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
Government to pay mortgage arrears *Mod Note in Opening Post*
Options
Comments
-
wow! the Judge is taking the piss. ah, shure go on, pay a little.All cases where the applicant sought to proceed with the order for possession and the borrower was present were adjourned. In one such case no payments had been made since April 2009 and the County Registrar emphasised the importance of making some repayments. Some quotes from the County Registrar from various cases included:
"Everyone needs to show goodwill; some repayments need to be made."
"Nothing possible without engagement; engagement involves making some repayments."
"There needs to be a level of engagement; make interim payments."
"It is helpful if one makes interim payments; it doesn't have to be all or nothing."
"I have little interest in making orders for possession but there has to be engagement."
"Some money must be paid; take it one step at a time."
"I am concerned to see few repayments; some repayments have to be made on a regular basis."
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2015/04/cork-county-registrars-list-civil.html
people paying their mortgages or trying to get on the housing ladder should be up in arms!!0 -
Sergio Georgini wrote: »If they have a job or jobs, why would they be straight over to social housing and the dole? What's your/their aversion to private rentals?
Also, you seem to have missed my questions re: the family you keep using as an example -
The private rental market is no solution, most rents are above current mortgage values for equivalent houses. secondly there is a huge shortage of suitable accommodation and thirdly there is the issue of long term security0 -
without a breakdown of what happened in each case , you cannot make such a conclusion
behind all this are ordinary people , struggling to keep a house over their head and sometimes failing
Ah now come on, you cant be serious after reading that.
Hard for some of them to keep the roof over their head here in Ireland when their now actually living in Poland, Colarado or even Australia in some of those cases.....and pocketing the rent also I see in some!0 -
it amusing to listen to people arguing banks should get their money, when I suspect the same people were probably screaming about the bank bailout
In both cases their motivation is most likely the same: refusal to use public money (ie their tax money) to finance private losses (being the loss of greedy bankers or people who borrowed much more than they should have because they were sure prices could only go up).
Keeping in mind that most banks are publicly owned, each cent a bank doesn't get is a cent paid by taxpayers to a private individual.0 -
Their motivation is most likely the same: refusal to use public money (ie their tax money) to finance private losses (being the loss of greedy bankers or people who borrowed much more than they should have).
Keeping in mind that most banks are publicly owned, each cent a bank doesn't get is a cent paid by taxpayers to a private individual.
firslty I agree, the solution to lenders providing unsustainable loans, is that the lender goes out of business. In any normal view of business, the losses sustained by the banks on their " lending business" should have forced them out of business. another bank would then pick up the loan book assets at a knock down price and in fact would have resulted in a correction of LTV
there is no one to one correlation between banks losses and taxpayers cash. In a fiat currency banks create loans essentially out of thin air. The gov borrowed cash to recapitalise the banks, its the ECB that provides liquidity. The state , with the exception of Anglo and possibly PTSB, will in fact realise a return on its " investment"
No tax payers money was actually put into any bank.0 -
Advertisement
-
without a breakdown of what happened in each case , you cannot make such a conclusion
behind all this are ordinary people , struggling to keep a house over their head and sometimes failing
there are none so blind as those who will not see.
These people are chancers. And they're getting away with it.0 -
Ah now come on, you cant be serious after reading that.
Hard for some of them to keep the roof over their head here in Ireland when their now actually living in Poland, Colarado or even Australia in some of those cases.....and pocketing the rent also I see in some!
look your using hard and edge cases to justify the generality. No-one is suggesting that people that have absconded or failed to engage with their lender over a long period of time, should get automatic support.
WHat we are talking about here is looking at real genuine cases , where a subvention would keep families in ordinary homes. this is no different to family income or rental subsidiary thinking.0 -
-
-
Are you really standing on this statement??
in essence yes. if one examines the funding mechanism, and accepts that its likely that the loans will be rolled over for ever , I think the net net position will mean that no taxpayers were hurt in the making of this bank crisis.
we got hurt because of current deficit borrowing , however and thats why our taxers increased.0 -
Advertisement
-
in essence yes. if one examines the funding mechanism, and accepts that its likely that the loans will be rolled over for ever , I think the net net position will mean that no taxpayers were hurt in the making of this bank crisis.
we got hurt because of current deficit borrowing , however and thats why our taxers increased.
