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

Drumpot

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 al so 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.

Emotive bull**** !!! That's what hoy think of people having to move house under duress? It's emotive bullsh*t?. That's some fighting talk.... If you can't understand the psychological trauma this can have on people you aren't really factoring in all The variables even if they are emotive they are still potentially detrimental to the mental health of individuals and families that could cost the state more in the long run.

Its very easy for PC warriors to trot out figures and solutions to financial situations that can have more complex emotional issues.

I'm not completely against your example, but if you think it's a simple mathematical solution you just don't fully understand the entire dynamics of relocating people under duress.

The_Morrigan

Folks, can you curtail the profanities please, there is absolutely no need to use foul language to express yourself in this forum.

BoatMad

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

enfant terrible

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

Why is renting ridiculous?

Calina

BoatMad wrote: »

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.

I find that insulting that people who have over extended themselves on the purchase side are special snowflakes who need to be protected from renting. Quite a lot of people already rent despite the legal ramifications.

Perhaps a more appropriate response to a housing crisis like this might be to review rental legislation and improve it.

BoatMad

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

As are repossessions!

Polo_Mint

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.

hopgog

Calina wrote: »

I find that insulting that people who have over extended themselves on the purchase side are special snowflakes who need to be protected from renting. Quite a lot of people already rent despite the legal ramifications.

Perhaps a more appropriate response to a housing crisis like this might be to review rental legislation and improve it.

Rent control and long term rentals are needed to give rental security for families.

Reading the article, it looks like a typical Sindo story, definite headline but article reading much more vague.

If the coalition try something like this it will be the end of them. This is more like something that SF would propose.

BoatMad

Calina wrote: »

I find that insulting that people who have over extended themselves on the purchase side are special snowflakes who need to be protected from renting. Quite a lot of people already rent despite the legal ramifications.

Perhaps a more appropriate response to a housing crisis like this might be to review rental legislation and improve it.

Again, the fact that there may be others who also deserve support ( and many do get things like rent supplement ) , does not in any way negate the argument that house owners with mortgage difficulties should not have a range of supports also available.

A public policy to keep people in their homes is not a bad idea, in general

The rental situation is Ireland is fatally flawed by constitutional provisions, yes that should be looked at, but again, a need in one area, does not negate a need in another

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

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

Businesses also go out of business every day, and creditors take and sell the assets of the business to recoup their losses.

OldNotWIse

jon1981 wrote: »

Let's not forget there are people who did not over extend themselves and also those that did, did so because the system allowed it...

Now the goal posts have been moved, which is fine for new borrowings, but there should be shared responsibility for the system of the past and those who borrowed under that system (regulated system - which is another debatable point).

Can you explain this?

jon1981

Let's not forget there are people who did not over extend themselves and also those that did, did so because the system allowed it...

Now the goal posts have been moved, which is fine for new borrowings, but there should be shared responsibility for the system of the past and those who borrowed under that system (regulated system - which is another debatable point).

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Businesses also go out of business every day, and creditors take and sell the assets of the business to recoup their losses.

as do people, its called bankruptcy. so - what , my argument stands

Polo_Mint

jon1981 wrote: »

Let's not forget there are people who did not over extend themselves and also those that did, did so because the system allowed it...

Now the goal posts have been moved, which is fine for new borrowings, but there should be shared responsibility for the system of the past and those who borrowed under that system (regulated system - which is another debatable point).

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

hopgog

Deleted User wrote: »

Reading the article, it looks like a typical Sindo story, definite headline but article reading much more vague.

If the coalition try something like this it will be the end of them. This is more like something that SF would propose.

Yes this plan is terrible very marxist like sf would implement. Proper restructuring even if it takes the term past retirement is the best option. It give people a chance to get on top of it over the next number of years and if they can't repossession is possible then and the bank will still make back the money.

OldNotWIse

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

I know right? Imagine renting for years because you coulnd't get onto the property ladder and having to keep up your rental repayments lest your LL evict you, and also being subjected to the same risk of joblessness etc as home "owners" and then dare to protest when some vote-grabbing idiots decide that you are now going to bail out said homeowners because they over-stretched themselves. Honestly the cheek of some people...

jon1981

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Can you explain this?

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?

jon1981

Polo_Mint wrote: »

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

No

OldNotWIse

Polo_Mint wrote: »

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

That seems to be the unfortunate implication.

OldNotWIse

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?

Allowed? Yes.

Forced? No.

Zubeneschamali

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?

So if the rules allow people to gamble and lose, the taxpayer should help them out?

I'm off to the bookies. I'll be back if I lose...

BoatMad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I know right? Imagine renting for years because you coulnd't get onto the property ladder and having to keep up your rental repayments lest your LL evict you, and also being subjected to the same risk of joblessness etc as home "owners" and then dare to protest when some vote-grabbing idiots decide that you are now going to bail out said homeowners because they over-stretched themselves. Honestly the cheek of some people...

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

Idbatterim

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

I am sorry, so renting is good enough for me and the E1450 I pay for a 2 bed apartment, yet it isnt good enough for others? Also the writedowns, write offs etc is a shambles, is it based on circumstance or which bank you are with and timing etc?

hmmm

jon1981 wrote: »

Yet it's forgotten that the rules of the game allowed people to enter into a vulnerable positions and likewise the bank

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.

OldNotWIse

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?

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.

jon1981

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.

Sorry, what are you on about?

I pay my own mortgage and not in arrears.

OldNotWIse

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.

Yeah, did you not know they were forced to take out their mortgages? The banks tricked them. Giving them free money for conservatories, holidays, cars and decking. Tricked them so they did. Oh but it was ok to borrow 500k because you know.... the house was going to be worth 1,000,000k the next day.... :rolleyes: They're all quare grumpy and up in a heap now because the bubble burst and they're being asked to pay back the money that they took.

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So if the rules allow people to gamble and lose, the taxpayer should help them out?

I'm off to the bookies. I'll be back if I lose...

many many people did not take a gamble , they entered into a contract to buy a house, mostly ordinary houses to raise or house their families, based on income levels that the bank were then happy to advance loans on.

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.

Again, to suggest ordinary people, buying ordinary houses, that have got into trouble , where in effect " at the bookies" is preserve

jon1981

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yeah, did you not know they were forced to take out their mortgages? The banks tricked them. Giving them free money for conservatories, holidays, cars and decking. Tricked them so they did. Oh but it was ok to borrow 500k because you know.... the house was going to be worth 1,000,000k the next day.... :rolleyes: They're all quare grumpy and up in a heap now because the bubble burst and they're being asked to pay back the money that they took.

Big bucket of tar you have there...