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

hopgog

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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.

Rent control should be brought up to, I often wonder what renters plan to do once they hit OAP, my house is retirement plan but my mortage has alway been below market rent.

Atm I am on the dole mortage is €350 a month but would like to restructure it to 35 years so it would be €250 but they won't let cause I am not in arrears (maybe I should go into them, but like to pay my way,) I am not in neg equity but if sold I would lose 25k I used to do up the place and not sure if I would get rent allowance and current rents here are €500 a month.

OldNotWIse

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

Begrudgery is defined as "resentment of any person who has achieved wealth or success" - I don't see any achievement in getting free money.

Not everybody who opposes this is in "good financial health" though - that's what you are ignoring. Some of them are struggling with spiralling rent costs and have had to adapt and re-locate and are looking on at mortgage holders essentially getting free money so that they do not have to adapt. It really is that simple, and if you want to call it begrudgery then go ahead. A rose by any other name and all that.

OldNotWIse

hopgog wrote: »

Rent control should be brought up to, I often wonder what renters plan to do once they hit OAP, my house is retirement plan but my mortage has alway been below market rent.

Atm I am on the dole mortage is €350 a month but would like to restructure it to 35 years so it would be €250 but they won't let cause I am not in arrears (maybe I should go into them, but like to pay my way,) I am not in neg equity but if sold I would lose 25k I used to do up the place and not sure if I would get rent allowance and current rents here are €500 a month.

And turkeys should vote for Christmas.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

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

People who choose to be unemployed don't get the dole. You must show that you are actively looking for work in order to receive it.

Why are you ignoring the choices that people made to get into their respective situations now? You present their case as if they were utterly blameless in arriving into the scenarios that they find themselves in.

BoatMad

hopgog wrote: »

Rent control should be brought up to, I often wonder what renters plan to do once they hit OAP, my house is retirement plan but my mortage has alway been below market rent.

Atm I am on the dole mortage is €350 a month but would like to restructure it to 35 years so it would be €250 but they won't let cause I am not in arrears (maybe I should go into them, but like to pay my way,) I am not in neg equity but if sold I would lose 25k I used to do up the place and not sure if I would get rent allowance and current rents here are €500 a month.

good point re renters, no-ones seems to talk about what happens when they retire.!!

re your financial good health, good stuff. no need for you to worry about this debate, about unfortunates that are in such trouble.

hmmm

BoatMad wrote: »

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

Begrudery

I'll tell you what it is. We go to work. We pay tax. Some of us pay an awful lot of tax. The vast majority of us would prefer if we paid less tax and our families had more money, but we realise that certain services have to be paid for - so begrudgingly, we pay tax.

We don't want to see that tax money, that we've worked for, spent paying off the mortgages of other people. There's not some magic pool of free money waiting to be dipped into, and people like us are preventing you from accessing this.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

People who choose to be unemployed don't get the dole. You must show that you are actively looking for work in order to receive it.

Why are you ignoring the choices that people made to get into their respective situations now? You present their case as if they were utterly blameless in arriving into the scenarios that they find themselves in.

I did not mention " blame" , blame is a moral argument and is a morass. in a distress , both lender and borrower share responsibility

most people , say living in the greater dublin area, couldn't " choose " a house price, they were forced to buy at the prevailing market rates . Equally upon application too a bank , they were provided with a loan facility that the bank was happy to advance.

Choice was constrained. I m sure any borrower , given a choice would have preferred to buy that 2006 semi for 200K then the 600K they were forced to stump up.

Equally I could use your argument to say that unalloyed brickies, in a housing crash, shouldn't get dole as, they made a bad choice in their profession !!!!

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

You present their case as if they were utterly blameless in arriving into the scenarios that they find themselves in.

Also that there is already a defined way for them to get out if they really are in dire straits: bankruptcy.

hopgog

BoatMad wrote: »

good point re renters, no-ones seems to talk about what happens when they retire.!!

re your financial good health, good stuff. no need for you to worry about this debate, about unfortunates that are in such trouble.

