Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New Beginning?? Long term resolution for unwanted house.
Options
Comments
-
100k households in arrears
2 million households in the country
So tell me, what is best for the vast majority?
Average of 4 or 5 people per house of the age group that has young families........yeah why not let's dump half a million people. :rolleyes:
You might be overestimating the number of owner occupier houses as well.0 -
Nope it is 3.1strongback wrote: »Average of 4 or 5 people per house of the age group that has young families........yeah why not let's dump half a million people. :rolleyes:
You might be overestimating the number of owner occupier houses as well.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_ave_siz_of_hou-people-average-size-of-households
Again you aren't right0 -
Don't bother mate. He's responding to multiple points with trite one-liners now because he's cornered and has got nothing else. For instance, he refused to acknowledge me correcting his assertation that the older generation were "getting off scot free". All we're going to get now is dodging and rehashing of his already debunked points.
I must have posted more than 1000 words in this thread. I can't keep repeating myself, I have work to get on with.
You were talking about gamblers on the property market not people buying their first house. This was pointed out to you by another poster so I didn't feel the need to add any more.
If you can see 50 or older and you bought your house before the mid 90's you benefited from the boom no end. If older people decided to gambler there is less sympathy as they had life experience unlike some green 20 something year old who couldn't comprehend fully the seriousness of taking on such a big debt for 35 or 40 years. It wasn't possible to buy a house, given the boom pricesin over 20 years like it was in the 1980's and early 90's.
We all know that buying a house for more than 15 times the rental income is foolish........we've learnt that the hard way.0 -
strongback wrote: »Average of 4 or 5 people per house of the age group that has young families........yeah why not let's dump half a million people. :rolleyes:
You might be overestimating the number of owner occupier houses as well.
You're overegging your pudding now. There's over 300k households renting and a goodly proportion of them are wannabe-FTB's who can't buy. Should they continue paying currently sky high rents while folk who overborrowed get write offs?
So three times more renters than PPR's in arrears. Talk to us about the needs of the vast "vast majority" again please.0 -
strongback wrote: »I must have posted more than 1000 words in this thread. I can't keep repeating myself, I have work to get on with.
You were talking about gamblers on the property market not people buying their first house. This was pointed out to you by another poster so I didn't feel the need to add any more.
If you can see 50 or older and you bought your house before the mid 90's you benefited from the boom no end. If older people decided to gambler there is less sympathy as they had life experience unlike some green 20 something year old who couldn't comprehend fully the seriousness of taking on such a big debt for 35 or 40 years. It wasn't possible to buy a house, given the boom pricesin over 20 years like it was in the 1980's and early 90's.
We all know that buying a house for more than 15 times the rental income is foolish........we've learnt that the hard way.
You a repeat the same wrong things and ignore the correct answers when pointed out to you. It is fine to be ill informed but ignore the reality is a problem.
I see where you get your ideas but they are based on falsehoods that you don't want to acknowledge. Not sure if you have trouble understanding or do it intentionally. I don't know you but people I know who act this way have learning disabilities like Asperger's.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Guys- I've just about had it.
Behave. If you disagree with what someone else posts- refute it factually, without personalising your posts. Obey the forum charter. Anymore sniping, personal comments or general mischief making- and punishment will be dispensed.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Nope it is 3.1
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_ave_siz_of_hou-people-average-size-of-households
Again you aren't right
That was the final nail in the coffin. And you say I don't understand........you can't read and you don't have the intelligence to interpret words.
For a start the 3.1 is an average number of people per house across the whole of society.
Throw up the list of younger house owners, as I expressly stated I was talking about in my post, and you will find most will have a couple of children at least.
Just to make it very clear to you....people in their 20's generally leave home which means many houses contain only one or two people older people. We also live in an era where living until old age is a significant feature.
You have never argued any of my points convincingly and I suggest you take a time out over on the Fine Gael board.0 -
strongback wrote: »That was the final nail in the coffin. And you say I don't understand........you can't read and you don't have the intelligence to interpret words.
For a start the 3.1 is an average number of people per house across the whole of society.
