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

Coles

jon1981 wrote: »

Where would the 30+ thousand families downsize to? There's f**k all to rent at the moment.

It would be a zero sum game. They would free up 30k units that 30k other people could buy or rent. Also no shortage of affordable property all around the country.

ionapaul

Drumpot wrote: »

Just try to be more mindful of that before spitting fire at welfare initiatives. Most people on welfare don't want it, they are the people who deserve assistance and empathy.

People aren't opposed to this proposal because of lack of empathy or similar, it's because this specific proposal is horrifically unfair, is open to widespread abuse if introduced and will end up undermining our society in a different way that the 'society that just doesn't care' issue you are worried about.

I am full of empathy for those genuinely in hardship, think they deserve many different types of sympathy... and I'm emailing my TDs later today to explain that if they support this measure in the form currently outlined, they'll never receive a vote/transfer from me again. I believe that enough of these emails to traditionally 'fiscally-responsible' FG TDs will have an impact.

Coles

Drumpot wrote: »

Exactly. . You aren't sure . . You don't know what its like to have to move under duress....

What are you talking about? You haven't a clue what anyone else's experiences are. It's like you're having an argument with some imaginary character in your head.

El_Dangeroso

Drumpot wrote: »

Me me me. What about what I want? Ah, the pious selfish f**k rant. Very popular particularly among the self absorbed working class who get very stressed about those financially struggling if it's gonna somehow cost the state!

I have a mortgage and I pay capital and interest. I also work for myself and employ somebody. But I don't begrudge the state helping people who are struggling to keep their homes.

Most people don't want to be in this position , nor are they looking to exploit it. To focus purely on the people who will look to take the piss is just as wrong.

If people championing families being thrown out of their homes can give us an insight on how it effected them and their own, I will gladly listen to how they feel it benefits society. Otherwise you are no differant to the out of touch politicians who talk from ivory towers about the pain of cutbacks.

What effect does it have on the owners? How does it impact families?

I'd imagine you could find a study that suggests throwing families out on the street is somehow beneficial but I'm not convinced. There is also the question of what sort of country do we want to live in.

Personally I want a country that puts its people's welfare first. Every Irish person should have a home, food, clothing and access to healthcare. After that I don't mind if people's income can add luxury.

What about hardworking families that rent in an area where their kids are established in a school and one of the parents lose their job or the rent goes up and out of their budget.

Where is their handout? or have you not thought about them?

Equally what about a couple that have lived their entire lives in an area and are trying to buy but can only afford somewhere that is an hour or more commute from their jobs and support systems, where is their handout?

Or is it just mortgage holders who are entitled?

Zamboni

Drumpot wrote: »

How does it effect children ? Schools, friends, education general stability?

Such is life.

Three sets of neighbours

Family A - reduced to one income and can no longer afford current rental rate.
Move to cheaper area and move children to different schools.

Family B - reduced to one income and can no longer afford the mortgage repayments. Reduce discretionary costs, work all available additional shifts and just about manage to get by.

Family C - reduced to one income and can no longer afford mortgage repayments. The government a.k.a the tax payer (including Family A + steps in to keep Family C where they are?

Here is a hint to the politicians - There are more Family A and Bs out there.

Turkish1

jon1981 wrote: »

Where would the 30+ thousand families downsize to? There's f**k all to rent at the moment.

It really is baffling to see this line trotted out so often. Or "how can we make 30k families homeless".

If houses are repossesed they will not be knocked down. Someone else will buy the house/apt and move from their current accomodation. This means that their current accomodation is available to rent/buy for families which have to move.

House A:
Mr&Mrs Smith and two kids have 3 bed semi.
Bought for €600k in the bubble.
Currently Market Value €450k with outstanding mortgage of €500k
Mortgage payment €2k per month, they can only afford to pay €1,200k.
Arrears of €36k after 3 years of struggling.

House B:
Mr&Mrs Jones and three kids currently rent 2bed townhouse
Cost €1k per month
Have saved €100k over x years.
Can comfortably afford stress tested mortgage of €350k

Mr&Mrs Smith have property repossesed and sold for €450k.
€50k balance outstanding after sale. They discuss with bank and come to arrangement - (Write off/partial write off/converted to personal loan/declare bankruptcy etc)
They rent house B for €1k, this frees up additional €200 per month to service other bills/expenses.

Mr&Mrs Jones buy house A and pay mortgage on time every month.


This results in both families being housed, a long term solution for the struggling Smiths as they have lower monthly payments. They also do not have the stress of having an unsustainable debt.
The banks now have a performing mortgage.
There is one less mortgage in arrears.
There is a slightly more functional property market.
Potentially lower SVR Rates (which is the new craze at the moment) as the banks are not losing on mortgages not being repaid.
Wins for all parties involved when you take out the emotive bull$h1t of kicking families out on the street etc. which is just pure lies.

Gerry T

To a degree I agree with the bailout, with one exception. Ownership of the property should be transferred to the state and the original house owners should then pay rent for the property at an agree rate until the children in the house are out of education or over 23 whichever first. Then the going market rental rate should apply.
Where the Govt steps in the relevant bank, if it received a bailout, the remaining balance should be paid back by the govt at ECB plus 0.5%.
All a pipe dream but if this were some other country it could happen.