Well for the last year on the dole I struggle with the mortgage but don't do anything but pay my mortage and bills. If they let me restructure till I hit 65 I could get by better but as I won't go into arrears they won't entertain it.

going into arrears seems like a good plan atm though

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

most people , say living in the greater dublin area, couldn't " choose " a house price, they were forced to buy at the prevailing market rates .

And people who did not buy keep telling you: no-one forced them to buy at any price.

BoatMad

hmmm wrote: »

I'll tell you what it is. We go to work. We pay tax. Some of us pay an awful lot of tax. The vast majority of us would prefer if we paid less tax and our families had more money, but we realise that certain services have to be paid for - so begrudgingly, we pay tax.

We don't want to see that tax money, that we've worked for, spent paying off the mortgages of other people. There's not some magic pool of free money waiting to be dipped into, and people like us are preventing you from accessing this.

me, Im a mortgage holder paying my normal mortgage.

its a democracy, if you don't like current policy vote against it. Thats all you have to argue with. After that its a decision elected governments take.

if you pay " an awful lot of tax", thank yourself , you have the income and associated lifestyle that such income provides

murphaph

BoatMad wrote: »

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.

Silly post. I've no problem with a social safety net as exists here in Germany. Here though you'd be laughed out of it if you suggested paying someone's mortgage could be seen as a form of welfare. Over here even if you're mortgage free you would be facing leaving your home if welfare determine that you only need x m² to live in but you have more as they will insist on you selling and downsizing and then using the cash to live on until it's gone, at which point you can apply for welfare again. Fair enough system?

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And people who did not buy keep telling you: no-one forced them to buy at any price.

The fact is , leaving aside property speculators, Ordinary people , were trying to get into the property ladder, in a market that had been rising for nearly 6-8 years. many were desperate to acquire a house within their means. ( at that time). Banks were awash with money and " delighted " to service that need.

Its not a simple as you present it. its a failure of both lender, borrower and the lack of regulation .

It will never be allowed to happen again , as the recent central bank intervention has shown

But we still need to help those in trouble, ( with appropriate constraints etc )

stevedublin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And people who did not buy keep telling you: no-one forced them to buy at any price.

and no-one forced people who did not buy (but could have) to not buy.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

I did not mention " blame" , blame is a moral argument and is a morass. in a distress , both lender and borrower share responsibility

most people , say living in the greater dublin area, couldn't " choose " a house price, they were forced to buy at the prevailing market rates . Equally upon application too a bank , they were provided with a loan facility that the bank was happy to advance.

Choice was constrained. I m sure any borrower , given a choice would have preferred to buy that 2006 semi for 200K then the 600K they were forced to stump up.

Choice is always constrained. How on earth is that a valid argument?

Why should Mr A's personal debt have anything to do with Mr B?

BoatMad

murphaph wrote: »

Silly post. I've no problem with a social safety net as exists here in Germany. Here though you'd be laughed out of it if you suggested paying someone's mortgage could be seen as a form of welfare. Over here even if you're mortgage free you would be facing leaving your home if welfare determine that you only need x m² to live in but you have more as they will insist on you selling and downsizing and then using the cash to live on until it's gone, at which point you can apply for welfare again. Fair enough system?

sure , over here , you'd be laughed out of it, if you suggested that Irish taxpayers money, was to be used to bailout bond holders , a majority of which where German banks and pension funds……., oh, no , wait a minute ……

ps: the flaw in your argument is that smaller ( or any housing ) isn't available

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

its a democracy, if you don't like current policy vote against it. Thats all you have to argue with. After that its a decision elected governments take.

But we are not arguing with current policy, we are arguing about whether a rumoured change to current policy is a good idea.

RecordStraight

hopgog wrote: »

Save a deposit get your own mortgage

...and then default on it. People who pay their own way are becoming an endangered species in this country.

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

But we still need to help those in trouble

Here you go:

https://www.isi.gov.ie/

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

Choice is always constrained. How on earth is that a valid argument?

Why should Mr A's personal debt have anything to do with Mr B?

it doesnt, thats exactly what I said. whatever your financial position is , is nothing to do with me. If the elected Gov decides to support ( you) , again its not related to me.

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Here you go:

https://www.isi.gov.ie/

hasn't worked, because banks have veto.

Bankrupty is also not a solution . Are you saying people should be thrown onto the street .