Throw up the list of younger house owners, as I expressly stated I was talking about in my post, and you will find most will have a couple of children at least.
Just to make it very clear to you....people in their 20's generally leave home which means many houses contain only one or two people older people. We also live in an era where living until old age is a significant feature.
You have never argued any of my points convincingly and I suggest you take a time out over on the Fine Gael board.
:rolleyes:0 -
Okay, I'm going to go with what some people say and see where it leads.
Some posters here believe that you should be able to walk away from a mortgage if you're in negative equity regardless of your state of solvency. Fair enough.
What to do then if you are in positive equity (the house is worth more than you have paid for it)? Well if you didn't have a financial interest when the house is in negative territory then you shouldn't gain when things swing in the opposite direction. That would seem fair to me.
So we now have a situation where you will not be financially affected either negatively or positively by property. What would that do to the housing market? Stagnate it?
This then becomes more akin to leasing or renting a property then. But who do you rent the property from? If no-one stands to lose or gain from property companies, banks and individuals won't invest leaving the only "landlord" being the government.
And this brings us to the ultimate conclusion. The only way this will work is having the state own the residential property market and rent the properties to it's citizens.
So without socialism I can't see how we can have what some of the posters want here. Is this what people want?
0 -
smccarrick wrote: »Guys- I've just about had it.
Behave. If you disagree with what someone else posts- refute it factually, without personalising your posts. Obey the forum charter. Anymore sniping, personal comments or general mischief making- and punishment will be dispensed.
I wrote my last post before I saw your warning.
My style is direct but never personal unless provoked.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is hilarious, none of it means anything, the OP is looking for a way to ensure his future wife doesn't take on his debt, just by marrying him, and that she can buy a house at some point, like I said it has to be done before they get married, afterwards the banks will take his debt into account when she applies for a mortgage.
As a previous poster pointed out getting a pre nup written up, may protect her in the future.
As for people walking away from their debts, or getting a mortgage writedown? Absolutely they should do what they want to make their lives as comfortable as possible, all this talk about my taxes paying for it is nonsense, what people really mean is they don't want to see someone getting away with it.
Well I say Feck that, if you can get the taxpayer or anyone else to pay your debts go for it, your responsibility is to you and your family first and foremost not some nebulous bunch who think they pay lots of tax. so what we all pay lots of tax, and any way we can pay less we avail of, just as if there's a way to get the bank to write down debt you should avail of it, regardless of ability to pay, better you have the cash then the banks.
If it's good enough for Bono it's good enough for me!0 -
Why should should someone who cannot pay worry about what others think, especially the self righteous crowd who spout out "pay up and shut up, I'm not taking on your debt". Where were these self righteous people when FFail guaranteed banks and put private debt on the tax payer. These people would not give a flying f... If the banks were not under the ownership of the tax payer. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.
Why should we care when we are not paying for it, when our kids education is not going to be affected, when our elderly reltives will not be left longer in hospital A&Es.
Except all of these will be affected since WE ARE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR IT.
The excuse for taking on bank debt was to try and prevent our entire banking system from collapsing.
What is the excuse for taking on every tom dick and harrys debt ?
Oh yeah they made a bad decision, don't want to try and pay for it and feel they are entitled to be bailed out.
BTW I bet you will find a lot of the anti mortgage bailout people were also the ones questioning the antics of ff, the bank guarantee, the setup of NAMA.
And to make it even stranger most of ones now looking for a bailout because of their decisions were the actual ones who were firm believers in bertie's the boom is getting boomier philosophy.
In order for a contract to be legal, both parties need to be informed and there needs to be a meeting of the minds and transpariency IMO .
Something which was/is impossible in Ireland at present.
The cute hoor bankers had an insider advantage.
Screw them.
I know well who owns the banks, that fact is irrevelant however.
With every investment comes risk and that is equally true for the banks.
Even in gombeen Ireland.
You still have this cr** about cute hoor bankers.
The cute hoor bankers are gone, usually with nice pensions and lump sums.
The owners were decimated.