OK, well I won't discuss further then as I (and I think most people) completely disagree with this.
None only we (taxpayers) paid hard cash for Anglo, we also assumed ownership of most of the banks.
Now I don't think anyone sees this as a permanent move and they will have to be privatized again. Any hard loss their are taking now on bad debts would impact their balance sheets and make them impossible to sell back to private investors. ie the taxpayer is screwed.0 -
see my post. its easy enough to seperate out the chancers, but 30,000 mortgages in difficulty are not all chancers.
Its not the role of the government to pick winners and losers in the debt forgiveness lottery. Any scheme to do this would be expensive to set up and inevitably corruptible.
Ireland has a welfare system that provides for those with a housing need. Ireland has a bankruptcy system for those with debts that they cannot repay.
If the government want to propose alternative arrangements for these eventualities for a small subset of the population they should transparently give the reasons why this is necessary, the costs of introducing and administering the new system and a convincing argument of what the consequences of the new system will be in the future.in essence yes. if one examines the funding mechanism, and accepts that its likely that the loans will be rolled over for ever , I think the net net position will mean that no taxpayers were hurt in the making of this bank crisis.
we got hurt because of current deficit borrowing , however and thats why our taxers increased.
Currency is fiat but still represents a "share" of the nations wealth. Creation of money as done by central banks dilutes the currency in the same way as it would for a backed currency. The fact that it is fiat merely means we can run consecutive deficits for longer but the fundamental problem of insolvency is only delayed by this. It is not resolved.0 -
That may be your definition , but its clearly nots the GovernmentsIts not the role of the government to pick winners and losers in the debt forgiveness lottery.
.Any scheme to do this would be expensive to set up and inevitably corruptible
we have the Insolvency agency , they will have a clear understanding of the solutions, if one of them is mortgage supplement , I see no issue in that being administered
Yes rent supplemental and a totally totally inadequate supply of local authority housing. WHat you are suggesting is that the Gov allow people to be thrown on the street, to then pay to rehouse them at the tax payers expense, while they were originally in a suitable house in the first place.Ireland has a welfare system that provides for those with a housing need.
All you are doing is suggesting vengeance as a way of solving problemsIreland has a bankruptcy system for those with debts that they cannot repay.
Yes and no, bankruptcy in itself is not a solution to all cases.If the government want to propose alternative arrangements for these eventualities for a small subset of the population they should transparently give the reasons why this is necessary, the costs of introducing and administering the new system and a convincing argument of what the consequences of the new system will be in the future.
agreed, but it is the stated policy of the state that those in housing need should be accommodated. This is just one additional way.Currency is fiat but still represents a "share" of the nations wealth. Creation of money as done by central banks dilutes the currency in the same way as it would for a backed currency. The fact that it is fiat merely means we can run consecutive deficits for longer but the fundamental problem of insolvency is only delayed by this. It is not resolved.
Fiat currency has nothing to do with a nations wealth and look up money creation , including broad money supply before going any further
in a fiat currency no-ones cares about repayment as the money was ultimately created from nothing. The commercial gain is in the interest paid, which can be regarded as the "cost" to allow free money to be created.0 -
OK, well I won't discuss further then as I (and I think most people) completely disagree with this.
None only we (taxpayers) paid hard cash for Anglo, we also assumed ownership of most of the banks.
Now I don't think anyone sees this as a permanent move and they will have to be privatized again. Any hard loss their are taking now on bad debts would impact their balance sheets and make them impossible to sell back to private investors. ie the taxpayer is screwed.
The banks were actually re-capitalised from a combination of the national pension reserve, which required no borrowing and the promissory note, which was in essence a money creation exercise
While Anglo is a lost cause, the likely hood is the other loans to the banks will return a profit
people disagree, because very very few people actually understand how broad money supply works. They have a bank overdraft view of ecomonics. The big stuff doesnt work like that at all.
The banks are returning to profitability , a business is sold( and valued ) on future earnings not on past losses.
