# Bad debts - accepting personal responsibility



## Howitzer (23 Oct 2009)

> "I will hold my hands up and admit I went slightly over the limit and I missed four payments, but I cleared the €3,200 arrears.
> "And now, *all because of MBNA*, I have lost the apartment," he said.


 
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/credit-card-company-ruined-my-dream-of-buying-a-home-1922516.html

Guy misses payments on credit card. 

CC company passes this information on to the ICB.

Guy can't subsequently get mortgage - it's the CC company's fault.

What have I missed? This is someone who has in the last couple of years lost a job and as a result defaulted on debt repayments. This person has a higher risk rating associated with them and any bank should take this into account when judging whether to loan them a substantial sum of money. They withdrew the mortgage because he didn't disclose this information to them in his application, they found out through his ICB report.



> Mr Behan is also angry that he was unable to get a payout on payment protection insurance he had as part of his credit card when his employment contract was not renewed.


He wasn't sacked - he only had a temporary position. So now it's the insurance companies fault.


> He is annoyed that the credit card company has refused to remove his name from the records of the Irish Credit Bureau, despite repeated requests.


He missed debts repayments - that's what the ICB is there to record. It's the ICB's fault.

This story says it all for me. Entitlement. Casually running up debts. Not accepting personal reponsibilty. Looking for someone else to blame. Obsession with buying property.


----------



## DB74 (23 Oct 2009)

Why didn't he just make the minimum payment - it's usually miniscule compared to the actual debt.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

You're right, but it's not his fault either. It's Bertie's, the banks and the developers. I thought that was well established by now and as a result the courts should write off all the debts we ran up during that time.


----------



## TarfHead (23 Oct 2009)

Latrade said:


> .. I thought that was well established by now and as a result the courts should write off all the debts we ran up during that time.


 
I think you forgot to include an  emoticon there ?


----------



## becky (23 Oct 2009)

Did anyone hear the taxi driver on Gerry Ryan.

He had €3K he wanted to use to reduce his 8K credit card bill.  He the wanted to have €500 available to him for emergencies.  The CC company were not interested in the arrangment so he only gave them €300.  None of this made any sense to me.  Why did he not just give the cc company €2,500 and put €500 into another account.

This guy was also in arrears with his mortage.


----------



## ney001 (23 Oct 2009)

becky said:


> Did anyone hear the taxi driver on Gerry Ryan.
> 
> He had €3K he wanted to use to reduce his 8K credit card bill.  He the wanted to have €500 available to him for emergencies.  The CC company were not interested in the arrangment so he only gave them €300.  None of this made any sense to me.  Why did he not just give the cc company €2,500 and put €500 into another account.
> 
> This guy was also in arrears with his mortage.



I did actually hear this guy and have to say compared to the girl before him he really didn't make a good case for himself! .  Especially went he went on about how 'non bleedin nationals' are ringing him & he can't even understand them!   I think realistically speaking everybody should accept their personal debt & shouldn't try to blame anybody and try to get out of it.  As far as I am concerned if you spent it then you have to pay it back!.  That said, a lot of people were really caught off guard by losing jobs when they assumed their job was safe, i know a hell of a lot of people in this boat!.  Therefore as long as people are making regular payments (no matter how small) and staying in contact with the banks and not trying to get out of the debt, they should be given some leeway! They certainly shouldn't be subject to harassment by banks/cc companies.  Also, for a large number of people especially those with kids, the minimum payment isn't always possible & if you miss one month it can be really hard to catch up again.  Bottom line is  accept responsibility and deal with the debt as much as you can, even making tiny regular payments if that is all you can afford.


----------



## Bronte (23 Oct 2009)

I agree with new001. We have to differentiate between those who were reckless and will use any excuse not to repay and those who thru no fault of their own are in dire circumstances. There is also the fact that credit was given out willy nilly and the banks and credit cards have a lot of responsibility here. People who cannot handle a credit card should be banned from having them for say 5 years until they cop on. There's a problem here on AAM with working out who deserves help and who are chancers. We've seen some suicidal people on here and personally I don't understand how people have managed to have so much debt, it's quite unbelievable in some of the cases but it's like Ireland has gone mad on credit. Does nobody save anymore, why do people buy things they can't afford especially holidays/TV's/cars. It's quite striking that the people in debt are sometimes those with the biggest car loans and the massive flat screen TV's and 4 holidays in the past year. That may be a generalisation but that's the impression I'm getting.


----------



## so-crates (23 Oct 2009)

There have been one or two recent posts on this forum with the attitude that debt they have willingly and knowingly incurred which doesn't suit them  is something they want to renege on (in both of the cases that particularly struck me it was irrespective of affordability). It is an almost childish lack of self-respect and responsibility. It is appalling that people can really be so selfish and short-sighted that they think walking away from their own promises is the best thing all around. And then expect other people to agree with them!