All that is left is the taxpayer holding the bill and you want to add even more to it.
Yeah really smart. :rolleyes:
But you jsut carry on with the typical cr** about "the bankers" and screwing them when it is yourself and every other taxpayer you are screwing.As am I as a tax payer and someone paying my mortgage. I just haven't lost my soul and want to throw everyone in trouble under the bus.
Ahh yes lets get the old sympathy bandwagon rolling.
If you want to see a lot of the types of people who would really benefit take a read of one of the posters here who just wants to dump their debts on someone else.
Who cares if it's their neighbours who actually may be struggling, but have decency and don't want to become a leech like them ?The Spider wrote: »...
As for people walking away from their debts, or getting a mortgage writedown? Absolutely they should do what they want to make their lives as comfortable as possible, all this talk about my taxes paying for it is nonsense, what people really mean is they don't want to see someone getting away with it.
Well I say Feck that, if you can get the taxpayer or anyone else to pay your debts go for it, your responsibility is to you and your family fist and foremost not some nebulous bunch who think they pay lots of tax. so what we all pay lots of tax, and any way we can pay less we avail of, just as if there's a way to get the bank to write down debt you should avail of it, regardless of ability to pay, better you have the cash then the banks.
If it's good enough for Bono it's good enough for me!
Typical Irish "screw the system" mentality.
Maybe someday you will be left sitting in A&E or left on a waiting list and or maybe your kids will have to bring toilet roll to school.
You do more for the cause of non bailout non writeoffs than any of us could ever hope to achieve.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
The Spider wrote: »This is hilarious, none of it means anything, the OP is looking for a way to ensure his future wife doesn't take on his debt, just by marrying him, and that she can buy a house at some point, like I said it has to be done before they get married, afterwards the banks will take his debt into account when she applies for a mortgage.
As a previous poster pointed out getting a pre nup written up, may protect her in the future.
As for people walking away from their debts, or getting a mortgage writedown? Absolutely they should do what they want to make their lives as comfortable as possible, all this talk about my taxes paying for it is nonsense, what people really mean is they don't want to see someone getting away with it.
Well I say Feck that, if you can get the taxpayer or anyone else to pay your debts go for it, your responsibility is to you and your family fist and foremost not some nebulous bunch who think they pay lots of tax. so what we all pay lots of tax, and any way we can pay less we avail of, just as if there's a way to get the bank to write down debt you should avail of it, regardless of ability to pay, better you have the cash then the banks.
If it's good enough for Bono it's good enough for me!
Pre nups have no standing in Irish law.
There isn't really a write down on debt available. You can be declared insolvent and then have the financial restrictions applied. You need to be in a lot of trouble for that to be an option
No idea what it has to do with Bono. What he did is completely legal and big business stuff and he is not getting a debt write off.
If the OP goes insolvent (which doesn't sound likely) the restrictions will apply to the pair as far as I can see.0 -
Typical Irish "screw the system" mentality.
Maybe someday you will be left sitting in A&E or left on a waiting list and or maybe your kids will have to bring toilet roll to school.
You do more for the cause of non bailout non writeoffs than any of us could ever hope to achieve.
Nah not me I pay for health insurance, and yes if you don't screw the system you will be guaranteed it will screw you. Bank Guarantee being one example, House Tax being another, and various other cutbacks.
And what happened a few people grumbled about it, so yeah you should absolutely do what you can and take what you can, to protect yourself and your family, no one else will and you'll be dead long enough so it's up to you to ensure you have the life you want.0 -
Why should we care when we are not paying for it, when our kids education is not going to be affected, when our elderly reltives will not be left longer in hospital A&Es.
Except all of these will be affected since WE ARE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR IT.
The excuse for taking on bank debt was to try and prevent our entire banking system from collapsing.
What is the excuse for taking on every tom dick and harrys debt ?
Oh yeah they made a bad decision, don't want to try and pay for it and feel they are entitled to be bailed out.
BTW I bet you will find a lot of the anti mortgage bailout people were also the ones questioning the antics of ff, the bank guarantee, the setup of NAMA.