( ask yourself this, do banks borrow the money , that they lend to you)0 -
We personally were victims of this type of behaviour when we received a knock on the door from the sheriff. Our landlord had been pocketing the rent for years. Courtesy of the paperwork handed to us at the front door we discovered that our rent was more than double what his mortgage repayments were, and even more frustrating was he had put the rent up the month before! Ok, some will rightly say thats not our concern, we were paying for a service. At that the time, no one would give us any help or advice as repossessions were only just starting, or we would have remained in situ. Instead we lost our deposit and 3/4s of a month's rent. The landlord was a strategic defaulter, and within the building of 40-odd apartments, over the last 18mths, it was discovered that there were another 11 strategic defaulters. There was one owner occupier, but no sympathy going her way either as she drove a 2013 reg Polo and went on more holidays in the three years we lived there than I've been on in my entire life. She couldnt afford the mortgage but she could afford a holiday every three months.
We were also saving for our first home, and we are now owners, with our mortgage being 2/3s of our previous rent.
I know there are some honest families who are struggling to pay their mortgage, and are in arrears, but there are also others struggling to pay, and they're not in arrears. By providing taxpayers money to settle arrears or to fund restructures, you are assisting bad financial decisions. If the bank refuses to restructure it, then they need to let it go. The property can then be sold to a family who can afford the payments. I see absolutely no reason why a family struggling to find a property to buy should be overlooked in favour of a family who cannot meet their financial commitments.0 -
I see absolutely no reason why a family struggling to find a property to buy should be overlooked in favour of a family who cannot meet their financial commitments.
that's it in a nutshell;
"It's my home" - well, no it's not, you haven't paid for it
"well, I got here first and so I'm keeping it"
Would such logic be applied to the rental market - no it wouldn't0 -
isn't it easy for you to sit and pronounce " judgement" on the whole mortgage arrears issue.
Isn't it easily to spout " hang em and flog em" type statements, without any personal experience of such distress.
the lack of humanity astounds me.
I've got personal experience of it, as my parents were forced into the same situation in the 1980s. We all survived, no one died, and actually Dad now owns three houses - one to live in, two as his pension plan!
Subsidising those who cannot pay their bills at the expense of those who can yet are forced to rent while those in arrears sit in houses they cannot afford is WRONG.
If you go and buy a car on hire purchase, then cant afford the repayments, they take the car back. "But I need the car to get to work" "Well sir, catch the bus". There is always a solution, it might be one you like, but there is one. If the bank doesnt agree to the restructure, move out and let someone who can afford the property move in.0 -
I know there are some honest families who are struggling to pay their mortgage, and are in arrears, but there are also others struggling to pay, and they're not in arrears. By providing taxpayers money to settle arrears or to fund restructures, you are assisting bad financial decisions. If the bank refuses to restructure it, then they need to let it go. The property can then be sold to a family who can afford the payments. I see absolutely no reason why a family struggling to find a property to buy should be overlooked in favour of a family who cannot meet their financial commitments.
What happens if your industry you work in goes bust and you can't pay you 2/3 mortage, do you think you should be chucked out without getting to restructure so now the next young family can take your home And your kid get uprooted from their school and friends.
Proper restructuring should be looked at only then should houses get repo'd, government should never pay arrears though.0 -
I know there are some honest families who are struggling to pay their mortgage, and are in arrears, but there are also others struggling to pay, and they're not in arrears. By providing taxpayers money to settle arrears or to fund restructures, you are assisting bad financial decisions. If the bank refuses to restructure it, then they need to let it go. The property can then be sold to a family who can afford the payments. I see absolutely no reason why a family struggling to find a property to buy should be overlooked in favour of a family who cannot meet their financial commitments.
Yes and it is not beyond the wit of a professional to carry out an audit and to seperate the cant pay from won't pay. Nobody is arguing that " strategic defaulters " should be helped. SO LETS PARK THAT ONE.By providing taxpayers money to settle arrears or to fund restructures, you are assisting bad financial decisions
Yes those "bad" decisions were a combination of both lender and borrower. The state has massively supported the " bad financial decisions " of the lenders. Are you saying it should not therefore also assist the " bad decisions " of the borrowers.I see absolutely no reason why a family struggling to find a property to buy should be overlooked in favour of a family who cannot meet their financial commitments
I see no logic in this argument, whatsoever, You , or others , in looking to buy a property are not in any way inconvenienced by the state aiding those in genuine distress. you are not being " overlooked".
The kernel of that argument is begrudery, i.e. the anger that someone is " getting something" that you are not.
