Government to pay mortgage arrears *Mod Note in Opening Post*

OldNotWIse

jon1981 wrote: »

Big bucket of tar you have there...

You can use it for re-surfacing the road outside someone's free house if you want :pac: Might as well get the lot.

BoatMad

hmmm wrote: »

Are you proposing we repay all those people who bought bank shares? How about people who took up jobs that were dependent on a property bubble, do we repay them for their time on the dole?

Take some responsibility for yourself, and stop trying to make the rest of us pay for your decisions.

Again you and others , are extending arguments beyond what is being discussed, this is not about recouping people monetary losses ( as would be the case for bank shares etc) . This is about providing supports for people in trouble to avoid them being evicted.

Ive no trouble if the state puts a lein on the house or seeks future clawback etc.

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

In a business failure, both sides take a hit, the banks however, while being capitalised to accommodate expected losses, now what to actually recover all the debts , while or course holding onto the capital advanced to handle such losses.

No problem: let the buyer declare bankruptcy or insolvency, and the banks can write off a lot of the loan. This does not require yet another system for funneling taxpayers money into the banks to keep poor people in houses they cannot afford.

OldNotWIse

BoatMad wrote: »

The attempt at moral equivalence is ridiculous. Your situation is your situation , if you are deserving of support , then make that case

what is nonsense , is to argue that merely because you somehow " suffered" then others should suffer also. Theres a name for that its called begrudgery

What support are renters getting?

Begrudgery's distant cousin is called a freeloader....

BoatMad

Polo_Mint wrote: »

Are you saying I should share in my neighbours Personal Debt?

yes and no. your taxes are used for a variety of societal good reasons, many of which, you might not personally agree with, this is one of them, its a disadvantage of democracy.:)

hmmm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

There is also bitterness and anger from those who could not "extend" themselves beyond renting and are now being expected to shoulder the responsibilities of those who did.

It's interesting that those people fighting repossessions say that they don't want to rent because it offers no security - yet I've haven't heard a pip out of them to try and pressure politicians to put that security in place.

On the one hand I'd say it's because a lot of them are landlords, or fancy themselves as landlords in the future. On the other hand it's yet another indicator that renters are seen as a lower social class, and none of these people really expect that they'll ever have to lower their status to that extent.

Calina

BoatMad wrote: »

Again you and others , are extending arguments beyond what is being discussed, this is not about recouping people monetary losses

I don't know how you can claim this. The tax payer paying part of the mortgage to prevent eviction in this case very much is about recouping a monetary lost.

jon1981

jon1981 wrote: »

There's a lot of moral high horsiness going on here by the "clever" people in here that did not over extend themselves. Yet it's forgotten that the rules of the game allowed people to enter into a vulnerable positions and likewise the bank...who is more wrong here?

Well it's absolutely not the people who didn't over-extend themselves in any case!

BoatMad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What support are renters getting?

Begrudgery's distant cousin is called a freeloader....

Rent supplement etc

a freeloader is someone gaining from this process, ( rather like saying that someone on the " dole" is "gaining" in the process). Clearly the distressed householder is not gaining per se.

All that is being considered in infact a form of " income support " , a situation that is quite common in many areas of this states social welfare code.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it's absolutely not the people who didn't over-extend themselves in any case!

of course, they are in effect not a party to this situation at all, and therefor this argument is relevant to them.

OldNotWIse

hmmm wrote: »

It's interesting that those people fighting repossessions say that they don't want to rent because it offers no security - yet I've haven't heard a pip out of them to try and pressure politicians to put that security in place.

On the one hand I'd say it's because a lot of them are landlords, or fancy themselves as landlords in the future. On the other hand it's yet another indicator that renters are seen as a lower social class, and none of these people really expect that they'll ever have to lower their status to that extent.

Of course renters are seen as a lower class. People couldn't wait to get onto the property ladder. It was the be all and end all in the early noughties. I know people who bought properties with their siblings and are still living at home - they just wanted to have a house, not to live in but just to have. They just assumed it would double in value overnight.

And we all heard the mantra about rent being "dead money"....

hmmm

BoatMad wrote: »

All that is being considered in infact a form of " income support " , a situation that is quite common in many areas of this states social welfare code.

We have old people lying on trollies in hospitals. It's quite disgusting that anyone should be floating the idea of spending money on "income support" for people who can't or won't pay a mortgage.

relax carry on

There are lots of steps to go through with lenders before those in arrears end up in situation where their house(s) are at risk of repossession. If the individuals involved have exhausted all possible legal means of meeting the debt they willingly took on why on earth should society as a whole subsidise their personal debt? Will the state take this to its ultimate conclusion and provide houses for everyone in the state funded by increased taxation or yet more borrowings?

BoatMad

Calina wrote: »

I don't know how you can claim this. The tax payer paying part of the mortgage to prevent eviction in this case very much is about recouping a monetary lost.

I see no reason that any payments made to support a mortgage holder in distress cannot be subject to a clawback arrangement in future. Hence no specific monetary gain should accrue to the receiver of such benefit.