And to make it even stranger most of ones now looking for a bailout because of their decisions were the actual ones who were firm believers in bertie's the boom is getting boomier philosophy.
You still have this cr** about cute hoor bankers.
The cute hoor bankers are gone, usually with nice pensions and lump sums.
The owners were decimated.
All that is left is the taxpayer holding the bill and you want to add even more to it.
Yeah really smart. :rolleyes:
But you jsut carry on with the typical cr** about "the bankers" and screwing them when it is yourself and every other taxpayer you are screwing.
Ahh yes lets get the old sympathy bandwagon rolling.
If you want to see a lot of the types of people who would really benefit take a read of one of the posters here who just wants to dump their debts on someone else.
Who cares if it's their neighbours who actually may be struggling, but have decency and don't want to become a leech like them ?
Typical Irish "screw the system" mentality.
Maybe someday you will be left sitting in A&E or left on a waiting list and or maybe your kids will have to bring toilet roll to school.
You do more for the cause of non bailout non writeoffs than any of us could ever hope to achieve.
Bank losses are inevitable. It's just the way the government handle it from here, I personally believe they know about the loses coming down the pipe and have dealt with it. Some can't pay and some won't.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Pre nups have no standing in Irish law.
There isn't really a write down on debt available. You can be declared insolvent and then have the financial restrictions applied. You need to be in a lot of trouble for that to be an option
No idea what it has to do with Bono. What he did is completely legal and big business stuff and he is not getting a debt write off.
If the OP goes insolvent (which doesn't sound likely) the restrictions will apply to the pair as far as I can see.
fair enough but banks are doing deals behind closed doors, I'd see if something can be done here.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/08/write-off/
As for the argument that what Bono did is big business stuff, true but everyone should take the same approach when it comes to personal finance and not think that it's ok for a big business to do it but not for an individual.0 -
There are developers offloading billions in debt by insolvency.
The indignant people should be picketing their houses about lost taxes. It's different though if a Joe Soap neighbor gets a hand out it seems, that's an absolute disgrace.
If I owned my own house I would be thankful and wouldn't be concerned enough to scold peope on their housing debt issues.0 -
strongback wrote: »There are developers offloading billions in debt by insolvency.
The indignant people should be picketing their houses about lost taxes. It's different though if a Joe Soap neighbor gets a hand out it seems, that's an absolute disgrace.
If I owned my own house I would be thankful and wouldn't be concerned enough to scold peope on their housing debt issues.
again your point flounders.
Insolvency is not equal to a handout.
The sooner you grasp this (and its been explained to you a half dozen times in this thread already) the sooner you understand this the sooner you will understand other posters arguments.0 -
strongback wrote: »Fine Gael is my guess......you lack the social conscience to be a lefty. Enda would be proud of you.
No need for personalised comments. Keep it on topic and constructive.10 -
again your point flounders.
Insolvency is not equal to a handout.
The sooner you grasp this (and its been explained to you a half dozen times in this thread already) the sooner you understand this the sooner you will understand other posters arguments.
Again I will say the difference to the bank between a person going insolvent and a person getting a write down is negligible. The same amount of money is lost. Insolvency if anything creates more problems for the bank as they have to maintain the house until it can be sold.
My point, as it has always been it this, is it better to give a write down or to allow people to turn to insolvency.
I was talking to a developer last week who just came through UK insolvency with no conditions. He'll be a direct of a company very soon. He was over the moon, you'd nearly swear he won the lottery, offloading a few hundred million can do that to a person. He told me if he won the Lotto tomorrow they couldn't take a penny off him.
My best friend is moving to Newry as we speak. He can't take the pressure any more. Getting rid of his house and the debt problems associated with it would be like hitting the jackpot. Insolvency is his best option.
Offloading debt is offloading debt whether it is through a write down or insolvency.0 -
Advertisement
-
.strongback wrote: »Again I will say the difference to the bank between a person going insolvent and a person getting a write down is negligible. The same amount of money is lost. Insolvency if anything creates more problems for the bank as they have to maintain the house until it can be sold.
