# Angry delegate tells minister she's left with just €94 per week



## DerKaiser (15 Apr 2009)

[broken link removed]

Another case of an indignant person blaming everybody but themselves.

Does society really believe that a single person who buys 3 bedroom house at the age 24, purchasing at the height of the market and fixing their interest rate at practically the highest point its been since the creation of the Euro should be left with a large disposable income?

I find it amazing how such a peson can feel sorry enough for themselves to publically lambast anyone but themselves.  Are they really living on the same planet?  Where is their sense of perspective?


----------



## Ron Burgundy (15 Apr 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> Another case of an indignant person blaming everybody but themselves.
> 
> ...


 
And she is the one left to educate the nations childern......i hope she doesn't teach economics


----------



## DeeFox (15 Apr 2009)

I've just been listening to this lady on the radio - the presenter (who is standing in for Pat Kenny) said that the majority of texts coming in were not sympathetic to her plight.  At the end of the day it was her decision to take out a mortgage and now that the situation has turned pear shaped it is nobodys fault except her own.


----------



## Howitzer (15 Apr 2009)

How many people like this are there out there - and why do they all seem to work as teachers?

So without the tenant she'd have no money each month after her mortgage and other fixed cost payments are made. 

Whilst her take home pay may have decreased by (picks number out of thin air) 10% or so how can someone be in that situation? How could she have got such a large mortgage? How could she have thought it was a good idea to have so much of her (very good for her age) income going on mortgage payments.

Yet another non Maths/Economics teacher I see. Are there any?


----------



## Firefly (15 Apr 2009)

Take the hit and switch to a variable rate mortgage...add the charges for switching to the mortgage if needs be. Should be 300pm there straight away


----------



## Purple (15 Apr 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> Another case of an indignant person blaming everybody but themselves.


 Yep, and listening to the utter rubbish spouted from the teaching union heads over the last few days she seems to typify the teaching sector.


----------



## Latrade (15 Apr 2009)

When you hear things like this you tend to get quite fascist and think that there is merit in having an exam to gain the right to vote, but when you then realise that someone like this is paid to "educate" children...


----------



## Sunny (15 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> Yep, and listening to the utter rubbish spouted from the teaching union heads over the last few days she seems to typify the teaching sector.


 
They do talk some rubbish don't they. I don't want to bash teachers because it is a difficult job and some of them deserve every cent they earn but having listened to various union leaders in the past couple of days, its amazing how they come on air talking about protecting the rights of children to a decent education but imply that the only way to achieve this is by paying the teachers more!


----------



## liaconn (15 Apr 2009)

God, our schools are full of whingey teachers, our hospitals are full of overpaid nurses, our government departments are full of lazy civil servants.... Is there any group of public servants out there that are doing a reasonable job and that meet the exacting standards of you lot??


----------



## Ron Burgundy (15 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> God, our schools are full of whingey teachers, our hospitals are full of overpaid nurses, our government departments are full of lazy civil servants.... *Is there any group of public servants out there that are doing a reasonable job and that meet the exacting standards of you lot??*


 
Prison officers wearing steel toe capped boots


----------



## DavyJones (15 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> God, our schools are full of whingey teachers, our hospitals are full of overpaid nurses, our government departments are full of lazy civil servants.... Is there any group of public servants out there that are doing a reasonable job and that meet the exacting standards of you lot??




Fire fighters.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (15 Apr 2009)

Also its not teachers as a group, its the specific example mentioned here that i am speaking of.


----------



## Pique318 (15 Apr 2009)

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/think_of_the_children.jpg


----------



## Ron Burgundy (15 Apr 2009)

Pique318 said:


> http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/think_of_the_children.jpg


 
Nice one


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> God, our schools are full of whingey teachers, our hospitals are full of overpaid nurses, our government departments are full of lazy civil servants.... Is there any group of public servants out there that are doing a reasonable job and that meet the exacting standards of you lot??


 
I'm sure this individual does not represent the views of all teachers but there's no point in the useful public servants allowing themselves to be used as some kind of human shield.

If you're a public servant and you'd agree that this persons complaints are unjustified then say so.  I'm not attacking the 200,000 people who are loosely linked to her by nothing more than simply working for the public service.

You'll find that it is the whingey, overpaid, lazy ones who are first to take offence and would love to hide behind the large numbers in the public service.  

The first reaction at anyone reasonable and doing a good job in the public service should be to disown rather than harbour this kind of behaviour.


----------



## liaconn (15 Apr 2009)

I was really referring to Purple's post and to the general stuff that's been on the board lately. I have also been very upfront in admitting that the Public Service isn't perfect while pointing out that we're not all one homogenous group who all behave exactly the same.


