Local hotel owner praised for cancelling auction of family farm.

expectationlost

"family farm" is there such a thing its business isn't it not just a family

ScumLord

comongethappy wrote: »

As someone who sees distressed mortgages every day at work I can tell you with certainty that (for the bank I work at) the 'won't pays' far outnumber the 'can't pay'.

It is wrong to renege on your debt, if you can pay it you should.

Indeed, why should the borrower get off scot free?

The borrower isn't getting off scot free, they pay out a considerable sum to be told by the bank that the money they have paid means nothing, where is the rest of it. I'm not arguing the bank shouldn't get paid or the people owing money shouldn't pay, I'm just saying a family shouldn't be thrown out of a house just to satisfy a banks ledger. The banks have contorted the system wildly in their favour and actively brought about the collapse by their actions.

The only reason people can't pay is because they bought into the banks mantra that everything was rosy and always would be. So feck the banks, they can wait for their money and next time maybe they'll be more cautious with their money.

the_syco

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When the people saved the banks' asses by paying THEIR debts, it hardly seems unreasonable to demand that they cut those people some slack.

Why the f**k should those who can pay their loans reward those who cannot repay their loans?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

*coughcoughbondholderscoughcough*

Andiftheywerenotpaidwherewouldwegetloansfrom?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Presumably they'd collapse, and good f*ckig riddance to them.

And again, where would people get their loans from?

And before you say something along the lines of "foreign bankers", who in their right mind would lend to a nation who never repays their loans?

maryishere wrote: »

when evicting someone in a county where bloody apartments built 8 years ago now only sell for a quarter of their sale price then

Only of any relevance if the person who bought the apartment wanted to sell it at a later stage. They house purchaser gambled, and they lost.

maryishere wrote: »

when elderly pensioners who had their life savings in shares in the bank had that wiped out

You gamble to make money. Unfortunately, high reward comes with high risk. They could have bought lower risk to gain less, but unfortunately this didn't happen.

maryishere wrote: »

I cannot understand why people, whose children have had to go to Australia (and I met many of them there) , have not risen up against the bankers.

A VERY nice social welfare package has so far stopped the rioting. Bring it down to the same level as the brits, and you may see some of them getting some protests together.

maryishere wrote: »

the pain should be shared between both parties which made mistakes in the boom.

I assume you are including all those that bought houses and have paid them off, yes?

end of the road

comongethappy wrote: »

As someone who sees distressed mortgages every day at work I can tell you with certainty that (for the bank I work at) the 'won't pays' far outnumber the 'can't pay'.

yeah, i bet they do, wouldn't be good for a bank employee to admit that the bank f//ked up up now would it

comongethappy wrote: »

Indeed, why should the borrower get off scot free?

if they are to lose everything then so should the bank, thats of course if you believe the whole thing is a gamble which many do in relation to the borrower but funnily enough not the bank

end of the road

the_syco wrote: »

Why the f**k should those who can pay their loans reward those who cannot repay their loans?

rewarding? really? because someone else payed in full does not mean those who find themselves being unable to pay or pay as much but who are willing to do a deal with the bank shouldn't be cut some slack, banks who were bailed out by the tax payer deserve nothing to be easy for them, they need to be made to realize hard that they cannot be able to bring the country down and lend reclessly.

the_syco wrote: »

Only of any relevance if the person who bought the apartment wanted to sell it at a later stage. They house purchaser gambled, and they lost.

so did the bank, if the house purchaser gambled then so did the bank

the_syco wrote: »

You gamble to make money. Unfortunately, high reward comes with high risk. They could have bought lower risk to gain less, but unfortunately this didn't happen.

the bank could have given out less and did more checks, but they didn't

Unknown Soldier

Reading all of the above one can happily state that Ireland is full of self serving b**terds. Moral compasses only have the "me" as North.


I blame the general upbringing and religion.