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

bjork

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

..... It's really no different to the bank taking the house and saying "Oh! We have to be paid for this house, we can't take the hit on it!" Which we all know is exactly what will happen anyway

It is, it's totally different. Bank has tons of property to get rid of then. Prices fall. Others can buy.

This way, no property is freed up, no movement on market, fewer affording to buy, Jimmy who owes 250,000, living free with an asset he didn't pay for. Can he sell it when his mortgage is paid? Who benefits?

pablo128

Thoie wrote: »

I still object to the fact that they'll get a "free" house out of all of this when I keep doing my best. I'm stuck in the negative equity trap - would love to move elsewhere, but have no interest in becoming an accidental landlord, and can't afford to move otherwise.

A free house, eh? Would they not have to pay rent?

Renegade Mechanic

bjork wrote: »

It is, it's totally different. Bank has tons of property to get rid of then. Prices fall. Others can buy.

This way, no property is freed up, no movement on market, fewer affording to buy, Jimmy who owes 250,000, living free with an asset he didn't pay for. Can he sell it when his mortgage is paid? Who benefits?

Prices fall and banks get less. They still have to be paid the gap between the original price and current sale. Once people with literally just the shirt on their backs come into the system and obviously can't pay the shortfall, or the whole mortgage, should the house not sell, the govt will be told to step in and pay it instead.
With taxpayers money. Like always

bjork

pablo128 wrote: »

A free house, eh? Would they not have to pay rent?

To who? They'll own the house. Maybe they could claim rent allowance and pay rent to themselves?

RecordStraight

pablo128 wrote: »

A free house, eh? Would they not have to pay rent?

If they can pay rent, why not rent a house they can afford, go bankrupt for 3 years (soon to be 1) and start again?

bjork

RecordStraight wrote: »

If they can pay rent, why not rent a house they can afford, go bankrupt for 3 years (soon to be 1) and start again?

But the 15 bedroom cottage with the decking is their home! Why should they have to move out? :eek::pac:

DARK-KNIGHT

not everyone unlucky enough to be struggling to keep their homes are the supposed chancers you are portraying lads.. im in serious bother trying to maintain a mortgage whilst in full time education to try and build a future for my family... i also work part time...

so forgive me if i am reading the attitudes here with disgust, my young family are at risk.

I am 15,000 in the red and struggling to pay the interest on mortgage. I paid 290000 for a small 3 bed house in monasterevin county kildare and its worth 85000 now so appreciate facts like that before you go judging people

RecordStraight

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

so forgive me if i am reading the attitudes here with disgust, my young family are at risk.

At risk of what? Having to rent, like loads of other people? Wow. Fate worse than death.

You are (largely) paying your way. Fair play. But people who don't pay their way need to get real and stop bumming off the taxpayer.

Aka Ishur

1) I know for a (totally anecdotal) fact banks have been taking hits on property. The property I bought for 80k late last year was sold in 2011 for 285K the buyers paid 2 years of the 170k mortgage and then left the country. The conspiracy theories don't wash.

2) If the government do this without getting equity stakes in the properties involved in return it will be just another item in a long list of stroke politics.

Unfortunately I expect that it will be packaged as relief for the hard pressed middle classes and consist of a nice freebie to those who bet on this exact situation developing, and stopped paying their mortgage and played poor because a weak willed political system was sure to come to their 'rescue'.

Of course we only have the Irish people to blame. We love a handout and every election year turns into a competition to see who can buy the most votes. Screw the country, screw looking further than 5 years down the line. Sure it'll be grand.

Smartguy

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

not everyone unlucky enough to be struggling to keep their homes are the supposed chancers you are portraying lads.. im in serious bother trying to maintain a mortgage whilst in full time education to try and build a future for my family... i also work part time...

so forgive me if i am reading the attitudes here with disgust, my young family are at risk.

I am 15,000 in the red and struggling to pay the interest on mortgage. I paid 290000 for a small 3 bed house in monasterevin county kildare and its worth 85000 now so appreciate facts like that before you go judging people

How did you afford to buy a house for 290k?

Riverireland

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

not everyone unlucky enough to be struggling to keep their homes are the supposed chancers you are portraying lads.. im in serious bother trying to maintain a mortgage whilst in full time education to try and build a future for my family... i also work part time...

so forgive me if i am reading the attitudes here with disgust, my young family are at risk.

Dark knight. If you are living in a modest 3 Bed semi then I personally have no issues with that. Having my own bills to pay I have to work full time, also have a family and wouldn't be in a position to return to education while working part time. I'm sure you can see that under these circumstances I wouldnt be prepared to pay for someone else to remain a large detached house while taxpayers supplemented it.

DARK-KNIGHT

RecordStraight wrote: »

At risk of what? Having to rent, like loads of other people? Wow. Fate worse than death.

You are (largely) paying your way. Fair play. But people who don't pay their way need to get real and stop bumming off the taxpayer.

