Can I go Bankrupt

Pawwed Rig

Anynama141 wrote: »

Which is greedy. You are looking for a gain. That is greed.

I think you misunderstand what the word means tbh

excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious:

Excessive being the word here. Someone who buys a second home to supplement their pension is not greedy. They are just planning for the future. Greed is a lazy media word for criticising those who work hard to improve their lot. I am not sure why Irish media are so critical of that.

If only we had a society where everyone got paid the same, was given the same house, clothes, food to eat etc......:pac:

Gosub

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think you misunderstand what the word means tbh

excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious:

Excessive being the word here. Someone who buys a second home to supplement their pension is not greedy. They are just planning for the future. Greed is a lazy media word for criticising those who work hard to improve their lot. I am not sure why Irish media are so critical of that.

If only we had a society where everyone got paid the same, was given the same house, clothes, food to eat etc......:pac:

Planning for the future should also include a plan to deal with the situation if it all goes wrong. You would happily accept the gains, so you have to happily accept the losses.

Pawwed Rig

That is what bankruptcy laws are for

Anynama141

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think you misunderstand what the word means tbh

I think you must have missed the part where I said I meant it in the economic sense.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Excessive being the word here. Someone who buys a second home to supplement their pension is not greedy. They are just planning for the future. Greed is a lazy media word for criticising those who work hard to improve their lot. I am not sure why Irish media are so critical of that.

As has been said, planning for the future entails risk. If you get it wrong, tough titty. Nobody is going to bail me out of my losing shares in AIB and BOI, and that's absolutely fine with me.

What is NOT fine is other people getting bailed out of their lousy investments with MY money - so I and many others pay TWICE and they don't pay AT ALL.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If only we had a society where everyone got paid the same, was given the same house, clothes, food to eat etc......:pac:
[/COLOR]

Indeed, what a mediocre world it would be.

Pawwed Rig

Anynama141 wrote: »

As has been said, planning for the future entails risk. If you get it wrong, tough titty. Nobody is going to bail me out of my losing shares in AIB and BOI, and that's absolutely fine with me.

If you borrowed money to invest in shares and then the shares lost all their value and you are unable to pay back the loan then you would be 'bailed out' similar to a houseowner who cannot pay back their loan. If you bought shares with cash and lost then you are correct ie tough titty. If you buy a house with cash and the value drops then tough titty. You are not comparing like with like here.

Greedy is a word used as an insult. I have never heard it used otherwise than as an insult and I am sure the guy who I quoted in my first post used it as an insult.

Anynama141

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If you borrowed money to invest in shares and then the shares lost all their value and you are unable to pay back the loan then you would be 'bailed out' similar to a houseowner who cannot pay back their loan.

Um...you wouldn't. Let's be clear: I'm not talking about bankruptcy as a bailout, I'm talking about debt sharing. The proposed system whereby you don't pay back your debts but you still hold on to the assets you outbid everyone else for with those debts.

Bankruptcy is fine with me if people simply can't pay. Bankruptcy means you don't keep the assets you didn't pay for.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Greedy is a word used as an insult. I have never heard it used otherwise than as an insult and I am sure the guy who I quoted in my first post used it as an insult.

Right, but I'm using it in the economic sense. It's a fundamental requirement for the existence of an economy - otherwise we'd all still be hunter gatherers.

StillWaters

lima wrote: »

Bankruptcy needs to be as harsh as possible so that people are punished for getting themselves into that mess in the first place

No. Penurous bankruptcy conditions are not condusive to an entrepeuneurial culture.

belcampprisoner

rent out other house wait until they take houses off you

Anynama141

StillWaters wrote: »

No. Penurous bankruptcy conditions are not condusive to an entrepeuneurial culture.

You need to strike a balance. In the UK, it looks like their 1-year system, designed to encourage entrepreneurship, has had the unintended consequence of encouraging people to run up huge personal debts on consumption and then go bust.

Three to five years seems a good compromise between our current crazy system and the very lax UK system. Don't forge that every time someone goes bust, they can leave behind a trail of sub-contractors, small businesses, tradesmen etc. etc. that are suddenly dropped in the mire.

Norwesterner

MagnusDamm wrote: »

Hi there,

I left Ireland 2 years ago due to work committments. I left 2 houses behind me as I couldnt sell due to negative equity. One I currently rent, the other is lying idle.

I stopped paying this mortgage 2 months ago and will no longer service it. Its become just too much of a burden when I am unemployed with no chance of getting a job in the near future. I see on sites like Askaboutmoney the huge number of people inquiring about the possibility of going bankrupt in Northern Ireland and England etc.

It has me thinking about perhaps I could do the same in Sweden. Do you know what grounds you need to satisify for bankruptancy? Do I need to be broke? Unemployed for long?

Any advice appreciated.

"I couldn't sell because of negative equity."
Don't you mean you "wouldn't sell because of negative equity".

Norwesterner

belcampprisoner wrote: »

rent out other house wait until they take houses off you

I hope you're advising him to use the rent to pay off some of the mortgage?

murphaph

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Part of me is beginning to think this is a troll thread.

