact the bottom, or that it was six months ago they want them to fall just that little bit further.

Like I say always do the opposite of what the majority are doing, and this thread alone confirms that for me, there's maybe three or four of us saying the bottom's been and gone in ideal areas of Dublin (maybe hasn't been reached in others) and we're called Trolls, Heretics who can't see the true way of endless drops.

I could have bought last year, but didn't, as I see property prices being too high, propped up by Nama and lack of repos. If they start to creep up then I just won't buy a property, I'll just keep paying rent and saving each month. Also, these people hoping for debt write off are also hoping for property price increases, it's incredible how they expect sympathy while at the same time they are hoping prices will rise!

I just think Irish people are in this bubble where their sense of entitlement is skewed beyond belief. Any other country would find it unbelievable that they expect high salaries and debt writeoffs if their risks dont pay off. The only people who don't see that are vested interests.

My only interest is in a normal, fair, functioning society where bad risks are punished and frugality is rewarded.

Only in Ireland eh..

by the seaside

D3PO wrote: »

No debt should be forgiven. If you cant pay your bills apply for Bankruptcy.

There is a process people just don't want to follow it they want their cake and to eat it. All this nonsense from people just looking out for societies interest is just that.

Nobody argues that people shouldn't be burdened for life regardless of weather they were financially wreckless or not, BUT they should not get handouts.

You want out of your sh1tty unsustainable financial position go to the courts and go through MARP or Bankrupty proceedings and restart afterwards, but don't expect to keep your house your car your sun holiday and just get a handout

While I tend towards your side in what is an overly polarized argument, I do find this position too extreme.

In addressing this problem there is an opportunity to improve housing ownership and letting systems.

BTL investors should face the same bankruptcy arrangements as any other business investor. When the houses / flats are taken by the banks, there is an opportunity to look at tenancy arrangements and offer continental style security to tenants. The need to buy and get on the ladder (and therefore the credit fuelled boom bust cycle) is in part driven by short hold tenancies and the knowledge that your family can be turfed out of their home at little notice.

I have more sympathy with 'owner' occupiers deep in NE and unable to service their mortgage. I don't believe mass bankruptcies for this group is in the public interest. There needs to be a simpler and gentler process that sees them declare their assets and walk away from their assets and debt without bankruptcy. If they can afford market rent on their house then they should have a secure tenancy. If not, then a period in the region of 90 days should be given for them to vacate.

However, I am certain there is not the political will for this.

StillWaters

by the seaside wrote: »

However, I am certain there is not the political will for this.

I can tell you with certainty there is not the political will, from ANY party. The austerity agenda is shifting now much quicker than anyone anticipated. We are facing into interesting times with pressure being piled on the Germany and the UK and German elections on the horizon. Inaction or quiet action (as has been happening) is suddenly an option.

by the seaside

StillWaters wrote: »

I can tell you with certainty there is not the political will, from ANY party. The austerity agenda is shifting now much quicker than anyone anticipated. We are facing into interesting times with pressure being piled on the Germany and the UK and German elections on the horizon. Inaction or quiet action (as has been happening) is suddenly an option.

But political will becomes irrelevant once economic necessity drives events - see Cyprus. Then things will get ugly. Those with cash funds to buy up cheap houses may get their cheap houses but find their savings part confiscated or redenominated in new punts or the Mediterranean Euro.

D3PO

by the seaside wrote: »

I have more sympathy with 'owner' occupiers deep in NE and unable to service their mortgage. I don't believe mass bankruptcies for this group is in the public interest. There needs to be a simpler and gentler process that sees them declare their assets and walk away from their assets and debt without bankruptcy.

There are many processes these people can take

MARP
Bankruptcy
Voluntary surrender followed by a DSA

all involve some to complete "debt forgiveness" none however involve a handout which is what people are asking for.

If your bills are unsustainable then a debt settlement must be reached but it should be onerous. If the penalty is too light then its no different than having a two month jail term for murder.

There has to be a deterrent. If people were wreckless then they cant get away scot free. Nobody should expect to keep their house if they cant pay their mortgage.