My point, as it has always been it this, is it better to give a write down or to allow people to turn to insolvency.
I understand your point but your point is flawed. Why ? If banks were to accept your thought process which isn't exactly neglible in its difference anyway as going insolvent will mean your creditors would get more in terms of selling your other assets as well as your house as opposed to what your advocating ie just getting back the case form the house sale.
If banks were to accept this it would mean that everybody would strategically default if in Neg equity, they would be fools not to. This would cause the banks to fail as they wouldn't have the capital to remain liquid in this situation.
It would also cause a monumental property crash as firesales happen, the result being that house prices crash and more people fall into neg equity, the result being these people now strategically default and so on so forth as the problem becomes self propetuating.
You are not thinking outside of the pure write down detail, perhaps as a result of you being involved in maths, the problem is your not looking at it from an economic perspective.
Its not about begrudgery its not about people wanting to throw others under the bus as mentioned previously in this thread its about maintaining a working economic society. Mass write downs to those that are not paying their mortgages does not solve the issue but causes a larger problem, one that the country couldn't not recover from.
again I refer to MARP there are mechanisms to deal with the situation. If MARP doesn't work then bankrupty will. Everything has to be case by case and blanket write downs is not the answer.
I was talking to a developer last week who just came through UK insolvency with no conditions. He'll be a direct of a company very soon. He was over the moon, you'd nearly swear he won the lottery, offloading a few hundred million can do that to a person. He told me if he won the Lotto tomorrow they couldn't take a penny off him.
My best friend is moving to Newry as we speak. He can't take the pressure any more. Getting rid of his house and the debt problems associated with it would be like hitting the jackpot. Insolvency is his best option.
Its only an option if hes insolvent. If hes not moving to Newry is pointless.
Offloading debt is offloading debt whether it is through a write down or insolvency.
To the individual its the same to the bank it is not. Nor are the economic consequences. They are poles apart0 -
The Spider wrote: »Nah not me I pay for health insurance, and yes if you don't screw the system you will be guaranteed it will screw you. Bank Guarantee being one example, House Tax being another, and various other cutbacks.
Ehh sorry to bust your little bubble there, but doesn't matter if you have health insurance or not if you are taken in as an emergency case you go into A&E and suffer the same fate as every one else.
Thus you can be stuck on a trolley while you wiat for a doctor to look at you.
Health insurance is really only benefical if you being booked into hospital on an elective, getting continous treatment or early access to consultants.
Ever thought why we have cutbacks ?
Ever thought if the state takes on even more debts then there will be even more cutbacks ?The Spider wrote: »And what happened a few people grumbled about it, so yeah you should absolutely do what you can and take what you can, to protect yourself and your family, no one else will and you'll be dead long enough so it's up to you to ensure you have the life you want.
So if I decide that to benefit my family I go around to your place and steal everything it is ok ?
Your sense of civic pride and responsibility is inspiring. :rolleyes:strongback wrote: »Bank losses are inevitable. It's just the way the government handle it from here, I personally believe they know about the loses coming down the pipe and have dealt with it. Some can't pay and some won't.
Do they really know about the totality of the losses ?
And are you prepared to make no distinction between the can't pay and won't pay.
Ever heard of a little thing called moral hazard ?
If you have carte blanche bailouts what is to stop more won't pays appearing ?
This country now makes me dispair and sometimes I do hope that the Troika never leaves because from reading some posts it appears we may be incapable of actually governing ourselves.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
So if I decide that to benefit my family I go around to your place and steal everything it is ok ?
Your sense of civic pride and responsibility is inspiring. :rolleyes:
Well not really, I haven't advocated doing anything illegal I've said do a deal with the banks, perfectly legal, as in take as much as they give you.
Nothing to do with civic pride, it annoys me when people think that individuals getting a deal on their debts is somehow going to mean everyone is hospital is going to end up on a trolley. We all know that's not what it's about, irish people are begrudgers and don't like the idea of someones debts being written off, they'd rather see them suffer forever.0 -
The Spider wrote: »Well not really, I haven't advocated doing anything illegal I've said do a deal with the banks, perfectly legal, as in take as much as they give you.
