The Great Irish Sell Off Monday 9.30pm

beauf

Programme on Vulture funds in Ireland on now.

RandomAccess

We are in serious trouble it seems.

Wheeliebin30

Seems quite here. Thought there would be the usual uproar.

LuckyGent88

That was a serious eye opener for me. It's not something, I knew a lot about and wouldn't be in the position to.

Seriously dropped the ball on this one

older i get better i was

Not suprised by anything except the fact we couldnt even get the tax, that smells of people being bought off.

Eric Cartman

Its Ian Kehoe, I'm not shocked he interviewed Noam Chomsky, he bleeds left despite his affluent background.

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

johnnyskeleton

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Seems quite here. Thought there would be the usual uproar.

Nothing new in it. Just a depressing reminder of how successive Irish governments have such a pathological hatred of the Irish people that they will do anything to ensure that property is sold to foreign investers rather than Irish owner occupiers.

techdiver

LuckyGent88 wrote: »

That was a serious eye opener for me. It's not something, I knew a lot about and wouldn't be in the position to.

Seriously dropped the ball on this one

It proves once again that every single time the government intervenes to "stimulate" the property market, they make a complete balls of it.

Watching the clips of Noonan reminds me of the old gob****es you see on the pub arguing about everything and anything without knowing a single thing about it! This is the man running our economy ffs!

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its Ian Kehoe, I'm not shocked he interviewed Noam Chomsky, he bleeds left despite his affluent background.

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

Yep sob stories of not taxing any profit at all.

Well done sir you've managed to victim blame. And by victim I mean the tax payer.


No tax on profits of a quarter of a billion.

Your having a laugh mate

johnnyskeleton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its Ian Kehoe, I'm not shocked he interviewed Noam Chomsky, he bleeds left despite his affluent background.

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

Well this is a problem too, but the point is that NAMA has preferred to sell to a few foreign investors rather than putting properties on the open market. Because it wouldnt do if Jimmy down the road bought an apartment for half its 2006 price dontchaknow. Better to sell it to an anonymous fund for a third of the price.

Hunchback

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its Ian Kehoe, I'm not shocked he interviewed Noam Chomsky, he bleeds left despite his affluent background.

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

Perhaps they could make another program about that? But the issue of tax collection is an important one highlighted by this program that many people will have been glad was discussed, especially if they are hearing it for the first time.

Eric Cartman

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well this is a problem too, but the point is that NAMA has preferred to sell to a few foreign investors rather than putting properties on the open market. Because it wouldnt do if Jimmy down the road bought an apartment for half its 2006 price dontchaknow. Better to sell it to an anonymous fund for a third of the price.

That, I have to say I disagree with. The rest is just business.

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

Yep sob stories of not taxing any profit at all.

Well done sir you've managed to victim blame. And by victim I mean the tax payer.


No tax on profits of a quarter of a billion.

Your having a laugh mate

victim blame, victim blame.
If you fell into arrears on a mortgage on a 2006 priced property then you are not a victim, you did this to yourself.

Boaty

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Seems quite here. Thought there would be the usual uproar.

That's because the people that are loud have free houses and this doesn't effect them

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

victim blame, victim blame.
If you fell into arrears on a mortgage on a 2006 priced property then you are not a victim, you did this to yourself.

Strange that you jumped over the bit about taxes and the tax payer which is what my entire post is about.

Laughable

flutered

many people have been proved correct by the makers of this program, the same people who have been laughed, at sneered, at work ant play when socialising, especially on social media by paid sspin doctors, who had the job at having a go at anyone who attempted to question any part of the goverments spin

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

Strange that you jumped over the bit about taxes and the tax payer which is what my entire post is about.

Laughable

I commend the funds for not paying tax. Taxation is far too high in Ireland and the tax break to encourage these funds (as was explained, in the show) was much needed. If they had to pay tax, they wouldn't have come.

Wheeliebin30

Can we all agree now that when the anti brigade say rte are controlled by the government that they are in fact talking through their hole?

Allinall

Boaty wrote: »

That's because the people that are loud have free houses and this doesn't effect them

I bought and am still paying for my own house, and this doesn't effect me .

Pete Moss

Eric Cartman wrote:

victim blame, victim blame. If you fell into arrears on a mortgage on a 2006 priced property then you are not a victim, you did this to yourself.

But that's not the argument. The point isn't people unable to repay mortgages, which they overpaid for without foresight.
The point is these properties are being bought in a completely unregulated manner. The tax on these properties is practically nonexistent.
People did borrow what they could not afford in an unregulated system. Now these properties are being bought for a fraction of the cost in an unregulated system.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I commend the funds for not paying tax. Taxation is far too high in Ireland and the tax break to encourage these funds (as was explained, in the show) was much needed. If they had to pay tax, they wouldn't have come.

Now I know your only here for the windup.

Enjoy your night of further wind ups.

Whatever gives folks jollies I suppose.

I'm out.