----------



## Howitzer (15 Apr 2009)

The individual involed is a delegate, a person whose job it is to represent the views of other teachers who she works with. Yet her issue was a completely personal one of her own making. 

Admittedly a large number of other (non Maths/Economics) teachers seem to have the same issue anecdotedly.


----------



## Purple (15 Apr 2009)

derkaiser said:


> i'm sure this individual does not represent the views of all teachers but there's no point in the useful public servants allowing themselves to be used as some kind of human shield.
> 
> If you're a public servant and you'd agree that this persons complaints are unjustified then say so.  I'm not attacking the 200,000 people who are loosely linked to her by nothing more than simply working for the public service.
> 
> ...


 +1


----------



## Caveat (15 Apr 2009)

Howitzer said:


> The individual involed is a delegate, a person whose job it is to represent the views of other teachers who she works with. Yet her issue was a completely personal one of her own making.


 
Exactly.


----------



## Yachtie (15 Apr 2009)

Sunny said:


> its amazing how they come on air talking about protecting the rights of children to a decent education but imply that the only way to achieve this is by paying the teachers more!


 
This is the bit that bugs me! I always hear it as a threat that if the teachers / nurses / whoever don't get paid more, they'd dig in their heels and start distributing drugs to the children / give you wrong medication / whatever. What happened to work ethics and codes of practice?

I am failing to feel sorry for *anyone* who'd come out and say that they willingly bought a grotty overpriced house when the market was at its peak, borrowed €50k for a flash car, went to Barbados on holiday and raked up a €15k credit card bill at Brown Thomas and now has no money left. Ahem, should have thought about that before, shouldn't you? Oh, and a good few of those insist that it's all government's fault. You may love them or hate them but the government has nothing to do with such unwise choices.


----------



## cork (15 Apr 2009)

Many teachers do nixers giving grinds. I would love a such mini industries to be registered.

What % of grinds business is operating in the black economy?


----------



## Purple (15 Apr 2009)

Yachtie said:


> This is the bit that bugs me! I always hear it as a threat that if the teachers / nurses / whoever don't get paid more, they'd dig in their heels and start distributing drugs to the children / give you wrong medication / whatever. What happened to work ethics and codes of practice?
> 
> I am failing to feel sorry for *anyone* who'd come out and say that they willingly bought a grotty overpriced house when the market was at its peak, borrowed €50k for a flash car, went to Barbados on holiday and raked up a €15k credit card bill at Brown Thomas and now has no money left. Ahem, should have thought about that before, shouldn't you? Oh, and a good few of those insist that it's all government's fault. You may love them or hate them but the government has nothing to do with such unwise choices.



We have a good public sector in this country (on balance). They are just overpaid. One idiot that feels agrieved that she has to live in the same world as the rest of us where adults are responsible for their own stupid decisions cannot be taken to represent every state employee.


----------



## UptheDeise (15 Apr 2009)

Firefly said:


> Take the hit and switch to a variable rate mortgage...add the charges for switching to the mortgage if needs be. Should be 300pm there straight away


 
Shouldn't she stick with her fixed rate for a bit longer. Won't we have high inflation coupled by high interest rates coming down the road shortly?


----------



## Yachtie (15 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> We have a good public sector in this country (on balance). They are just overpaid. One idiot that feels agrieved that she has to live in the same world as the rest of us where adults are responsible for their own stupid decisions cannot be taken to represent every state employee.


 
I agree with you completely BUT as stated earlier in the thread, this individual is a delegate, hence representative of the group. It's a fact that there are people in all professions who love their jobs and even though they may dislike the government / company / socially imposed measures, will still continue to do their job with professionalism and enthusiasm rather than threaten the rest of us with strikes or poor quality of their services.


----------



## Lollix (15 Apr 2009)

I have very little sympathy with this teacher, I have to say. She works for approx half the year for the salary she gets; how about getting off her This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language and taking on a bit of summer work if she needs some extra money.

Or would she prefer if the taxpayers paid her a lot more, and maybe took her mortgage off her hands as well? Get in the real world, teacher!


----------



## Black Sheep (15 Apr 2009)

I just wish she had at least stuck to facts if she choose the wrong place for her personal complaint. Surely it's not possible that any bank/building society gave someone on a salary of 40,000 a mortgage of 300,000. I can only assume that this mortgage is shared with husband, partner, friend etc.

Next time she should stick to the real situation, it might be credible


----------



## micmclo (15 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> God, our schools are full of whingey teachers, our hospitals are full of overpaid nurses, our government departments are full of lazy civil servants.... Is there any group of public servants out there that are doing a reasonable job and that meet the exacting standards of you lot??