Nothing to do with civic pride, it annoys me when people think that individuals getting a deal on their debts is somehow going to mean everyone is hospital is going to end up on a trolley. We all know that's not what it's about, irish people are begrudgers and don't like the idea of someones debts being written off, they'd rather see them suffer forever.
You do get the profitability of the banks is tied into our economy right?
The more money they lose the more the country suffers. So yes it means loss of public services. It isn't a hypothetical.
People are not willing to take strategic defaulters and those manipulating the system. Are they suffering? I don't think they are, just trying to avoid taking responsibility for their own decisions. Nothing to do with suffering just wanting it to be targeted correctly.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »You do get the profitability of the banks is tied into our economy right?
The more money they lose the more the country suffers. So yes it means loss of public services. It isn't a hypothetical.
People are not willing to take strategic defaulters and those manipulating the system. Are they suffering? I don't think they are, just trying to avoid taking responsibility for their own decisions. Nothing to do with suffering just wanting it to be targeted correctly.
Yes I know we own the banks, etc. etc. However this has nothing to do with that people are using it as something to hang their opinion on and as the reason why there shouldn't be writedowns, but as has been pointed out before when the banks got their bailout writedowns were factored in, how could they not be?
It stands to reason that if the financial experts screwed up with their lending then it logically follows that they gave too much to people who couldn't afford it.
Nope all this stems from people who didn't buy and now don't want the people who did, to 'get away with it' while they waited around renting. A more valid argument is moral hazard as opposed to 'oh no our poor taxes!'
But ultimately there has to be writedowns for the economy to function, if someone is paying off a loan, and ok they can cover it, but they can't do much else, that money is not going into the economy, it's essentially going to pay a debt that's already covered by the bailout.
Nah you lads just don't like the idea of someone being left off even if they can't afford it, newsflash it happens every day of the week between businesses and people with other loans.0 -
I understand your point but your point is flawed. Why ? If banks were to accept your thought process which isn't exactly neglible in its difference anyway as going insolvent will mean your creditors would get more in terms of selling your other assets as well as your house as opposed to what your advocating ie just getting back the case form the house sale.
True. I agree write downs are better for the bank than insolvencies. That's a problem for the banks and the government.
If banks were to accept this it would mean that everybody would strategically default if in Neg equity, they would be fools not to. This would cause the banks to fail as they wouldn't have the capital to remain liquid in this situation.
As it is there is no problem manufacturing a default. Living in the UK for 17 months is the harder part but not that difficult if the reward is walking away from a mortgage a couple of hundred thousand in negative equity or more. The people who own BTL's will be even more tempted to jump. It's not like you would need another mortgage when there are perfectly good houses on offer for €100,000 that could be saved up for not requiring a mortgage.
It would also cause a monumental property crash as firesales happen, the result being that house prices crash and more people fall into neg equity, the result being these people now strategically default and so on so forth as the problem becomes self propetuating.
The monumental property crash has already happened. There is a massive firesale of commercial property going on as we speak. Defaults and repossessions will drive house prices down further before this is finished, we know this..
You are not thinking outside of the pure write down detail, perhaps as a result of you being involved in maths, the problem is your not looking at it from an economic perspective.
The economy is already shafted, it has been for 6 years and it will be for the next 6 years if the government do not do something about the personal debt that is strangling the country. They know this and have told the bank to get on with sorting out their loan book.
Its not about begrudgery its not about people wanting to throw others under the bus as mentioned previously in this thread its about maintaining a working economic society. Mass write downs to those that are not paying their mortgages does not solve the issue but causes a larger problem, one that the country couldn't not recover from.
Mortgage write downs, defaults and insolvency will all happen in my view.
again I refer to MARP there are mechanisms to deal with the situation. If MARP doesn't work then bankrupty will. Everything has to be case by case and blanket write downs is not the answer.