OldNotWIse

BoatMad wrote: »

Rent supplement etc

a freeloader is someone gaining from this process, ( rather like saying that someone on the " dole" is "gaining" in the process). Clearly the distressed householder is not gaining per se.

All that is being considered in infact a form of " income support " , a situation that is quite common in many areas of this states social welfare code.

Let's wait and see if the income thresholds and handout amounts are the same.

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

Again you and others , are extending arguments beyond what is being discussed, this is not about recouping people monetary losses ( as would be the case for bank shares etc) . This is about providing supports for people in trouble to avoid them being evicted.

This difference seems to be because the word "eviction" is a magic word in Ireland, which conjures up votes and other peoples money.

BoatMad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Let's wait and see if the income thresholds and handout amounts are the same.

don't quite see how thats relevant , thats merely detail

OldNotWIse

BoatMad wrote: »

don't quite see how thats relevant , thats merely detail

Er...you're the one who brought up the issue of rent supplement as some kind of renters equivalent to the proposed bailout

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

of course, they are in effect not a party to this situation at all, and therefor this argument is relevant to them.

typo?

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

yes and no. your taxes are used for a variety of societal good reasons, many of which, you might not personally agree with, this is one of them, its a disadvantage of democracy.:)

This is not one of them, and any party that seriously adopts this as a policy is going to learn all about disadvantages of democracy.

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is not one of them, and any party that seriously adopts this as a policy is going to learn all about disadvantages of democracy.

I doubt that , they mightn't get your vote, but not everyone is as unsympathetic

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

typo?

yes sorry the argument is irelevant to them, rather like arguing that if you bought croissants in Tesco at twice the price , the customers in Lidl should be forced to return and stump up the difference !!

OldNotWIse

BoatMad wrote: »

I doubt that , they mightn't get your vote, but not everyone is as unsympathetic

There are an awful lot of people struggling to keep up with rent repayments or have moved back in with parents (some with their own children) because of spiralling rents who are also "unsympathetic" in this regard.

OldNotWIse

BoatMad wrote: »

yes sorry the argument is irelevant to them, rather like arguing that if you bought croissants in Tesco at twice the price , the customers in Lidl should be forced to return and stump up the difference !!

what

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

yes sorry the argument is irelevant to them

But if we hold true that they are irrelevant in the issuing of the loan between the bank and the mortgage holder, then can we not suggest that they ought to therefore be irrelevant in the context of the covering the cost of the loan between the bank and the mortgage holder?

So now, we see that someone suggests that Government funds are used to cover shortfalls in the payments, that now makes them counter-parties to the whole 'affair' and thus extremely relevant.

The idea of using Government funds is extending the 'blame net' onto those who 'absolutely should not be help accountable' given that they had nothing to do with the initial issuance, going so far as to avoid being caught up in the 'game'.

murphaph

BoatMad wrote: »

I fond it hard to fathom, the argument, that people that are financially capable of meeting their debts, seen to wish that those, for a variety of circumstances, that cannot, should be subject to some sort of victorian system of punishment.

many people got into trouble, often as a result of joblessness or unforeseen reductions in income. suggesting that renting is an option, given the current legal position of rental properties is a ridiculous situation.

IN business , debt restructuring , including write-downs, write-offs or write -forwards are everyday occurrences.

The morality of some people is truly questionable here

So campaign for better tenancy law, not free money from your fellow citizens.

If we really go down this road almost everyone will be renting within a couple of generations as no sane bank will provide any mortgages.

BoatMad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

what

its a simple case of begrudgery (sic). simply because (i) (one) is in financial good health ( for whatever reason) , I don't want those that are not so lucky to gain an advantage that I haven't received.

( hence the croissants advantage argument)

Thats all the opponents of this measure are expressing , I am not receiving " an advantage " so I don't want (you ) receiving it also

I pay tax, I don't get children's allowance, hence no-one should get it, type of argument .

Begrudery

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

its a simple case of begrudgery (sic). simply because (i) (one) is in financial good health ( for whatever reason) , I don't want those that are not so lucky to gain an advantage that I haven't received.

( hence the croissants advantage argument)

Thats all the opponents of this measure are expressing , I am not receiving " an advantage " so I don't want (you ) receiving it also

I pay tax, I don't get children's allowance, hence no-one should get it, type of argument .

Begrudery

Absolutely not.

It's "I put my wages in the bank, you bet yours on Red and lost, why should I give you some of mine"?

Choice, consequences etc.

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

I doubt that , they mightn't get your vote, but not everyone is as unsympathetic

Since the crash we've heard lots of gossip about negative equity and helping folks in arrears, but we haven't seen any government action.

I think the reason is that journalists and media folk are far more interested in negative equity and mortgage arrears among upper-middle class people and their children than any politician is.

BoatMad

murphaph wrote: »

So campaign for better tenancy law, not free money from your fellow citizens.

If we really go down this road almost everyone will be renting within a couple of generations as no sane bank will provide any mortgages.

Nonsense , reducto ab abdurdum argument,

This is a temporary measure consistent with the situation at hand.

" free money " , so I should be campaigning against the dole, the children's allowance, rent supplements, medical cards, none of which I get, wow , what a far right winger you are, I hope you r following your leader Ted Cruz.