BoatMad

RecordStraight wrote: »

...and then default on it. People who pay their own way are becoming an endangered species in this country.

nonsense, the number of mortgages in distress that might be affected by this measure, is very very small, compared to the huge number of mortgages performing adequately

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

hasn't worked, because banks have veto.

Bankrupty is also not a solution . Are you saying people should be thrown onto the street .

Why is bankruptcy not a solution?

Isn't it what often happens in business, and weren't you scolding us earlier for being OK with write-offs in business but not in property?

So now you're OK with bankruptcy in business, but not in property, yet still somehow it's you scolding us, not the other way around?

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

nonsense, the number of mortgages in distress that might be affected by this measure, is very very small,

So the number of bankrupties we are talking about is small, grand.

Drumpot

Polo_Mint wrote: »

If I receive a piece of paper which clearly states the following

YOUR HOME IS AT RISK IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP PAYMENTS ON A MORTGAGE OR ANY OTHER LOAN SECURED ON IT.

I then Sign that piece of paper, I know EXACTLY what i am doing.

Alot of people dont seem to grasp this.

If my business doesn't make enough money for me to make a living it closes. If banks and certain large companies get in trouble, they get bailed out . .

A lot of people don't seem to grasp this hypocrisy of a failed banking/economic system that only survived because it got taxpayers money that nearly bankrupt the whole system . . Its a failed system, it doesn't work. Its only in existence because everybody is too vested in it to let it go down!

You cant speak of individuals in financial trouble as though the entire system is flawless or adheres to its own principles. The entire economic community can seldom agree on certain economic principles, yet some people can speak absolutely on a financial solution to this as though its just an accounting practise ?!

As stated many times, its ridiculous how upset some people get about certain welfares, considering the crap they let go with governments (every government), financial institutions and the general capitalist consumerist structure that is a horrible joke at this stage.

People focus on the most vulnerable (yes you are emotionally vulnerable if you are losing your home) because they are an easier target. The entire system is corrupt and broken, yet there has been a thread of whiners focusing on people struggling to pay their mortgage, as if this is the single most important factor effecting the economy. .

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why is bankruptcy not a solution?

Isn't it what often happens in business, and weren't you scolding us earlier for being OK with write-offs in business but not in property?

So now you're OK with bankruptcy in business, but not in property, yet still somehow it's you scolding us, not the other way around?

business don't go bankrupt. only People can be bankrupted, Business can be liquidated , ( voluntary or forced) or placed in the hands of a receiver ( the two are different )

throwing families out of homes to justify a " balance Sheet" in a bank, is ridiculous

personally the banks having been capitalised to accommodate losses, should just in my opinion, write down these loans ( with clawback provisions) , but whats happening is an attempt by the banks to have their bread buttered on both sides

Zubeneschamali

Drumpot wrote: »

If my business doesn't make enough money for me to make a living it closes. If banks and certain large companies get in trouble, they get bailed out . .

Not the same thing - the banks were kept open (because they are necessary), but the people who owned the banks got wiped out - see who owns the shares in AIB now, for example.

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

personally the banks having been capitalised to accommodate losses, should just in my opinion, write down these loans

I agree: repossess the property, sell it for what they can get, write off the rest of the debt using the money we already gave them.

The property market gets thousands of houses for sale at reasonable prices, the issue is resolved and the banks books are in good shape afterwards, and the poor sod who took out the silly mortgage is out from under a mountain of debt. Winners all round.

Renegade Mechanic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I agree: repossess the property, sell it for what they can get, write off the rest of the debt using the money we already gave them.

The property market gets thousands of houses for sale at reasonable prices, the issue is resolved and the banks books are in good shape afterwards, and the poor sod who took out the silly mortgage is out from under a mountain of debt. Winners all round.

Banks will get less. They'll never settle for less unless refusing to do so, costs them more.

Zubeneschamali

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Banks will get less.

Yes, I think the reason Irish arrears looks so appalling is that the banks have been sitting and waiting for a market recovery to erase negative equity (as far as possible) before they repossess and crystallize their book losses into actual money losses.

In other words, they are doing exactly what suckers did in the boom: grab property and hope it doubles in value quick enough to pay for itself.