Access to credit is a basic requirement for the type of society we live in. This access is damaged in the long term by profligacy, foolishness and sheer old-fashioned selfishness. All of these work against the element of trust which is fundamental to all loan agreements. Lending institutions trust their debtors to repay and we trust the lending institutions to safeguard our financial assets. The first fault was I think with the banks, they became profligate with the money we entrusted to them, the backlash of this has been that lending criteria have become more difficult to satisfy thus limiting access to credit. The second fault is with the loan defaulters who judge repayment as an optional extra at their discretion. This foolishness and selfishness on their part further aggravates the hardening of the lenders attitude to borrowers. Together these have destroyed trust and as a result have caused the flow of money around the systems of this country and this world to slacken considerably. Of course it is more complicated than that but fundamentally what has been lost is trust at every level and an irresponsible, selfish borrowing population who do not acknowledge their own responsiblities in this are a huge part of the problem. Quite aggravating!

Those who have found in recent times that debt has now become a burden they can't afford yet who continue to strive to repay it as best they can are to be admired in my book. They are in very difficult circumstances and yet they continue to try. That lending institutions are not always amenable to their efforts is quite despicable.  Far too often though, the debt has been incurred quite unnecessarily. People have borrowed in preference to saving towards something. People have borrowed simply because they could. While the advertising practices of all lending institutions have blatantly encouraged this, it does not absolve the debtor from taking the ostensibly quick and easy cash instead of prudently saving towards an expense. We need to re-learn that debt should be treated more as a last resort than a first.


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

+1.

There are people who didn't go mad during the boom, lived within their means and now, through no fault of their own, are struggling to pay their mortgage and bills and they deserve to be treated with sympathy and compassion.

_*But,*_ there are also people who went absolutely mad and couldn't wait to spend money - putting exotic holidays on their credit card, refurnishing the house every year, buying big show offy cars on huge loans, kitting their children out in designer gear and generally living like millionaires, but all on borrowed money. Many of these people now seem to be bracketing themselves with the unfortunates above and seem to think they should just have all their loans written off and presumably paid for, indirectly, by other people. I feel very sorry for anyone who's in serious financial trouble at the moment, but some people really did bring it on themselves.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

+1 So-crates.

This goes deeper than the actions of the banks. First we wanted more competition in the finance sector and we got it, credit got a whole lot easier. 

I hate to use myself as any kind of example, heaven knows I'm not totally perfect (near as damn it though). But I had the banks offering me stupid loans. When I went for a mortgage I was told I could double it if I wanted, I was offered additional money "just get the place done up" etc, etc, etc. I didn't take it.

Now we didn't do without and we're not sitting on carboard boxes, but we saved for everything we needed. It took longer to finish the place, but in the end we had no debt and had adjusted to the not having access to the money we were saving. 

I still get the nice telly/blu ray/computer, etc, I just accrue for it. 

If people lived beyond their means that's not mine, the banks or the government's fault. There was plenty of information on the worrying debt levels. I'd also be fairly sure that the debt people ran up wasn't exactly for essential items, they were for luxury items (hence high end retailers really suffering). It wasn't spending on a need basis, it was spending on an "I want" basis.

And just to complete my transformation into Kevin Myers, this issue of TV licences. Should we feel sorry for these people jailed or taken to court for not paying? Maybe, but I doubt the had an old black and white portable TV with a coat hanger in the back. They could afford the sky subscription, the could afford the big TV, the games machines, the dvd player, so why not a TV licence.

If you're struggling so much you can't afford a TV licence, then don't have a TV!


----------



## truthseeker (23 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> _*But,*_ there are also people who went absolutely mad and couldn't wait to spend money - putting exotic holidays on their credit card, refurnishing the house every year, buying big show offy cars on huge loans, kitting their children out in designer gear and generally living like millionaires, but all on borrowed money.


 
What annoys me is the attitude of 'its the banks fault, they shouldnt have lent me the money if i couldnt pay it back'. People took out mad loans and assumed that if the back was willing to lend them the money then that was a green light to the loans affordability. 

But the myth is perpetuated onwards even in these times. I personally know a girl who has a number of different loans/debts. Contacted her bank to discuss consolidating them. Bank brought her in, sat her down and looked at the figures. Guy says to her 'this loan should never have been approved based on these figures, neither should this overdraft facility'. 

So she comes away thinking - its the banks fault.