Go down one of the three routes above and rent and rebuild your life. Tough luck if that isn't what you envisaged for you and your family. Lifes tough you don't always get what you deserve or think you deserve.

The Spider

D3PO wrote: »

There are many processes these people can take

MARP
Bankruptcy
Voluntary surrender followed by a DSA

all involve some to complete "debt forgiveness" none however involve a handout which is what people are asking for.

If your bills are unsustainable then a debt settlement must be reached but it should be onerous. If the penalty is too light then its no different than having a two month jail term for murder.

There has to be a deterrent. If people were wreckless then they cant get away scot free. Nobody should expect to keep their house if they cant pay their mortgage.

Go down one of the three routes above and rent and rebuild your life. Tough luck if that isn't what you envisaged for you and your family. Lifes tough you don't always get what you deserve or think you deserve.

And I point you to the below quote from our esteemed leader at the time:


RTE News, April 7th, 2006:

"The Taoiseach has said he does not see a great problem with the levels of borrowing to buy property. Mr Ahern said there had been predictions of a huge downturn in 2005. He added the bad advice given by so many resulted in some people making mistakes when they should have bought property last year. "


Now people who were reckless as you put it can see it another way that the leader of the country was advising them to buy houses.

Where is the difference here from the government advising people to invest in pensions?

If it had gone any further we may have been subjected to the same rhetoric about houses.

"The housing timebomb now means that it's a legal requirement for every citizen to buy property!"

If it comes from the leader of the country people can't be blamed for taking the advice, again what if everyone now invests in pensions and they go through the floor?

Do we turn around and say, well you must be punished for your reckless behaviour?

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

There are many processes these people can take

MARP
Bankruptcy
Voluntary surrender followed by a DSA

all involve some to complete "debt forgiveness" none however involve a handout which is what people are asking for.

If your bills are unsustainable then a debt settlement must be reached but it should be onerous. If the penalty is too light then its no different than having a two month jail term for murder.

There has to be a deterrent. If people were wreckless then they cant get away scot free. Nobody should expect to keep their house if they cant pay their mortgage.

Go down one of the three routes above and rent and rebuild your life. Tough luck if that isn't what you envisaged for you and your family. Lifes tough you don't always get what you deserve or think you deserve.

The problem I see here is that banks are not willing to deal properly with the situation. Under MARP banks can choose what to offer and most offer interest only options for up to 5 years which for many is not actually dealing with the situation but rather postponing the inevitable. The banks need to look at debt for equity options where customers must sell after a fixed period of perhaps 20 years (depending on age of owners) or so and the bank gets half the value of the sale of home then while the homeowner continues to pay the other half of the mortgage to the bank up until the sale. Or if after a full assessment of the situation is done and the only option is repossession/bankruptcy then so be it but in situations where there is no money left for the homeowner to pay any out standing debt after the repossessed house has been sold then banks should not be then able to come after this outstanding debt and where necessary this should be written off.

As I've said before, at some point many of these repossessions may lead to those people becoming dependent on the state for survival and thus a further burden on the tax payer. Where possible a solution between the bank and the homeowner should be sought to further reduce the exposure of the state to the debt.

jmayo

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.

What about the ones who have a mortgage, but aren't deemed eligible for your bailout and thus are expected to continue to pay off their mortgage ?
What about the ones who have paid off their mortgages ?

Something that is calimed about the irish is that they are a nation of begrudgers.
Well lets see how galvanised Irish people will be against bailouts for their neighbours when they discover they are expected to pay for them.

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.

Yet another one with an overly high opinion of Ireland's importance. :rolleyes:

The Spider wrote: »

And I point you to the below quote from our esteemed leader at the time:

RTE News, April 7th, 2006:

"The Taoiseach has said he does not see a great problem with the levels of borrowing to buy property. Mr Ahern said there had been predictions of a huge downturn in 2005. He added the bad advice given by so many resulted in some people making mistakes when they should have bought property last year. "


Now people who were reckless as you put it can see it another way that the leader of the country was advising them to buy houses.
...