Its the same as the nonsense of the current commentary of trackers versus variable interest rate whingers0 -
What happens if your industry you work in goes bust and you can't pay you 2/3 mortage, do you think you should be chucked out without getting to restructure so now the next young family can take your home And your kid get uprooted from their school and friends.
Proper restructuring should be looked at only then should houses get repo'd, government should never pay arrears though.
It would be. Almost always. Attempts to engage with lenders and restructure debt obligations are looked for far in advance of repossessions.0 -
Advertisement
-
I remember years ago in second level a teacher on our first day trying to build relationships with his students (it wasn't Ireland); we had to introduce ourselves one by one, and he asked us one question, and in turn we could ask him one back.
"Sir, do you own your own house?"
"I own the steps and the front door, the bank owns the rest. I hope to own the kitchen by the time you graduate Smith"
And thats exactly it, until you've paid for it, you don't actually own it.0 -
<Mod Snip>
I was made redundant in 2009 and out of work for a year. Despite this my debts didn't disappear along with my job and income and everyone had to be paid something - although I was able to renegotiate the terms on my loan, the notion of a "write off" or paying nothing never came into it, nor did the idea of "someone else" paying it for me!
Life quickly became a stressful balancing act of trying to give each (bank, utilities etc) just enough each month to keep them off my back for another few weeks while still trying to find the motivation to apply for what few jobs there were (I wasn't living in Dublin at the time) in the face of time-wasting recruitment agencies, and even no response at all!
So I've been through "hard times" (and in the 80s/90s as well) and yet despite this I was raised with the ethos that you take responsibility for your actions and decisions (I know, crazy eh?) and that you pay your bills first and then everything else.
The only counterargument being put here by people like yourself is that "but it's their home", "they'll be out on the street" and other such statements. No-one FORCED anybody to sign for a mortgage, no-one NEEDS to own property and no-one has any automatic ENTITLEMENT to it... it's a CHOICE and it's between the mortgage holder and their lender - not them and their neighbours, the Government, or the taxpayer at large.
If they can't make the repayments then they move out and go somewhere they can - even if that means.. renting! Tens of thousands of people are doing it and sure there's a lot of problems (partly because of this same attitude that it's only for those with no other option!) but the idea that they should be able to stay in a property they can't afford is ridiculous, especially when others who could afford it can't get that chance (because of the supply problem) and are forced to pay ever higher rents or to move further out and commute.
This nonsense that mortgage holders are "special" and should be "protected" at all costs is completely unjustifiable in any rational sense. Pay up or get out and let someone who CAN afford it take over.0 -
I see no logic in this argument, whatsoever, You , or others , in looking to buy a property are not in any way inconvenienced by the state aiding those in genuine distress. you are not being " overlooked".
The kernel of that argument is begrudery, i.e. the anger that someone is " getting something" that you are not.
Its the same as the nonsense of the current commentary of trackers versus variable interest rate whingers
Supply of property is constrained.
Rents go higher.
Cost of living goes up.
There's a simple one for you.0 -
What happens if your industry you work in goes bust and you can't pay you 2/3 mortage, do you think you should be chucked out without getting to restructure so now the next young family can take your home And your kid get uprooted from their school and friends.
Proper restructuring should be looked at only then should houses get repo'd, government should never pay arrears though.
Its called upskilling, training, and managing your expenses. I've already said, it happened to me, and I survived!
We save one salary and we spend the other on living including the mortgage. If I lose my job tomorrow, my OH's salary will cover things. I also study to ensure I remain relevant and have transferrable skills so I don't get to 55 and find myself unemployable.
You can have the opportunity to restructure, but if its not viable (and I mean by stretching the mortgage out past pension age), then sell up or forgo the property.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »It would be. Almost always. Attempts to engage with lenders and restructure debt obligations are looked for far in advance of repossessions.
Removing you tracker to add only a few more years that cancels the gains of adding years is not proper restructuring
Here is a post from abm that should be looked into that I have been trying to sayExtend the terms of the mortgages :
Outcomes :
1. Family stays in family home - no additional social housing issue.
2. The tax payer doesn't have to fund the mortgage.
3. The bank capitalised and arrears and takes ownership of the property when the morgagee dies ... hopefully this covers the outstanding loan. Note under no circumstance should the tax bayer bail out a morgagee only for them to pass that asset onto there childern.