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

I know. The banks behaved irresponsibly, there's no doubt, but it was a two way street. I remember when I was in the throes of buying an apartment and doing all the usual - bringing sandwiches to work, accepting I wouldn't be able to have a proper holiday for a few years etc, in order to be able to afford the mortgage, and in the middle of it all my bank rang me several times to ask me if I would like a loan of a few grand to buy myself something nice!

I just said 'no'. It was as simple as that.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> I know. The banks behaved irresponsibly, there's no doubt, but it was a two way street. I remember when I was in the throes of buying an apartment and doing all the usual - bringing sandwiches to work, accepting I wouldn't be able to have a proper holiday for a few years etc, in order to be able to afford the mortgage, and in the middle of it all my bank rang me several times to ask me if I would like a loan of a few grand to buy myself something nice!
> 
> I just said 'no'. It was as simple as that.


 
They should teach children in schools that just because someone offers you money, that does NOT make it a good reason to take it.


----------



## so-crates (23 Oct 2009)

It certainly seems to me that there are people in this country who want to be treated like adults when it comes to borrowing and children when it comes to paying.


----------



## so-crates (23 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> They should teach children in schools that just because someone offers you money, that does NOT make it a good reason to take it.


The trouble with that lesson is it can by countermanded by example at home.


----------



## Purple (23 Oct 2009)

I agree completely Howitzer. I started this thread on the same topic nearly two years ago.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

so-crates said:


> The trouble with that lesson is it can by countermanded by example at home.


 
This part of what I didn't get. Even as a child during the 80s I remember how bad things were, but I saw a whole generation of people who were unemployed or had it bad during that time who still lost the run of themselves during the boom. How could they not have had some caution or even paranoia about a return having lived through the worst of it before?


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

Latrade said:


> This part of what I didn't get. Even as a child during the 80s I remember how bad things were, but I saw a whole generation of people who were unemployed or had it bad during that time who still lost the run of themselves during the boom. How could they not have had some caution or even paranoia about a return having lived through the worst of it before?


 
I think some people just got caught up in the madness and threw caution to the wind. Other people were desperate to keep up with the joneses. And I think some people were delighted to be able to give their kids a lifestyle they themselves had never had. 

Also, I think overspending just got 'normalised' in a strange way. People didn't see anything strange about putting their names on a waiting list for €5,000 handbags, buying cars the size of minibuses to transport their two kids around the place, forking out €200 for a restaurant meal and so on. Some people remained clear eyed about all this, others just got carried away. Unfortunately, they're now paying the price.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Oct 2009)

The media also helped out the greed culture.
People watched their tv or read magazines with talentless nobodies like Karry Katona or Jade Goody (sorry not speaking ill of the dead, just using an example) becoming famous for no other reason than the culture of postmodern celebrity and it suddenly seemed that the ordinary skanger could access Gucci handbags and have their fake nails done and they too could open the door to the lifestyle of SUVs, expensive holidays and big houses, all to be paid for later....later...later.....


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> The media also helped out the greed culture.
> People watched their tv or read magazines with talentless nobodies like Karry Katona or Jade Goody (sorry not speaking ill of the dead, just using an example) becoming famous for no other reason than the culture of postmodern celebrity and it suddenly seemed that the ordinary skanger could access Gucci handbags and have their fake nails done and they too could open the door to the lifestyle of SUVs, expensive holidays and big houses, all to be paid for later....later...later.....


 
While I find the celebrity or WAG culture vacuous and vulgar, I wouldn't blame the media in this case and certainly don't think it only relates to skangers.

If people are unable to associate between their means and what they can afford to have and those of the celebrities (no matter how "justified" or hard earned their wealth), it's not the media's fault.

And Celebrity culture isn't new, it's been around for as long as people have had access to the media. There have always been people who are famous for being famous, socialites, etc. We've always had an obsession with how they live and the luxuries they can afford.


----------



## Bronte (23 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> ., and in the middle of it all my bank rang me several times to ask me if I would like a loan of a few grand to buy myself something nice!


 
Do you mean the bank just rang you out of the blue to give you money you hadn't asked for?


----------



## so-crates (23 Oct 2009)

A few reasons. Perhaps it is because self-indulgence has become not only normal but lauded and admired. Perhaps because a market can only sustain so many television sales that there is a business imperative to make buying new things a modern necessity. Perhaps because humans are pretty poor at long term thinking (a mortgage of thirty years, if time went backwards, would stretch into the 80's, how many people stress test their mortgage repayments with rates from the 1980's?). Perhaps because the culture of the pre-eminence of the individual diminishes social responsibility. Perhaps because we value short term gain more (it is hard-wired into humans).

Might as well ask why anyone in this day and age takes up smoking. It is expensive, dirty, unhealthy. And all of this is well-known yet still you see new people taking up the habit. And not all of them are teenagers.