Oh FFS are you seriously now saying that an excuse is that you took advice from a politican whose moral compass was so fooked up, to paraphrase a movie, that he couldn't find his way out of the Dail carpark.

This was the politican whose best friends were developers who got to spend quality time with him at the Galway races, the House of Commons, etc.

During the time ahern was telling this story, he had been found to have no bank account whilst minister of finance of the country, had rented a house that needed over half it's value supposedly spent on it to do it up and signed blank cheques for another leader who rifled the party's accounts and his friends medical expenese account so that he could keep a mistress and buy fancy shirts in Paris.

Either you are winding us up or a candidate to purchase either the Tower of London or The Brokyln Bridge. :rolleyes:

BTW when people talk of debt bailouts, do they seriously expect Ulster, NIB, ACC/Rabobank, Halifax/Bank of Scotland to offer bailouts ?
The offer these banks will make is that you keep paying or GTFO.

D3PO

The Spider wrote: »

And I point you to the below quote from our esteemed leader at the time:


RTE News, April 7th, 2006:

"The Taoiseach has said he does not see a great problem with the levels of borrowing to buy property. Mr Ahern said there had been predictions of a huge downturn in 2005. He added the bad advice given by so many resulted in some people making mistakes when they should have bought property last year. "


Now people who were reckless as you put it can see it another way that the leader of the country was advising them to buy houses.

Where is the difference here from the government advising people to invest in pensions?

If it had gone any further we may have been subjected to the same rhetoric about houses.

"The housing timebomb now means that it's a legal requirement for every citizen to buy property!"

If it comes from the leader of the country people can't be blamed for taking the advice, again what if everyone now invests in pensions and they go through the floor?

Do we turn around and say, well you must be punished for your reckless behaviour?

yes people can be blamed for taking Berties advice. Last time I checked he has no financial qualifications .......

Ignorance isn't an excuse. Why you keep going back to that same ridiculous argument is beyond me.

Listening to a politician and believing what they are saying is bad enough Listening to somebody who knows F All about economics and is a politician is incredulous.

Besides which I'm yet to hear one person say I bought coz Bertie said to.

skyfall2012

D3PO wrote: »

yes people can be blamed for taking Berties advice. Last time I checked he has no financial qualifications .......

Ignorance isn't an excuse. Why you keep going back to that same ridiculous argument is beyond me.

Listening to a politician and believing what they are saying is bad enough Listening to somebody who knows F All about economics and is a politician is incredulous.

Besides which I'm yet to hear one person say I bought coz Bertie said to.

Of course people listen to their government, they are ment to be representing the people. That is why this whole thing is so bad, when they didn't take care of their duty to the people, they didn't regulate the banks and they didn't regulate the building industry!! They ordinary people on the ground are paying and Bertie and his friends and the rest of Europe is laughing at us.

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

The problem I see here is that banks are not willing to deal properly with the situation. Under MARP banks can choose what to offer and most offer interest only options for up to 5 years which for many is not actually dealing with the situation but rather postponing the inevitable. The banks need to look at debt for equity options where customers must sell after a fixed period of perhaps 20 years (depending on age of owners) or so and the bank gets half the value of the sale of home then while the homeowner continues to pay the other half of the mortgage to the bank up until the sale. Or if after a full assessment of the situation is done and the only option is repossession/bankruptcy then so be it but in situations where there is no money left for the homeowner to pay any out standing debt after the repossessed house has been sold then banks should not be then able to come after this outstanding debt and where necessary this should be written off.

As I've said before, at some point many of these repossessions may lead to those people becoming dependent on the state for survival and thus a further burden on the tax payer. Where possible a solution between the bank and the homeowner should be sought to further reduce the exposure of the state to the debt.

Under MARP banks have to put realistic proposals forward, if they do not you can dispute the proposals. If the bank says lets go interest only for 5 years and you can afford interest only then that's a realistic proposal.