They won't make it easy to cheat the system but the UK is the back door. Apparently the British aren't too happy with the influx of insolvency seekers who I am told are also coming from place like Germany and Belgium for the 1 year deal. EU law stops the UK from blocking foreigners from going bankrupt on their soil. Apparently getting insolvency in the UK is difficult because of the need to establish "centre of interest" but for those who go into it fully committed to the process it can be achieved.
The attitude to bankruptcy is a lot different in the UK with people declaring bankruptcy for things we would see as trivial such as not repaying a car loan or credit card debt.
My friend going to Newry has made very little contribution to his mortgage in 3 years such is his financial difficulty. His bank wrote to him 2 months ago telling him he must put his house up for sale. He asked how the remaining value of the mortgage would be dealt with after the sale of the house ad he was told he would carry all the debt with the bank taking no pain. He and his wife put a For Sale sign up in the garden and packed up his belongings and two young kids and are headed for Newry. 17 months or 8 years in Ireland. He just wants it all to end.
......0 -
The Spider wrote: »
Nope all this stems from people who didn't buy and now don't want the people who did, to 'get away with it' while they waited around renting. A more valid argument is moral hazard as opposed to 'oh no our poor taxes!'
No it doesn't. I bought, I'm in NE & I pay my way and I expect others to aswell. Your trying to create a renter v owner divide that doesn't exist to suit your argument0 -
The Spider wrote: »Yes I know we own the banks, etc. etc. However this has nothing to do with that people are using it as something to hang their opinion on and as the reason why there shouldn't be writedowns, but as has been pointed out before when the banks got their bailout writedowns were factored in, how could they not be?
I'll tell you what if you can prove that the bailout was to compensate the banks for write down on personal mortgage going forward I'll agree this point. The problem is it didn't happen for all mortgages. The viability of the banks is based on the profits from mortgages with some allowances for defaulting not all. If you allow it for more than catered for another bailout will be required. You seem keen to spend any contingency as quickly as possible.The Spider wrote: »Nope all this stems from people who didn't buy and now don't want the people who did, to 'get away with it' while they waited around renting. A more valid argument is moral hazard as opposed to 'oh no our poor taxes!'
But ultimately there has to be writedowns for the economy to function, if someone is paying off a loan, and ok they can cover it, but they can't do much else, that money is not going into the economy, it's essentially going to pay a debt that's already covered by the bailout.
Nah you lads just don't like the idea of someone being left off even if they can't afford it, newsflash it happens every day of the week between businesses and people with other loans.
Love the way you know I am thinking something different to what I said. If you are going that route you might as well say I agree with you.:rolleyes:
So you think if people pay their mortgages all they are doing is paying back the debt accrued in the bailout by the bank. You do understand how ridiculous that sounds?
Banks charge business more interest and take out larger guarantees on business loans. The success rate is brought into the calculations. In personal mortgages the banks calculated the rate based on Irish law which meant you couldn't walk away from your loan. The changes to the law were pressured by the EU in order to allow banks reposes homes easier but also not to write off all debt to the customer. Debt forgiveness isn't going to work in the way you are suggesting.
I am in negative equity and paying why should I if I can hand back the keys and have no debt? The fact I will still owe money, won't be able to buy a house, new mortgage would cost more etc..0 -
No it doesn't. I bought, I'm in NE & I pay my way and I expect others to aswell. Your trying to create a renter v owner divide that doesn't exist to suit your argument
I did think about mentioning people who bought, but in my opinion (and I mean my opinion!) you are probably the exception.
Now truthfully tell me if you were told that new government policy meant that your debt was halved would you be happy?0 -
Advertisement
-
The Spider wrote: »I did think about mentioning people who bought, but in my opinion (and I mean my opinion!) you are probably the exception.
Now truthfully tell me if you were told that new government policy meant that your debt was halved would you be happy?
So I am an exception too as are my friends?
I would be happy if I won the lottery tomorrow but do I think everybody could win cash prizes and the lottery function?
The fact you see it as halving debt without any negative impact on the economy is just bizarre.0
Advertisement