----------



## VOR (23 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> Do you mean the bank just rang you out of the blue to give you money you hadn't asked for?


 

This did happen. Regularly. It was only outlawed under the Consumer Protection Code of 2006.

Bank of Ireland were very proud of their pre-approved loans and made it a press release in 2005. [broken link removed] 

Having said all that,as an adult you had the choice of taking the loan or not. You should not use this as an excuse not to pay it back. People should be able to decide how much they can afford and ultimately take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> Do you mean the bank just rang you out of the blue to give you money you hadn't asked for?


 
Yes.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> Yes.


 
That happened me a few times as well. I said no - in a kind of dumfounded 'why are you offering me money i never asked for?' tone.


----------



## so-crates (23 Oct 2009)

VOR said:


> Bank of Ireland were very proud of their pre-approved loans and made it a press release in 2005. [broken link removed]



For me the most telling thing about that is the title of Eddie Ryan (Head of *Marketing*, Personal Lending).n 

Happened to me also. I also politely declined. I also had to request they stop upping my CC limit. I was rather unhappy with the tone of the letter they would send informing me they had done so. It would start with congratulations. What is there to be congratulated? I didn't ask for it because I didn't want it. It certainly isn't a matter of congratulations.


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

Latrade said:


> While I find the celebrity or WAG culture vacuous and vulgar, I wouldn't blame the media in this case and certainly don't think it only relates to skangers.
> 
> If people are unable to associate between their means and what they can afford to have and those of the celebrities (no matter how "justified" or hard earned their wealth), it's not the media's fault.
> 
> And Celebrity culture isn't new, it's been around for as long as people have had access to the media. There have always been people who are famous for being famous, socialites, etc. We've always had an obsession with how they live and the luxuries they can afford.


 
Yes, but celebrities used to be seen as a breed apart. I think Truthseeker's point is that nowadays any ordinary Joe Soap can become a celebrity by entering the Big Brother House, auditioning on telly to be in a pop group or sleeping with a celebrity and selling their story to the papers. Therefore the whole celebrity culture and its' trappings are seen as attainable and not just a luxury to be admired from afar.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> Yes, but celebrities used to be seen as a breed apart. I think Truthseeker's point is that nowadays any ordinary Joe Soap can become a celebrity by entering the Big Brother House, auditioning on telly to be in a pop group or sleeping with a celebrity and selling their story to the papers. Therefore the whole celebrity culture and its' trappings are seen as attainable and not just a luxury to be admired from afar.


 
Thats exactly the point I was making.
Im not blaming this exclusively but simply another jig saw piece in the puzzle of bad debt.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> Yes, but celebrities used to be seen as a breed apart. I think Truthseeker's point is that nowadays any ordinary Joe Soap can become a celebrity by entering the Big Brother House, auditioning on telly to be in a pop group or sleeping with a celebrity and selling their story to the papers. Therefore the whole celebrity culture and its' trappings are seen as attainable and not just a luxury to be admired from afar.


 
Without getting into a review of celebrity culture, I think it's partly true... But does that mean the media is to blame or even should share the blame? To me, no.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Oct 2009)

Latrade said:


> Without getting into a review of celebrity culture, I think it's partly true... But does that mean the media is to blame or even should share the blame? To me, no.


 
The media is the vehicle through which these celebritys are brought to the level of exposure they are at. 
Are they to blame? They are responsible for overexposing these people, but no more to blame than banks for offering loans.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> The media is the vehicle through which these celebritys are brought to the level of exposure they are at.
> Are they to blame? They are responsible for overexposing these people, but no more to blame than banks for offering loans.


 
But no one has to buy or watch the media that carries this, if people weren't so obsessed by the culture, then it wouldn't appear in the media.

Is it a reflection of society or is it influencing society? I'd say a bit of both, but I still don't include the media in this debate.

I've always wanted an Aston Martin and only because of the James Bond films. Not only have a I (so far) managed to resist the urge to get one, but if I had of "purchased" one on finance and found myself in difficulty I wouldn't be blaming the Broccoli family or Daniel Craig (though if I'd worn teh same style of speedos on holiday I'm sure man of the others on the beach would have had felt they had been wronged).


----------



## truthseeker (23 Oct 2009)

Latrade said:


> Is it a reflection of society or is it influencing society? I'd say a bit of both, but I still don't include the media in this debate.


 
I agree its both. I also agree no one has to watch or read about these people.

But in looking for reasons why people thought it was ok to over extend themselves I believe that part of that is due to a false belief that they were 'entitled' to the same trappings of the high life as any Broccoli family member who they saw being splashed about on the tv or magazines.

Not the main reason, not the only reason, but it plays a part.