I also believe that there is certainly scope and or an argument for debt / equity swaps but I don't agree that in the scenario you mention that in say 20 years a sale should occur that there should be a 50 /50 split. If your forcing banks to take equity in a property say 50% then there should be an additional benefit to them as they take a loss on the money they funded for the mortgage for that time.

If say they took half the debt and 65% of the equity then maybe but I don't think that somebody should be able to dump half their equity now on a NE property for essentially the price they paid for it (or pretty close)


I accept your comment re potential further burdening of the tax payer for those that have to be repossessed, however that should be few and far between.

Most of these people have some level of income just reduced form where they were. That allows them to do a deal under MARP, or go bankrupt and have a sufficient income to rent privately and survive if not to a minimal standard until the process completes.

The Spider

jmayo wrote: »

What about the ones who have a mortgage, but aren't deemed eligible for your bailout and thus are expected to continue to pay off their mortgage ?
What about the ones who have paid off their mortgages ?

Something that is calimed about the irish is that they are a nation of begrudgers.
Well lets see how galvanised Irish people will be against bailouts for their neighbours when they discover they are expected to pay for them.



Yet another one with an overly high opinion of Ireland's importance. :rolleyes:



Oh FFS are you seriously now saying that an excuse is that you took advice from a politican whose moral compass was so fooked up, to paraphrase a movie, that he couldn't find his way out of the Dail carpark.

This was the politican whose best friends were developers who got to spend quality time with him at the Galway races, the House of Commons, etc.

During the time ahern was telling this story, he had been found to have no bank account whilst minister of finance of the country, had rented a house that needed over half it's value supposedly spent on it to do it up and signed blank cheques for another leader who rifled the party's accounts and his friends medical expenese account so that he could keep a mistress and buy fancy shirts in Paris.

Either you are winding us up or a candidate to purchase either the Tower of London or The Brokyln Bridge. :rolleyes:

BTW when people talk of debt bailouts, do they seriously expect Ulster, NIB, ACC/Rabobank, Halifax/Bank of Scotland to offer bailouts ?
The offer these banks will make is that you keep paying or GTFO.

Grand, except no one knew any of that at the time and everyone was singing his praises ( I wasn't).

So by your logic now that the government today is saying that we all have to pay into pensions we should ignore it?

Because after all it's financial advice from the government

D3PO

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Of course people listen to their government, they are ment to be representing the people. That is why this whole thing is so bad, when they didn't take care of their duty to the people, they didn't regulate the banks and they didn't regulate the building industry!! They ordinary people on the ground are paying and Bertie and his friends and the rest of Europe is laughing at us.

Sorry its a bull crap excuse. Firstly only about 60% of the electorate vote, Take out the silver army who in terms of demographics represent a larger proportion then those impacted by the bubble and you get a much smaller proportion of those impacted that vote.

Now its not a stretch to believe that somebody that doesn't bother voting doesn't bother listening to the government.

Its also fair to say that those that do follow politics and political statement are educated enough to make prudent financial decisions. Like I said Ive heard a lot of poor me stories but I've yet to hear one single person say they bought because Bertie and the government told them to.

Its a smoke screen. People were greedy, uneducated, financially irresponsible, lacking in foresight regarding the future or a combination of them all. These are the people for the most part that are in arrears and in NE.

They made an error in judgment and have to pay for it. We live in a capitalist society. Like I said before if people don't like it then they should move to a communist country and see how great it is.

Norwesterner

Not a bodder, Keggles.
Just spoke to the kids, and they said they'll sort out your debt when/if they get their first paycheque.
Enjoy the sun.

D3PO

The Spider wrote: »

Grand, except no one knew any of that at the time and everyone was singing his praises ( I wasn't).

So by your logic now that the government today is saying that we all have to pay into pensions we should ignore it?

Because after all it's financial advice from the government

Your talking through your arse. I wasn't singing his praises nor I suspect were the 65% odd of people that voted for other political parties than FF.

Governments don't give lifestyle advise to people. They cant force somebody to do something unless they legislate for it. Last time I checked there was no law forcing anybody to borrow money for houses ...