This is the same guy that was on before with a couple of different user names. Keggles I think was one.

the groutch

murphaph wrote: »

This is the same guy that was on before with a couple of different user names. Keggles I think was one.

and yet people keep posting on his threads.

TwoShedsJackson

Norwesterner wrote: »

"I couldn't sell because of negative equity."
Don't you mean you "wouldn't sell because of negative equity".

He probably did mean couldn't - the bank would refuse the sale due to the negative equity.

Scortho

murphaph wrote: »

This is the same guy that was on before with a couple of different user names. Keggles I think was one.

Had I known that I wouldn't have posted

jmayo

Scortho wrote: »

And is bankruptcy not the ultimate downside of bad investments?
We can't exactly hang draw and quarter them!

The thing that is becoming apparent is some people are becoming "bankruptcy emigrants" if not worse "bankruptcy tourists".

First we had all the top developers/w/S]bankers leg it to the UK, the States, Switzerland, etc so that they could dumpleave behind their debts to the taxpayers back home.
Watch how quickly and miracolously they will resume in the game a few years later even though supposedly they had no assets or cash.
Of course at the same time their other halves and kids have inherited their assets and were "independently wealthy".

Now a part of this tactic has spread to some in the masses who were the baby speculators and landlords or the celtic bubble.
They have a couple or a few properties which are in massive negative equity, they may not be able to sell and they are in deep debt.

They have realised they can move to another state, declare bankruptcy in a more conducive environment and then quickly move on with lives.

Some it seems don't even want to declare bankruptcy but just start over.

The thing is all of these are leaving behind their debts for us ones who are stuck in this country.
Shoudl we that are left and still in work be jumping for joy with the sh**e they have left behind ?
Should we as some smucks would say "have sympathy for them" ?

Count me out.

murphaph wrote: »

This is the same guy that was on before with a couple of different user names. Keggles I think was one.

I was thinking the same, but answered as if it was real.
Maybe it is.
Maybe someone can check the traffic of various accounts ?

Scortho

jmayo wrote: »

The thing that is becoming apparent is some people are becoming "bankruptcy emigrants" if not worse "bankruptcy tourists".

First we had all the top developers/w/S]bankers leg it to the UK, the States, Switzerland, etc so that they could dumpleave behind their debts to the taxpayers back home.
Watch how quickly and miracolously they will resume in the game a few years later even though supposedly they had no assets or cash.
Of course at the same time their other halves and kids have inherited their assets and were "independently wealthy".

Now a part of this tactic has spread to some in the masses who were the baby speculators and landlords or the celtic bubble.
They have a couple or a few properties which are in massive negative equity, they may not be able to sell and they are in deep debt.

They have realised they can move to another state, declare bankruptcy in a more conducive environment and then quickly move on with lives.

Some it seems don't even want to declare bankruptcy but just start over.

The thing is all of these are leaving behind their debts for us ones who are stuck in this country.
Shoudl we that are left and still in work be jumping for joy with the sh**e they have left behind ?
Should we as some smucks would say "have sympathy for them" ?

Count me out.



I was thinking the same, but answered as if it was real.
Maybe it is.
Maybe someone can check the traffic of various accounts ?

But they are operating within the law. You mightn't like it but they aren't doing anything illegal. If I can use the legal system to my advantage then why shouldn't I?
Likewise with becomming moving countries for tax purposes or registering your company in the Isle of Man.

jmayo

Scortho wrote: »

But they are operating within the law. You mightn't like it but they aren't doing anything illegal. If I can use the legal system to my advantage then why shouldn't I?
Likewise with becomming moving countries for tax purposes or registering your company in the Isle of Man.

Oh I know they may be operating within the law.
But the law and justice or fairness are not always the same.

The way I see it is that they are jumping ship leaving the rest of us to bailout (pardon the pun) the incoming water resulting from some of the holes they put in the ship with their dodgy work.

People can use the system to avoid paying their dues and they may not be doing anything illegal, but is it always right ?
Bono et all moved part of their tax affairs to The Netherlands.
It is not illegal, but is it then right to lecture us on how we spend our taxes ?

I can understand people who have gotten themselves in trouble with their basic family home because they have lost jobs, etc and who now need a way out of the neverending debt that will cripple them for life.

What I don't like are the would be property magnets who now find their "investments" have gone pear shaped and want a cheap out.
And please don't call them entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs to me create something, build something and have a business capability.
These guys just bought overpriced property and if anything often showed a total lack of business accumen.

ncmc

A bit off topic with regards to the current thread, but it annoys me on threads like this when a person says that they have more than one house, it’s automatically assumed that they were greedy or gambling on the property market or saw themselves as a mini property magnate. There are other reasons why someone could have two houses, what if a couple had a house each before marrying? Hardly greed or a mini property empire.

My sister owned her own home before moving in to her now husbands home, they are both in the public sector and with pay cuts etc, they are struggling to pay the mortgage on both houses, even with a lodger in her house.

While I don’t agree with what the OP is planning to do, it would do no harm for people to take a step back before judging someone.

flynnlives

IIRC defaults and bankrupty potentials have been factored into the bank bailouts or else projections of have.