----------



## so-crates (23 Oct 2009)

Latrade said:


> ... Daniel Craig (though if I'd worn teh same style of speedos on holiday I'm sure man of the others on the beach would have had felt they had been wronged).


 Is that what you are wearing to the AAM birthday party!?


----------



## becky (23 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> Do you mean the bank just rang you out of the blue to give you money you hadn't asked for?


 I had a loan with GE capital years ago.  For at least 2years I use to get a letter every couple of months congratulating me because I was approved for a €6500 loan. They use to give me suggestions as to how I could spend it such a holiday, home improvements etc.  From what I remember, all I had to do was sign the form and they'd post me a cheque.


----------



## Purple (24 Oct 2009)

Yorky said:


> There is a pervasive culture of entitlement and blind faith in the 'system' that it will 'do something' to prevent any personal loss or difficulties.



Maybe oneof the good things to come out of the crash is that people will grow up and start acting like adults.


----------



## Brianne (24 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> Maybe oneof the good things to come out of the crash is that people will grow up and start acting like adults.



Yes, it would be great to think that this might happen. If in addition, people had some sense of shame, yes old fashioned value that it is, at the thought of not being able to repay debt, that might concentrate their minds before they plunge into unnecessary debt.
And before I'm attacked, yes I have every sympathy for people who lived according to their means and had a reasonable morgage but have lost their jobs and I have no sympathy for those who wanted lifestyles they couldn't afford , took loans for all kinds of rubbish and now think they should be left get away with it. Unless they were seriously mentally ill or of a very low intelligence, they knew they had to pay back the loans and the banks should pursue them even if it takes years. Otherwise they'll do the same in a few years. Why should the rest of us who saved up for cars, holidays and furniture pay for their excesses?


----------



## Bronte (26 Oct 2009)

I'm so gobsmacked that banks could just loan money this way.  It's so irresponsible as to be nearly criminal.  

I find that where America goes Ireland follows.  'Maxed Out' is a great book on banks and debt in the US and it looks like Ireland isn't far behind them.

Many moons ago I worked in a holiday town in the US.  There was a guy there in a motel to check in.  He had about 50 credit cards and the lady at reception had to go through about 20 of them to see which one would work, which she quite happily did.  To this day I can't figure out how he was able to manage his financial affairs like that but obviously he wasn't.  The amount of people on AAM with multiple credit cards and store cards and car loans and travel loans and credit union loans to say nothing of overdrafts is amazing.  How did things come to this.   People are spending more on the servicing of debt than the debt itself.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> I'm so gobsmacked that banks could just loan money this way. It's so irresponsible as to be nearly criminal.


 
Well if you dont like that - youre really not gonna like this:

On saturday i was in a well known clothes shop and I took my purchases to the counter. Said purchases came to approximately 140 euro. Lady behind the till said to me 'Do you have a store card?'. 'No' sez I. So she says 'Would you like one, you will automatically get 10% off these purchases?'. 
I think to myself, store card, 10% off purchases, why not? (im thinking its one of these loyalty card yoks, that you collect points on).

'OK' I say. 
She reaches under the desk for a form then hesitates and says to me 'Now this is a credit card you know?'.
'No - I didnt know, Im not interested, I dont want one, I am not interested in easy credit'.

I paid and left.

Now, if a clothes shop can just offer me a credit card over the counter like that, no credit history check, no knowledge of if Im up to my gills in debt etc...and they are 'luring' me into it with 10% off my purchases - is it any wonder people are in the state they are in with debt!!


----------



## dockingtrade (27 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> - is it any wonder people are in the state they are in with debt!!


 
You choose not to take it, as everyone else has that choice.

Easy credit fueled alot of our problems today. I sometimes feel a tiny bit sorry for those with disproportionate personal debt. But absolutely no time for people blaming the govt, developers, bankers for having debts like 25k cc balances or 40k car loans, with 30k personal loans because their houses have €200 bins or crap on the mantle piece or ride on lwanmowers for thier semi-D.  After going on 2 -3 holidays a year. NONE! (there are plenty of these people).


----------



## Bronte (27 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Now, if a clothes shop can just offer me a credit card over the counter like that, no credit history check,


 
Where have you been living, I've often been offered those but I've always declined.  Short term gain = long term pain. 20% off today means you pay double or treble for the goods in the long term.

I note they are looking in the UK to tighten up credit card practices.  That's what needs to be done in Ireland.  They should be slapped with a health warning like cigarettes.  Each credit card bill should have a minimum repayment that pays back the capital in a reasonable amount of time, people that never pay back the whole amount in say a 2 year period should have the credit card taken off them and barred from other cards for a period of time and each bill should be clear with a big warning that if you pay off the bill with a minimum repayment it will take you 40 years and 10K interest to repay it and that if you start to default and have a house they may go after you for the house.  People need to be more respectful of credit and getting into debt and some people need to be scared of getting into debt because there seems to be a lot of financial idiots out there who need to be saved from themselves and from the VERY sharp practice of banks/credit card companies etc.