It isnt that easy though, yes there are scroungers taking what they can get and they deserve what they can get. if i lose our home how can i rent? rent in area is 900 per month and thats if you can find A PROPERTY TO RENT. my interest is 400 and travelling to dublin daily is 70 per week. I didnt ask for my trade to collapse I am doing my upmost to protect family.

theres also the fact if homes are repossessed and people go bankrupt who will foot that bill? the govt are trying to save money in long term with this scheme but i dont agree with it tbh

DARK-KNIGHT

Smartguy wrote: »

How did you afford to buy a house for 290k?

what sort of a question is that? i was working full time in a well paid job.

DARK-KNIGHT

also lads to be fair you are entering market to buying houses and there is serious value for money out there the fact you were renting count yourselves very lucky imo. if i could turn back the clock i know what i would have done different thats for sure.

RecordStraight

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

It isnt that easy though, yes there are scroungers taking what they can get and they deserve what they can get. if i lose our home how can i rent? rent in area is 900 per month and thats if you can find A PROPERTY TO RENT. my interest is 400 and travelling to dublin daily is 70 per week. I didnt ask for my trade to collapse I am doing my upmost to protect family.

If you find your position is untenable, you can go down the insolvency route and start with a clean slate. People shouldn't be punished for going bust, but they shouldn't be allowed keep the stuff they bought either.

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

theres also the fact if homes are repossessed and people go bankrupt who will foot that bill? the govt are trying to save money in long term with this scheme but i dont agree with it tbh

The banks (i.e. largely the taxpayer again) will foot the bill. The point is that it will be a much smaller bill as the 'can't pays' are the only ones who will go bust, the 'won't pays' will have to pay their own way or be made bankrupt.

_Kaiser_

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

It isnt that easy though, yes there are scroungers taking what they can get and they deserve what they can get. if i lose our home how can i rent? rent in area is 900 per month and thats if you can find A PROPERTY TO RENT. my interest is 400 and travelling to dublin daily is 70 per week. I didnt ask for my trade to collapse I am doing my upmost to protect family.

While I sympathise with your situation and the efforts you're making, the answer to your question is a simple one.... You move to where you can afford to rent.
You're living in Kildare.. 20 mins further down the road in Laois you can get plenty of 3-bed houses for 600-650 per month. Even with commuting to Dublin you'd still be better off than renting where you are.

I'd love to be able to afford to rent/buy a nice place in Dublin and I actually was, but when the LL came looking to raise the rent significantly recently, I had to do exactly that - move to where I could afford.

Riverireland

Dark knight, if I paid 295 for a house now worth 85k. I'd be begging the banks to take it off me to be honest. That is just a very long term liability you'd be better off without. Banks should be made take liability for the gap in value like they are in the states. They were the experts that lent you the money in the first place. Hope it works out well for you in the end.

GetWithIt

Aka Ishur wrote: »

1) I know for a (totally anecdotal) fact banks have been taking hits on property. The property I bought for 80k late last year was sold in 2011 for 285K the buyers paid 2 years of the 170k mortgage and then left the country. The conspiracy theories don't wash.

No offence but your anecdote doesn't sound right. 2011 was the bottom of the market. 285-170=115 of equity in 2011. I can't how that property ends being worth 80k 2 years later

Aka Ishur

GetWithIt wrote: »

No offence but your anecdote doesn't sound right. 2011 was the bottom of the market. 285-170=115 of equity in 2011. I can't how that property ends being worth 80k 2 years later

I have seen the letters the owners abandoned when they left the house, as well as the details in the title docs. There were still stupid people in 2011.

valor rorghulis

Will be contacting several TDs to voice my opposition to this. Suggest everyone else does too.

Currently I'd like to see Fine Gael/Labour return to power in 2016 but idea is deeply immoral.

I'm pissed off as a renter/USC payer, can only imagine the rage of someone who has made huge sacrifices to their quality of life to ensure their mortgage stays out arrears

DARK-KNIGHT

firstly lads i am opposed to this tbh.....

i would much prefer the govt make more efforts in relation to employment and education than to further handout to people trying to screw the system... they can keep the 15,000 i want a job paying what i can afford to survive...

Banjoxed

on_my_oe wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taxpayers-to-bail-out-those-in-mortgage-arrears-plan-31135507.html

The government is going to pay the mortgage arrears to ensure families remain in their homes; banks will restructure the mortgage and they'll receive a 'top up' payment using taxpayers money.

Every time I think Ireland can't find a new way to screw over the decent and hardworking, I'm surprised and disappointed. I lived in an apartment where the landlord didn't pay the mortgage for over five years, pocketing the rent money. We then lost our security deposit in the repossession process.
We now own and pay a higher variable rate because of those on tracker mortgages and we don't benefit from any mortgage interest rebates. We struggle hard to pay our mortgage, so why the <beep> should I now pay someone else's too?

If you can't restructure your mortgage and its unsustainable, you lose your home and you rent.

It's a disgrace, oe.

ourheritage

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. We the Irish taxpayer are going to be pay the arrears of the fools that took out mortgages that were way beyond their reach. Seems as if we are living in an unfair country. Why the hell should we clean up the mess they got themselves into. We need not only to talk about it but to get mass protests going on Kildare Street. It is the lenders that have to pay them off not the sensible tax payer who didn't get brainwashed by the the Celtic Tiger.