If these people are hard for cash, they may just end up on the housing register anyway. So tax payers will be footing the bill either way. This way the Govt will get some or all of its money back. I have a friend going through a repossession, I'm sure he would take the above deal as his kids are in schools etc.... His house is not negative equity so a Govt takeover would be good for the state.

Drumpot

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

What about hardworking families that rent in an area where their kids are established in a school and one of the parents lose their job or the rent goes up and out of their budget.

Where is their handout? or have you not thought about them?

Equally what about a couple that have lived their entire lives in an area and are trying to buy but can only afford somewhere that is an hour or more commute from their jobs and support systems, where is their handout?

Or is it just mortgage holders who are entitled?

Where did I say it's only mortgage holders? I stated what kind of Ireland I would prefer , this isn't exclusive to people with mortgages, if anything it's all inclusive. You are welcome to correct your post.

hopgog

Turkish1 wrote: »

It really is baffling to see this line trotted out so often. Or "how can we make 30k families homeless".

If houses are repossesed they will not be knocked down. Someone else will buy the house/apt and move from their current accomodation. This means that their current accomodation is available to rent/buy for families which have to move.

House A:
Mr&Mrs Smith and two kids have 3 bed semi.
Bought for €600k in the bubble.
Currently Market Value €450k with outstanding mortgage of €500k
Mortgage payment €2k per month, they can only afford to pay €1,200k.
Arrears of €36k after 3 years of struggling.

House B:
Mr&Mrs Jones and three kids currently rent 2bed townhouse
Cost €1k per month
Have saved €100k over x years.
Can comfortably afford stress tested mortgage of €350k

Mr&Mrs Smith have property repossesed and sold for €450k.
€50k balance outstanding after sale. They discuss with bank and come to arrangement - (Write off/partial write off/converted to personal loan/declare bankruptcy etc)
They rent house B for €1k, this frees up additional €200 per month to service other bills/expenses.

Mr&Mrs Jones buy house A and pay mortgage on time every month.


This results in both families being housed, a long term solution for the struggling Smiths as they have lower monthly payments. They also do not have the stress of having an unsustainable debt.
The banks now have a performing mortgage.
There is one less mortgage in arrears.
There is a slightly more functional property market.
Potentially lower SVR Rates (which is the new craze at the moment) as the banks are not losing on mortgages not being repaid.
Wins for all parties involved when you take out the emotive bull$h1t of kicking families out on the street etc. which is just pure lies.

Mr and mrs smith's two kids are male and female teenagers that now have to share a bedroom together.

A three bed for a family of two kids is not an unreasonable house, if they had 4 or 5 bed then maybe going down to a 3 bed might make sense

hopgog

hopgog wrote: »

Mr and mrs smith's two kids are male and female teenagers that now have to share a bedroom together.

A three bed for a family of two kids is not an unreasonable house, if they had 4 or 5 bed then maybe going down to a 3 bed might make sense

Nobody said it was unreasonable, what they said was it was unaffordable.

OldNotWIse

When will we be finding out what help tenants in arrears will be receiving from the taxpayer?

bjork

Drumpot wrote: »

Me me me. What about what I want? Ah, the pious selfish f**k rant. Very popular particularly among the self absorbed working class who get very stressed about those financially struggling if it's gonna somehow cost the state!

I have a mortgage and I pay capital and interest. I also work for myself and employ somebody. But I don't begrudge the state helping people who are struggling to keep their homes.

Most people don't want to be in this position , nor are they looking to exploit it. To focus purely on the people who will look to take the piss is just as wrong.

If people championing families being thrown out of their homes can give us an insight on how it effected them and their own, I will gladly listen to how they feel it benefits society. Otherwise you are no differant to the out of touch politicians who talk from ivory towers about the pain of cutbacks.

What effect does it have on the owners? How does it impact families?

I'd imagine you could find a study that suggests throwing families out on the street is somehow beneficial but I'm not convinced. There is also the question of what sort of country do we want to live in.

Personally I want a country that puts its people's welfare first. Every Irish person should have a home, food, clothing and access to healthcare. After that I don't mind if people's income can add luxury.

Nonsense, by that logic everyone deserves a free house. What makes people who made a bad financial decision more worthy of a free house?

hopgog

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody said it was unreasonable, what they said was it was unaffordable.

Or they could restructure the term to 35 reduce repayments to €1400 and keep the house as the rent on the 3 bed would be about that anyway.

Problem is banks won't allow people to restructure most of the time

bjork

Most of it will be a paper exercise. State now has the title, not house"owner"

Polo_Mint

There is no ****ing way that im going to be renting a house so I can pay my neighbours mortgage

Im already paying my Landlords

hopgog

Polo_Mint wrote: »

There is no ****ing way that im going to be renting a house so I can pay my neighbours mortgage

Im already paying my Landlords

Save a deposit get your own mortgage

hopgog

hopgog wrote: »

Or they could restructure the term to 35 reduce repayments to €1400 and keep the house as the rent on the 3 bed would be about that anyway.