----------



## Latrade (27 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> That's what needs to be done in Ireland. They should be slapped with a health warning like cigarettes.


 
They do, except people never read them. 

And let's not forget on mortgages, people complained it was too hard to get mortgages and banks need to relax their standards so that first time buyers could pay over the odds for unaffordable property. We wanted competition as we were told we had a cartel.

UK banks came here, competed with easier credit, the Irish banks followed suit. 

We got exactly what we asked for.


----------



## liaconn (27 Oct 2009)

It will be interesting, this Christmas, to see if people have really got the message or whether they will still be maxing out on their credit cards to buy hundreds and hundreds of euros worth of presents for their kids and relatives.

My nephew has been told that it takes Santa ages and ages to make a DS Nintendo so if he wants one he can't ask for anything else.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> Where have you been living, I've often been offered those but I've always declined. Short term gain = long term pain. 20% off today means you pay double or treble for the goods in the long term.


 
I totally agree with you. I was never offered one before - it was a new example of idiocy to me!!


----------



## Bronte (27 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> I totally agree with you. I was never offered one before - it was a new example of idiocy to me!!


 
You obviously don't get out much to shop


----------



## Bronte (27 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> My nephew has been told that it takes Santa ages and ages to make a DS Nintendo so if he wants one he can't ask for anything else.


 
How much is this and what age child if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## truthseeker (27 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> You obviously don't get out much to shop


 
Clearly not - perhaps this explains my own lack of debt - although it must be admitted that ebay gets a fair bit of business out of me!!!


----------



## liaconn (27 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> How much is this and what age child if you don't mind me asking?


 
I think they're around €100. He's only 4 so they're a bit reluctant to get him one,  but his older brother has one and there's always fighting over it.


----------



## Phibbleberry (27 Oct 2009)

Gosh, no they're more than that... About 150 odd, new, at least.

The fact that hes only four (and likely to drop/damage easily), they may be better getting him a second hand one, they have them advertised in all the game shops.. (you can even get second hand bundles, buying two second hand games also..) This way, they could even get him something small too, giving him two pressies, but coming in under budget, without him knowing a bit the difference!


The good thing is, some games can be played on two consoles just by being in close proximity to eachother, so if they are happy to play 'against' eachother, or different games at different times then they should be able to cut down on the amount of games they need to buy.


----------



## liaconn (27 Oct 2009)

That would make sense.  They really are unsure about  buying him one at his age and it's really just to stop the rows. He's been told that his parents are still 'thinking about letting Santa bring him one'.


----------



## Bronte (28 Oct 2009)

As TV is unsuitable for under 3's are games consoles suitable for 4 year olds   How about action man or lego?  Much cheaper and hours of fun.  150 for a Christmas present (and not even the main present) for a 4 year old seems like a lot of money.


----------



## liaconn (28 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> As TV is unsuitable for under 3's are games consoles suitable for 4 year olds  How about action man or lego? Much cheaper and hours of fun. 150 for a Christmas present (and not even the main present) for a 4 year old seems like a lot of money.


 
I explained that if he got a DS he wasn't getting anything else. How do you come up with the idea that it's not his 'main present'? As I've also said, he's always playing with his brother's DS so he knows how to use one. There are simple games for young children to play and the games state the suitable age on the cover. I should also add that his brother is only allowed use his DS for a couple of hours spread over the weekend, so this would also apply to the four year old. In any event, what has this got to do with the topic???


----------



## Latrade (28 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> I explained that if he got a DS he wasn't getting anything else. How do you come up with the idea that it's not his 'main present'? As I've also said, he's always playing with his brother's DS so he knows how to use one. There are simple games for young children to play and the games state the suitable age on the cover. I should also add that his brother is only allowed use his DS for a couple of hours spread over the weekend, so this would also apply to the four year old. In any event, what has this got to do with the topic???


 
Pah in my day all we got was an orange and a stick, and were happy with that!

I do wonder though how this came round to a moral debate on whether or not your sister get's approval from the forum to buy her son a particular present.


----------



## Purple (28 Oct 2009)

Latrade said:


> I do wonder though how this came round to a moral debate on whether or not your sister get's approval from the forum to buy her son a particular present.


I think we need to see a full Santa list for the kid before we make a decision. A sibling impact report would also be a good idea.


----------



## Bronte (28 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> I explained that if he got a DS he wasn't getting anything else.. In any event, what has this got to do with the topic???