_Kaiser_

ourheritage wrote: »

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. We the Irish taxpayer are going to be pay the arrears of the fools that took out mortgages that were way beyond their reach. Seems as if we are living in an unfair country. Why the hell should we clean up the mess they got themselves into. We need not only to talk about it but to get mass protests going on Kildare Street. It is the lenders that have to pay them off not the sensible tax payer who didn't get brainwashed by the the Celtic Tiger.

"But.. but the banks got their bailout, so why shouldn't average Joe/Jane get theirs?" .. also known as Two Wrongs CAN Make A Right - Apparently!

Protests? Sure we've seen how effective they've been with the IW campaign. Oh sure there's been concessions, but water metering is now law and bills are arriving this week

The sensible taxpayer is to be shafted once again to pay for the irresponsible because all being sensible in this country gets you is exposure to being robbed some more!

SpaceTime

This is what happens when you've a politically passive group in their 20s and 30s!
The political classes see their voters as mortgaged, settled down householders.

Ireland (and Britian) have always seen renters as some kind of second class citizens.

I'm unlikely to get onto the property ladder here now which is why I'm thinking of packing up and going to continental Europe where I can comfortably lease long term and not live with landlord furniture and general nonsense that you have to deal with in these islands!

Piriz

Of note: the amount of rent arrears of people in council accommodation is absolutely enormous, are we going to add to this figure, sure whats the consequence of not paying?

Villa05

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

It isnt that easy though, yes there are scroungers taking what they can get and they deserve what they can get. if i lose our home how can i rent? rent in area is 900 per month and thats if you can find A PROPERTY TO RENT. my interest is 400 and travelling to dublin daily is 70 per week. I didnt ask for my trade to collapse I am doing my upmost to protect family.

theres also the fact if homes are repossessed and people go bankrupt who will foot that bill? the govt are trying to save money in long term with this scheme but i dont agree with it tbh

@ Dark-Knight I hope your situation improves and wish you well in your endeavours.

Can you see how renters are seriously disadvantaged by current housing policy and how it wold be even worse were taxpayers to bail out all underwater mortgages.

You are getting the utility value of the house for €400 while a renter has to pay €900 for the same purpose.

KomradeBishop

Instead of bailing out the banks, this is what the money should have gone into in the first place.
I think this should be done, but should instead be done at the level of the ECB using 'Quantitative Easing for the people', instead of government using debt.

This, if done right, is still better than nothing though - this can reduce the burden of private debt in the economy, and free up more dispensable income, which can grow the economy.
However - need more details on its implementation. I highly doubt this will be done in anything approaching a fair way - people are right that it treats more prudent mortgageholders and such, unfairly.

The problem with peoples views of economic policies like this, is that people can't get past the myopic/moralistic/simplistic "moral hazard! that's not fair!" view of the policy - people need to look at the macroeconomic, and societal/humanitarian effects of this.
This can take a lot of pressure off of peoples finances, and contribute to getting a more stable growing economy again - and can avoid the societal damage of mass-repossessions.

The ideal implementation of a policy like this - which will never happen - is the 'debt jubilee' idea (starting P15 - a form of 'QE for the people'); everyone, economy-wide, gets a large lump-sum which must go into paying down debts first of all.
That's the fairest way, but it can only be done at an EU level.

cursai

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Instead of bailing out the banks, this is what the money should have gone into in the first place.
I think this should be done, but should instead be done at the level of the ECB using 'Quantitative Easing for the people', instead of government using debt.

This, if done right, is still better than nothing though - this can reduce the burden of private debt in the economy, and free up more dispensable income, which can grow the economy.
However - need more details on its implementation. I highly doubt this will be done in anything approaching a fair way - people are right that it treats more prudent mortgageholders and such, unfairly.

The problem with peoples views of economic policies like this, is that people can't get past the myopic/moralistic/simplistic "moral hazard! that's not fair!" view of the policy - people need to look at the macroeconomic, and societal/humanitarian effects of this.
This can take a lot of pressure off of peoples finances, and contribute to getting a more stable growing economy again - and can avoid the societal damage of mass-repossessions.

The ideal implementation of a policy like this - which will never happen - is the 'debt jubilee' idea (starting P15 - a form of 'QE for the people'); everyone, economy-wide, gets a large lump-sum which must go into paying down debts first of all.
That's the fairest way, but it can only be done at an EU level.

Alternatively the people who can't pay their mortgages can leave their houses and go bankrupt/insolvent or make a deal with the banks. This is not a HUMANITARIAN issue its a FINANCIAL one.

KomradeBishop

cursai wrote: »

Alternatively the people who can't pay their mortgages can leave their houses and go bankrupt/insolvent or make a deal with the banks. This is not a HUMANITARIAN issue its a FINANCIAL one.

It's both - and that's a bad way to resolve it, both economically and society/humanitarian-wise.

People need to look at the wider macroeconomic issues related to this, not focus myopically on simplified moralistic issues.