Problem is banks won't allow people to restructure most of the time

What makes you think that? Doesn't that fly in the face of almost everything we've heard from the Central Bank on this?


It appears to me that those who chose to work with their banks as much as possible have gotten some relief from payments, or restructuring.

Nino Brown

hopgog wrote: »

Save a deposit get your own mortgage

Yeah, all you need is the deposit, apparently the tax payer will pay the balance!

OldNotWIse

hopgog wrote: »

Save a deposit get your own mortgage

How childish

OldNotWIse

Nino Brown wrote: »

Yeah, all you need is the deposit, apparently the tax payer will pay the balance!

One wonders what the point is in continuing on with repayments. Sure fúck it I'll just go shopping this week instead of paying it. The taxpayer will pay it for me...

bjork

OldNotWIse wrote: »

One wonders what the point is in continuing on with repayments. Sure fúck it I'll just go shopping this week instead of paying it. The taxpayer will pay it for me...

Yep, if these are they ideas they are kicking around the office above, it would make you think twice

Polo_Mint

hopgog wrote: »

Save a deposit get your own mortgage

Good Thinking batman but it looks like 30,000 people have messed that up for loads of us to even get one

Also I would still be paying my neighbours mortgage

Turkish1

hopgog wrote: »

Mr and mrs smith's two kids are male and female teenagers that now have to share a bedroom together.

A three bed for a family of two kids is not an unreasonable house, if they had 4 or 5 bed then maybe going down to a 3 bed might make sense

Mr&Mrs Smith then move further out from their ideal area to rent a 3 bed semi (House C) for €1,000 which is in a slightly less desireable area.

You can come back and forth but what if x,y,z happens. The bottom line is when you take out the emotive bull there is no logic behind paying for peoples mortgages which are not sustainable. If people are 720days+ in arrears no amount of restructuring or fooling about will ever make their mortgage sustainable.

In reality I am sure I read a stat somewhere about the small % of mortgages over 90days in arrears that ever get back on track.

It is not unreasonable to expect someone who has fallen over 2years in arrears to have their house repossesed. Yes it will be difficult and disruptuve for them, however in the long run - it is the best for all parties involved including the couple themselves, bank, gov't, renters, mortgage payers,taxpayers, SME's (as banks can get back to lending), the local shopkeeper and so on....

hopgog

Deleted User wrote: »

What makes you think that? centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ42014.aspx"]Doesn't that fly in the face of almost everything we've heard from the Central Bank on this?


It appears to me that those who chose to work with their banks as much as possible have gotten some relief from payments, or restructuring.

They don't allow a lot of people in the mid 30's restructure, sure 35 years put them into retirement but by the time they hit it in 25 - 30 years the house would be out of neg equity, even if they have to reposses then the bank will have got most of the money back and should not of made a loss.

jay0109

bjork wrote: »

Most of it will be a paper exercise. State now has the title, not house"owner"

David Halls latest proposal is that even those in a hopeless amount of arrears will not get evicted and will make a token payment each month with the Local Authority paying the balance. And, the ownership will remain with the family, not the Govt or LA!!!!

OldNotWIse

Certainly it seems accountability means nothing in this country. Let's not forget we wont just be bailing them out with respect to their houses - some of these people got extra money to add on extensions/buy a new car to match the new house/deck the place etc.

All about rights...not so hot with the responsibilities...

enfant terrible

What about the people who already have had their house repossessed?

Can they apply for a refund from taxpayers as former mortgage holders

jay0109

enfant terrible wrote: »

What about the people who already have had their house repossessed?

Can they apply for a refund from the taxpayer?

I'm sure that could be easily dealt with, given how few of them there has been in 1 of the largest property crashes of all time :mad:

hopgog

Turkish1 wrote: »

Mr&Mrs Smith then move further out from their ideal area to rent a 3 bed semi (House C) for €1,000 which is in a slightly less desireable area.

You can come back and forth but what if x,y,z happens. The bottom line is when you take out the emotive bull there is no logic behind paying for peoples mortgages which are not sustainable. If people are 720days+ in arrears no amount of restructuring or fooling about will ever make their mortgage sustainable.

In reality I am sure I read a stat somewhere about the small % of mortgages over 90days in arrears that ever get back on track.

It is not unreasonable to expect someone who has fallen over 2years in arrears to have their house repossesed. Yes it will be difficult and disruptuve for them, however in the long run - it is the best for all parties involved including the couple themselves, bank, gov't, renters, mortgage payers,taxpayers, SME's (as banks can get back to lending), the local shopkeeper and so on....

Mr and mrs smith are 35 they restructure the loan left for 40 years repayments become €1000, at retirement at 67 they have 150k left on there mortgage but the house is now worth 600k, as the kids have moved and they cannot afford the mortage anymore they sell, payoff the mortage and buy a smaller retirement place for 400k.


They are able to keep the family home for work and school for the kids and don't lose their home. The bank also doesn't lose any money either

Zubeneschamali

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.

I paid my mortgage off already - can I have my €300K of other people's money in twenties, please? I promise to blow it all in a demented binge use it as a targeted economic stimulus within a tightly defined period.