Eric Cartman

Pete Moss wrote: »

But that's not the argument. The point isn't people unable to repay mortgages, which they overpaid for without foresight.
The point is these properties are being bought in a completely unregulated manner. The tax on these properties is practically nonexistent.
People did borrow what they could not afford in an unregulated system. Now these properties are being bought for a fraction of the cost in an unregulated system.

if the mortgages were being paid, the asset never would have been sold.

the assets were sold at a time when nobody domestically was buying,
the only way to get a buyer was to strip value and give a tax break.
it worked, quite well, as we saw.

johnnyskeleton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That, I have to say I disagree with. The rest is just business.

Id have no problem with the business of it if they sold the properties on the open market so anyone could buy them. But that wasnt what happened. Very few properties acquired by NAMA were sold privately. And a govenrnment selling socialised assets to a select group of people isnt "just business"

Eric Cartman

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Id have no problem with the business of it if they sold the properties on the open market so anyone could buy them. But that wasnt what happened. Very few properties acquired by NAMA were sold privately. And a govenrnment selling socialised assets to a select group of people isnt "just business"

very true, as I said, i disagreed with that practice, that farmer who's brother offered to buy out the loan should have been allowed, all these assets should have been listed publicly as with the illustrated italian model.

but to say the assets shouldn't have been repossessed or bitching about a tax deal is just people being sore.

They're called parasite vulture funds because they take all the value while giving nothing back, all the money earned by the vultures will be sucked out of the country. and the debts will still remain on the taxpayer's tab.

johnnyskeleton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but to say the assets shouldn't have been repossessed or bitching about a tax deal is just people being sore.

Its one thing to say "i begrudge someone else getting a tax break". Its another thing entirely to say "i wish the government didnt set up this legislative system whereby foreign funds are incentivised to buy irish property while disincentivising irish citizens from buying property". The tax deal feeds directly into the latter, so I dont think its people merely being sore about other people getting the tax breaks, its what these tax breaks have caused which is the scandal.

WoollyRedHat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

very true, as I said, i disagreed with that practice, that farmer who's brother offered to buy out the loan should have been allowed, all these assets should have been listed publicly as with the illustrated italian model.

but to say the assets shouldn't have been repossessed or bitching about a tax deal is just people being sore.

It's not people being sore, it's people who pay a high rate of tax, do not get the expected services and then see these hedge funds come in and pay no tax at all, making massive profitis on the back of the taxpayer..is that equitable?

Eric Cartman

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

It's not people being sore, it's people who pay a high rate of tax, do not get the expected services and then see these hedge funds come in and pay no tax at all, making massive profitis on the back of the taxpayer..is that equitable?

not really , but i'd say roll out the tax breaks for all, rather than everyone pay and get no services. The vulture funds found a way around taxation, because tax money is a waste here, they were smart. Its the same reason people pay an accountant and tax planner a lot of money to keep the revenue out of their pockets too.

Berserker

As a matter of interest, what options does the government have with respect to these funds? My job pays most of my rent and I will never buy a property in Ireland, so I am out of touch with the market and all things property related to a certain extent. Why can't the government buy back these apartments etc and release them to the market here for people to buy, FTBs and the like?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

The programme wasn't about individuals who borrowed too much and their lack of personal responsibility, so why would they cover that?

Eric Cartman

Berserker wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what options does the government have with respect to these funds? My job pays most of my rent and I will never buy a property in Ireland, so I am out of touch with the market and all things property related to a certain extent. Why can't the government buy back these apartments etc and release them to the market here for people to buy, FTBs and the like?



The programme wasn't about individuals who borrowed too much and their lack of personal responsibility, so why would they cover that?

well it certainly featured a load of them, between the people in Ireland, Italy and the couple in the US. People who were unable to pay were brought on as horrible victims of the vulture funds , sob stories and all and about how evil it was. No mention that perhaps not paying a mortgage generally should result in home loss.

It even went so far as to celebrate debtors victories over funds in courts.

impr0v

There are a few disconnected points that occur to me after watching.

First: it's striking how naive people are. They expect these specialist businesses to exhibit some kind of conscience. That's not business.

Second: it's easy to moan about the profits the funds made now, when the assets have recovered. Many of the funds gambled on these assets and would have had to eat the losses if things didn't work out this way. It doesn't sit well with me that we, as a country, are moaning about this now, when we were very happy to take the cash when we needed it.

Third: Noonan is getting a lot of flak on Twitter. His brief was to plug the sinking ship with cash. He did that. At some cost to his health too, it should be said. He made a relatively good fist of a very poor situation. Funds were the only show in town.

Fourth: Paddy is surprised that his offer of cash to buy out his house at its current valuation is rejected. Of course it has. Paddy just identified himself as a mark, which can be squeezed to offset the loss (or smaller profit) made on someone who simply cannot pay.

More broadly: the funds take a gamble on the portfolio as a whole, and the portfolios are mixed for a reason. If the better assets could be picked out the dross would be unsellable and would remain with the state.

Finally: debt is debt. If the borrower could repay the loan that it obtained them it wouldn't matter to whom the debt was sold. The borrower can still avail of the same terms - interest rate, repayments, etc.