4. Morgagee should be required to pay whatever they can reasonably afford (independently assessed).
Why would this not work...?0 -
I have no interest in treating the "can't pay" people any differently to the won't pay people.
There are tens of thousands of young people who had no hand, act or part in the decision making process of governments, individuals and banks that drove up prices that are being told regularly here and elsewhere to change their expectations and **** off out to Kildare to buy if they can't afford a place in SCD.
These people are now being told paying monthly rents bigger than monthly mortgage payments isn't enough. Now, on top, you also have to pay to keep the people who overborrowed in the places you want to live while you sit in traffic on the Naas road every morning.
Surely, the people who are in houses they can't afford are just as capable of moving to somewhere they can afford to rent as I am?0 -
The state has massively supported the " bad financial decisions " of the lenders. Are you saying it should not therefore also assist the " bad decisions " of the borrowers.
Bank shareholders were wiped out in the blink of an eye. Many investors were old folk who'd (stupidly) put their pension pots into what they thought were blue chip investments.
They didn't get bailed out - didn't see a David Hall type set up an organisation to look for the to get refunds. Or too many posters on internet forums shouting their behalf.0 -
I have no interest in treating the "can't pay" people any differently to the won't pay people.
There are tens of thousands of young people who had no hand, act or part in the decision making process of governments, individuals and banks that are being told regularly here and elsewhere to change their expectations and **** off out to Kildare to buy if they can't afford a place in SCD.
These people are now being told on top of paying monthly rents bigger than monthly mortgage payments isn't enough. Now, on top, you also have to pay to keep the people who overborrowed in the places you want to live while they sit in traffic on the Naas road every morning.
Surely, the people who are in houses they can't afford are just as capable of moving to somewhere they can afford to rent as I am?
all I read here is " I haven't got something" , so you " shouldn't get it either . Theres a name for that.
WHat you are suggesting is that " you" should now get to profit on the backs of the distress of others, theres a name for that too ( hint its in German)
The landlords of the 17th and 18 century had exactly the same argument as you0 -
I see no logic in this argument, whatsoever, You , or others , in looking to buy a property are not in any way inconvenienced by the state aiding those in genuine distress. you are not being " overlooked".
The kernel of that argument is begrudery, i.e. the anger that someone is " getting something" that you are not.
Its the same as the nonsense of the current commentary of trackers versus variable interest rate whingers
You seem to suggest that people have a given right to own a property. They don't.
I would be in favour of banks being forced to agree a longer term to allow people to pay their Mtg back. Or let the Govt take a percentage share of the property value based on how much the Govt would subsidise the Mtg. But just giving money makes no sense.
It's like someone going out and buying a 7 series BMW and not being able to pay the loan repayments...should the Govt pay the balance of the loan ? by your logic they should.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lets not. There are too many people who have been hanging their hats on the government coming up with some kind of debt forgiveness for too long. There is one simple answer - if you cant pay for it, move out in favour of someone who can.Yes and it is not beyond the wit of a professional to carry out an audit and to seperate the cant pay from won't pay. Nobody is arguing that " strategic defaulters " should be helped. SO LETS PARK THAT ONE.
For those who fudged their salary certificates etc, I think they should count themselves lucky they're not up on fraud charges or similar. I see no good reason why we should help bad borrowers. The same line keeps getting trotted out 'save the home'. They can make their home just as easily as a rental property as anyone else can.Yes those "bad" decisions were a combination of both lender and borrower. The state has massively supported the " bad financial decisions " of the lenders. Are you saying it should not therefore also assist the " bad decisions " of the borrowers.I see no logic in this argument, whatsoever, You , or others , in looking to buy a property are not in any way inconvenienced by the state aiding those in genuine distress. you are not being " overlooked".
The kernel of that argument is begrudery, i.e. the anger that someone is " getting something" that you are not.
Its the same as the nonsense of the current commentary of trackers versus variable interest rate whingers
Actually it would be an inconvenience to those buying - there is a lack of properties for sale.
If those who cant afford the property moved out, and the property was sold to those who can afford it, not only does it tidy up the banks books, but it provides other work - for solicitors, for estate agents, for painters, decorators, etc furniture retailers all those things that you use when you buy a home. So by freeing up a property they don't have a moral right to be living in, other sectors of the economy will also benefit. And because family B have now brought a home, family A have somewhere to rent.0
Advertisement