So this line that the irish taxpayer is going to pay is mute as the money as already been either set aside or "invested" in teh banks to cover these losses.

So get down of ur high horses.

In fact if the irish people had either a) gone bankrupt collectively b) somehow forced solomon tests then we wouldnt be in this mess of handing over billions to zombie banks.

but hey lets be angry at the little guy and demand he be burnt at the stake whilst the rich transfer assets to their trophy wives and brat offspring!

jmayo

flynnlives wrote: »

IIRC defaults and bankrupty potentials have been factored into the bank bailouts or else projections of have.

Have they ?

flynnlives wrote: »

So this line that the irish taxpayer is going to pay is mute as the money as already been either set aside or "invested" in teh banks to cover these losses.

Ehh if money has been set aside for some of these, money that ultimately we the taxpayers are responsible for, does that mean it should all be used so that some people get an easy and free get out of debt card ?

Just because money may have been set aside and allocated for debts, doesn't mean that we should be a lax process and all the money be used up.

flynnlives wrote: »

So get down of ur high horses.

Well even if some of us are on horses because we chose not be in hock up to our eyeballs, some like you want to make sure we are all on fooking donkeys.

Yeah lets spread the debt around, socialising the debt and all that mullarkey.

flynnlives wrote: »

In fact if the irish people had either a) gone bankrupt collectively b) somehow forced solomon tests then we wouldnt be in this mess of handing over billions to zombie banks.

but hey lets be angry at the little guy and demand he be burnt at the stake whilst the rich transfer assets to their trophy wives and brat offspring!

Why the fook is it automatically assumed that if one is against the little guy, or more particularly and correctly the little guy with mountains of debts they want to offload, one is not against the big guy with mountains of debts he wants to offload as he siphons off his assets to his family ?

Are they mutually exclusive ?

MagnusDamm

A bit of a pointless post it would appear as all it received was mostly rants about Can pay/wont pay etc etc.

Anyway the situation is as follows:
I have written to the banks outlining my intentions. They can take the houses from me at their convenience. I have never suggested I wanted to keep them and not pay like some people have mentioned. I have notified the tenants occupying one that they need to vacate in 8 weeks and that's not a problem.
The bank can then sell them on and recoup some of the money loaned. I also advised that I have cancelled all direct debits for mortgages with immediate effect and no further payments will be made.

The_Conductor

MagnusDamm wrote: »

I have never suggested I wanted to keep them and not pay like some people have mentioned.

No. You have suggested you want to be rid of the houses, and not pay your outstanding debts.

Once you stop paying your mortgages on the properties- it is up to the lender to have a judegment registered against you in an Irish court (it takes about 10 minutes- they do hundreds every month). We then have a reciprochal agreement with all EU countries to honour each other's judements (the 1968 regulation was amended in 2000, but is current). If your lender is aware that you are in Sweden- they lodge the Irish judgement with the Swedish court, and if you continue to choose to ignore it- the Swedish court in due course, will bring proceedings against you- up to and including Konkurs- however the rules differ as it would be considered involuntary.

If you're insistent that you're washing your hands of the properties- why have you issued notice to your tenants? It sounds vindictive to me that you are killing the income stream the properties are currently generating? Do you think that handing the properties over to the bank vacant is somehow preferable to handing them over tenanted- and if so, why?

Why are you suggesting they take the houses from you at their convenience? Its not convenient. They have to follow rules regarding repossessions- which include liaising with and entering into agreements with the borrowers.

The banks have a lien on the properties- in satisfaction of the mortgages they lent you. They do not own the properties- they own the loans. Selling off the properties- as they may indeed ultimately do (god only knows how far down the road), does not satisfy the loans- they remain outstanding- and enforceable.

If you were legging it to the US it would be a damn sight harder to enforce an Irish judgement against you- Sweden on the other hand, is a lot easier- as we have both signed up to EU arrangements governing each other's judgements.

As you have already sent the banks letters outlining what you're doing/planning to do- your next logical step is to talk to a solicitor in Sweden and ask them the difference between voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy of an individual, and how the terms of the Konkurs differ.

Putting morals to one aside here- legally, you are backing yourself into a corner that you may have trouble getting out of.

djimi

MagnusDamm wrote: »

I have notified the tenants occupying one that they need to vacate in 8 weeks and that's not a problem.

On what grounds have you notified the tenants that they need to vacate?

varuka

I think this thread was made to wind people up.

MagnusDamm

djimi wrote: »

On what grounds have you notified the tenants that they need to vacate?

I told them I'm moving back in

Balmed Out

MagnusDamm wrote: »

Do I need to be broke?

yes.......

MagnusDamm

Cool thanks for your help

Marcusm

MagnusDamm wrote: »

Cool thanks for your help

How do you square this thred with the one you started in Banking etc asking for advice on transferring €130k back to Ireland. If you're truly trying to avoid paying down these debts, the last thing you should do is transfer further cash into the jurisdiction.....

Anynama141

MagnusDamm wrote: »

I told them I'm moving back in

Fraud, huh?