 
I missed that it was only his main present.  You shouldn't believe all your read on the tin though 

In relation to the topic I knew people who go into massive debt at Christmas to buy really expensive toys for their kids in the misguided idea that going into debt to make a child really happy works.  Quite a few people over the years have mentioned how much they are going to spend on the kids for birthdays and xmas even though they are in debt.  Some quite recently.


----------



## liaconn (28 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> I think we need to see a full Santa list for the kid before we make a decision. A sibling impact report would also be a good idea.


 
He also has a younger sister. Does the Board approve of 4 yr olds with little sisters getting a DS from Santa? Supposing she sees it and wants one for herself? This could get dangerous.


----------



## Complainer (28 Oct 2009)

Latrade said:


> Pah in my day all we got was an orange and a stick,


We just got the orange, and then they beat us with the stick.


----------



## Purple (28 Oct 2009)

Complainer said:


> We just got the orange, and then they beat us with the stick.



You must have been working  “Down Mill”... that explains the socialism


----------



## RMCF (28 Oct 2009)

This thread is going off topic quickly.

Time to forget about the 4yr old and his DS !!


----------



## Howitzer (28 Oct 2009)

The idea of debt forgiveness seems to be cropping up quite a bit in the mainstream media of late. 

It might be time to load up the credit card so, as a taxpayer, I'm not lumbered with paying for other people's foreign holidays and timber decking whilst having noting to show for it myself. That's what you're supposed to do, right?


----------



## liaconn (28 Oct 2009)

RMCF said:


> This thread is going off topic quickly.
> 
> Time to forget about the 4yr old and his DS !!


 
I agree!

Back on topic, I know people who moan and groan about the recession and having to make sacrifices etc and then, the next time you meet them, they've just booked a nice holiday for themselves or are getting some work done on the house. I'm not sure whether these people are in denial or whether they're not as badly off as they say and just want to feel part of the general despondency going on.
Maybe gloom is very 'happening' at the moment.


----------



## so-crates (30 Oct 2009)

Howitzer said:


> The idea of debt forgiveness seems to be cropping up quite a bit in the mainstream media of late.
> 
> It might be time to load up the credit card so, as a taxpayer, I'm not lumbered with paying for other people's foreign holidays and timber decking whilst having noting to show for it myself. That's what you're supposed to do, right?


Similar to the occasional poster in the mortgages forum with a fixed rate looking for a way out of it that they don't have to pay. People seem to have got the notion that they don't have to pay for themselves and their choices. That there is someone else that they can appeal to, stamp their foot at and get what they want. Effectively these individuals act as overgrown children and expect the state to "parent" them. They want no responsibility for themselves when things get hard.

An employer is effectively in debt to their employees for the wages. How would these people feel if the same logic was applied to their wages and the employer decided not to pay?


----------



## Bronte (9 Nov 2009)

Howitzer said:


> It might be time to load up the credit card so, as a taxpayer, I'm not lumbered with paying for other people's foreign holidays and timber decking whilst having noting to show for it myself. That's what you're supposed to do, right?


 
You should get cracking on this now in time for the new fine's bill.  Instead of having to repay the money or going to jail for refusing you'll be able to do a bit of community service.


----------



## Complainer (9 Nov 2009)

so-crates said:


> An employer is effectively in debt to their employees for the wages. How would these people feel if the same logic was applied to their wages and the employer decided not to pay?


I guess you could ask the employees of the many underfunded DB pension schemes around the country. It seems to be very acceptable for employers not to meet these contractual obligations.


----------



## thedaras (10 Nov 2009)

so-crates said:


> Similar to the occasional poster in the mortgages forum with a fixed rate looking for a way out of it that they don't have to pay.
> 
> *
> 
> ...


 
You mean like the government just did?
Because thats exactly what the government did do,they are taking money from us because of their mess up.
When a goverment gives way too much money during a boom,this is the result..they ,unlike some of us,did not save for the rainy day.


----------



## Howitzer (16 Nov 2009)

Looks like Pat Kenny may read AAM. [broken link removed].



> How often have you heard that triumvirate blamed for the country's economic woes over the last 12 months. There's no doubt that all three groups have a case to answer but, as a people, have we really looked at our own collective responsibility for creating an unsustainable boom and setting up ourselves up for a painful collapse?
> 
> After all, house prices didn't soar to unbelievable levels because Irish people wouldn't or couldn't pay those prices - they soared because we could and we did. Sure, credit was relatively easy to get but if the bank offers you a loan and you end up being unable to repay it, is it entirely the bank's fault - do you yourself have no responsibility in this?
> 
> ...


