you could loose your home if you don't keep up payments on it

AudreyHepburn

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect, it's not the people's fault the banks were offering the money. it's the banks responsibility to only give amounts they can be sure people will pay back. people always take personal responsibility when it comes to what they are responsible for. this idea that there is a sense of entitlement is just over exaggerated nonsense.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The banks were offering obscene amounts of money yes, but ultimately the final decision rested with the customer.

No-one held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to take out loans they could not afford. They made that decision of their own free will and now they need face the consequences.

Of course the banks did wrong too, no-one is denying that. But there was a lot wrong done on the part of the consumer too and and those who made mistakes need to own up and take responsibility for it.

end of the road

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And where do you think the outstanding amount will go in your scenario? I'll tell you - it'll be passed on to all the customers of that bank in higher fees and charges.

banks who were bailed out by the tax payer should be banned from passing on higher rates and fees as punishment.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The banks were offering obscene amounts of money yes, but ultimately the final decision rested with the customer.

No-one held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to take out loans they could not afford. They made that decision of their own free will and now they need face the consequences.

Of course the banks did wrong too, no-one is denying that. But there was a lot wrong done on the part of the consumer too and and those who made mistakes need to own up and take responsibility for it.

i couldn't be more right if i tried. the banks did a lot more wrong then the customer ever could. the people have faced plenty of consiquences with the banks barely facing any. punish the banks, punish the banks.

AudreyHepburn

end of the road wrote: »

i couldn't be more right if i tried. the banks did a lot more wrong then the customer ever could. the people have faced plenty of consiquences with the banks barely facing any. punish the banks, punish the banks.

The banks have been punished, strenuously.

But unless you can show me proof that any banker held a gun to any consumer's head and forced them into taking out crazy loads then I will not accept that the banks alone to blame.

the evasion_kid

end of the road wrote: »

banks who were bailed out by the tax payer should be banned from passing on higher rates and fees as punishment.


i couldn't be more right if i tried. the banks did a lot more wrong then the customer ever could. the people have faced plenty of consiquences with the banks barely facing any. punish the banks, punish the banks.

Privatise profit,socialize losses....ain't lemon socialism grand..

mickoneill31

end of the road wrote: »

banks who were bailed out by the tax payer should be banned from passing on higher rates and fees as punishment.


i couldn't be more right if i tried. the banks did a lot more wrong then the customer ever could. the people have faced plenty of consiquences with the banks barely facing any. punish the banks, punish the banks.

If banks that have been bailed out are "punished" does that affect their ability to repay the state for the bailouts? Where does that cost go then? Back to us. I'm guessing you don't run any businesses EOTR.

lawred2

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so the mortgage adverts be like "You may loose your house if you dont keep up repayments on it" - do you think its the right way to go these days, to make people/family homeless if they dont/cant keep up mortgage repayments or do you think there is a more amicable/ sensible better thing mortgage companies can do if people cannot keep up their payments than turf people out? - thank god in my personal circumstances I am a renting our house, I'd hate to be saddled with a Mortgage these days and the uncertainty whether i could afford to keep up re-payments for 25 years or so!

what?

aido79

end of the road wrote: »

banks who were bailed out by the tax payer should be banned from passing on higher rates and fees as punishment.


i couldn't be more right if i tried. the banks did a lot more wrong then the customer ever could. the people have faced plenty of consiquences with the banks barely facing any. punish the banks, punish the banks.

I'm going to assume you don't have a mortgage and have never applied for one. Am I right?

What exactly do you think would have happened if the banks weren't bailed out? How do people access savings from a bank that's gone out of business?

How exactly do you think the banks should be punished? AIB is almost wholly state owned so any punishment would be paid for by the taxpayer.

Benevolent Misanthrope

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The banks have been punished, strenuously.

Some people don't know that the banks are under totally new ownership, the previous owners having been wiped out.

How they don't know, I don't know.

Benevolent Misanthrope

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Privatise profit,socialize losses....ain't lemon socialism grand..

Tell the people who saw their pensions and savings investments wiped out that their losses were socialised.

weldoninhio

end of the road wrote: »

banks who were bailed out by the tax payer should be banned from passing on higher rates and fees as punishment.

This is the sort of absolute nonsense that is spouted that has people believing that if they disengage with the bank that the Land League or another nonsense organisation will save them.

Let's look at your ridiculous argument. Let's say Bank A overlent, it has for example €100m in deposits (that's savings) held, but €500m in loans out. These loans aren't performing as they should, so suddenly the bank has 2 options.

1) It goes to the government, they bail the bank out and own 99.1% of it. The bank gets through the crisis, returns to its normal business paying back the bailout with interest meaning the taxpayer gets interest, plus the money from the sale of shares in the bank once the govt decide to sell it off.

2) It goes to the govt, they say there is nothing they can do, banking is a capitalist industry, sink or swim. The bank calls in the administrators and goes into liquidation. Hedge funds buy ALL of the loans for penny's in the euro, not just the non-performing ones. Paid your mortgage on time all the time?? Doesn't matter the bank of ?? decides interest rates have to rise to maximise their profit. Thousands of bank staff lose their jobs flooding an already competitive jobs market, meaning hundreds if not thousands of rents/mortgages not paid exacerbating the homelessness crisis as a bank in NY or Nigeria doesn't care about the people on the streets of Ireland. But what about the clever people? The people who saved during the boom, they'll do ok, except the €100m in savings in the bank is used to pay secured creditors. The max anyone would have gotten was €50k per financial institute. So if you had €100k, €300k forget it. Here's €50k.

Care to present option C EOTR?? How things would have been fine and dandy if we'd done it a different way??