----------



## Latrade (16 Nov 2009)

Howitzer said:


> Looks like Pat Kenny may read AAM. [broken link removed].


 
After the last few weeks of comments on Pat's house and lifestyle, while I agree with him on what he says, does he really want to open this can of worms?


----------



## MANTO (16 Nov 2009)

I took my mothers advice..."Don't buy what you cannot afford".

Now, I could have been like many others and went to the banks during the boom, got a rediculously high mortgage and think i could sustain it for the next 30 - 40 years....

People made their own decisions, i accept there are genuine cases but i dont think they outweight the number who just spent spent spent.....

I could have booked 3 holidays a year on my credit card...but i made the decision not too so why should those who did get bailed out...all they want to do is take take take.....I DONT THINK SO!


----------



## truthseeker (17 Nov 2009)

Received my local credit union yearly booklet yesterday, the one that shows the accounts and balances etc...

They had one page where they showed what loans were for, grouped by category. Quite high up on the list was the category 'House Deposits', followed by 'Weddings', 'Holidays', and one of the last items was 'Car Insurance'.

Now people are entitled to borrow for whatever they like, but seriously, borrowing for a wedding? A holiday? Borrowing for car insurance!?!?!
And I thought it wasnt even pc to borrow for a House Deposit!!


----------



## RMCF (17 Nov 2009)

Watched The Frontline last night and I think the bit that goes to the audience and when we are all meant to feel sorry for people takes the biscuit.

OK there are some genuine cases where people get into trouble and can't afford to even pay small mortgages, but the first guy who spoke seemed to be looking for us all to cry for him.

He was 24 and had a €695,000 mortgage !!!

Bought his first house when he was 19 with his girlfriend but appeared to have moved up in the housing market at least once. He said he was working 75hrs a week to sustain it all and was doing well. Now his monthly mortgage repayments are €3,500.

I'm 41 and me and my wife have good jobs, but I would never ever take a mortgage for half of what he did. Madness. He obviously did not think for 1sec before signing up to debt of that magnitude. Did he not sit and do the maths if work ever dried up a bit? If there was a bit of a downturn? 

We can't all feel sorry for people who took incredibly stupid decisions.


----------



## Ceist Beag (17 Nov 2009)

RMCF said:


> Watched The Frontline last night and I think the bit that goes to the audience and when we are all meant to feel sorry for people takes the biscuit.
> 
> OK there are some genuine cases where people get into trouble and can't afford to even pay small mortgages, but the first guy who spoke seemed to be looking for us all to cry for him.
> 
> ...



+1
There was a time when young people spent years renting and squirreled away a deposit for a house before taking the leap. This young fella summed up perfectly where the country lost the run of itself in the past decade.


----------



## RMCF (17 Nov 2009)

Thing is, there are thousands like him. In debt to their eyeballs and I wouldn't be surprised if he had 4 credit cards too, which he didn't mention last night.

Someone on the show last night called him an entrepeneur - I don't really think you could describe him as this. To supplement his income (can't remember what he did as main job) he was DJ'ing 3 nights a week for God's sake !! Yeah, like that will take him on to the Dragon's Den.

Many people could have taken out big loans or big mortgages like him, as the banks were throwing money at us all. But the sensible people said 'no, I don't need it/want it/can afford it'.


----------



## galleyslave (17 Nov 2009)

I've been reading this with interest. My opinion is that theres no single point of responsibility. The banks had  responsibility of fiscal prudence - they failed miserably. The consumer had a responsibility to be prudent in their financial decisions and failed miserably. The govt. had a responsibility to oversee and regulate and manage and failed miserably.  We all have to take some blame for this mess. Bank lending sums it up for me - obscene sums loaned to unsuitable consumers. Consumers lapping up credit with total disregard for the possible consequences and govt. sitting on its This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language delighted with the tax take and doing nothing to rein it in


----------



## liaconn (17 Nov 2009)

I only saw the very start of Frontline but I agree that some people were leaping onto the property ladder far too early. It actually got to the stage where anyone who didn't own their own place by their mid twenties was sneered at by some people. Programmes like 'I'm an adult, get me out of here' didn't help. The whole premise seemed to be that anyone still living at home in their early twenties was a sad failure. I think it was this kind of stuff that made a lot of people start panicing and looking for mortgages long before they were in a secure enough position to afford them.


----------



## MANTO (17 Nov 2009)

I thought it was just me when that bloke went on about his €695,000 mortgage and monthly repayments - i struggled to see what point he was trying to make.....

The only point i could see was, he was an idiot to get into that kind of debt and what response was he looking for?

+1 on the credit cards....People are crying they cannot pay their mortgages..but failing to mention its partially because they ran up hugh credit card debts also..


----------