I'd also say that Fire fighters do an excellent job. Especially with the reports you read about them getting attacked around hallowen.......and a well publicized case at a halting site in Finglas area.

They deserve to be well paid but many areas have minimal full-time cover and retained fire fighters aren't exactly on great pay. Not a job you'd do for the money.


----------



## diarmuidc (16 Apr 2009)

Black Sheep said:


> I just wish she had at least stuck to facts if she choose the wrong place for her personal complaint. Surely it's not possible that any bank/building society gave someone on a salary of 40,000 a mortgage of 300,000.


yea the bloody banks with their "gun to the head" policy forcing 26 year old "educators" to take huge mortgages. There's no justice in this world.


----------



## DerKaiser (16 Apr 2009)

Black Sheep said:


> I just wish she had at least stuck to facts if she choose the wrong place for her personal complaint. Surely it's not possible that any bank/building society gave someone on a salary of 40,000 a mortgage of 300,000. I can only assume that this mortgage is shared with husband, partner, friend etc.
> 
> Next time she should stick to the real situation, it might be credible


 
It was possible for someone in a guaranteed job to borrow that amount. Obviously someone should know better but the system is not completely without blame either.

There was a lack of thought and implementation in the application of stress tests on the part of the banks and the regulator.

The person who took out the large mortgage did it of their own free will and is now suffering the consequences.

Banks lent too much money and their shareholders have suffered the consequences.

The taxpayer supported the lax regulatory regime through the democratic process and we are now suffering the consequences.

No one is completely without blame so finger pointing on the part of anyone who has been part of this whole mess (basically everyone!) is a bit hypocritical


----------



## z104 (16 Apr 2009)

I think there are alot of deluded professions out there all feeding from the taxpayes trough.  4 months paid holiday for secondary school teachers. Job for life. 
Short working day.

A bit of perspective please.


----------



## UptheDeise (16 Apr 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> It was possible for someone in a guaranteed job to borrow that amount. Obviously someone should know better but the system is not completely without blame either.
> 
> There was a lack of thought and implementation in the application of stress tests on the part of the banks and the regulator.
> 
> ...


 
I'm sorry but I disagree with you DerKaiser, this woman is an adult and she knew what she was doing when she took out that mortgage. If she didn't, tough. No one forced her to take out the mortgage in the first place.

You've also mentioned lax regulation. We've enough regulation in place and we don't need anymore. By regulating, we introduce more complexity and expand the governments interference in the market place. No thank you very much.

The problem as I see it, is sheeple don't want to be responsible for themselves anymore. They think other folk can sort out all their problems and guarantee them a comfortable life. These people need to get with it.

The good times are over, even though those good times were all an illusion.


----------



## DerKaiser (16 Apr 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> I'm sorry but I disagree with you DerKaiser, this woman is an adult and she knew what she was doing.
> 
> We've enough regulation in place and we don't need anymore. By regulating, we introduce more complexity and expand the governments interference in the market place. No thank you very much.
> 
> The problem as I see it, is sheeple don't want to be responsible for themselves anymore.


 
I'm not absolving the people who get into mortgage trouble because they've borrowed too much of any of the blame for the situation they find themselves in. On this we definitely agree.

But the next stage of the problem is where they default and the bank shareholders take the hit. In this situtaion it is the bank management who have been imprudent with their shareholders money.  The shareholders employed the management to look after their interests so they can't blame anyone else.

The final stage of the problem is when people default en masse and the taxpayer takes the hit. In this case the blame for the loss incurred by the taxpayer must be laid squarely at the door of the regulator for not protecting the taxpayers interests.  The majority of taxpayers were quite happy with the levels of non enforcement of regulations so the toxic debts we will ultimately bear should be no surprise.

Everyone is in some way reponsible for the burden they are bearing at the moment. It is unfair, naive and misguided for any of us to point fingers and say we had no involvement in what has come to pass


----------



## Purple (17 Apr 2009)

Kevin Myres in todays Irish Independent makes some excellent points on the subject of teachers. One of which is that German schools produce students with a higher level of english than Irish schools.


----------



## Caveat (17 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> German schools produce students with a higher level of english than Irish schools.


 
I'd say context is all in this case - a bit of semantic manipulation maybe too.  I would find this hard to believe in a general sense but entirely possible that there are _instances_ where German school leavers have a higher level of English - which would still make the above a true statement.


----------



## Imperator (17 Apr 2009)

The _Independent_ article states that there is a higher level of *literacy* in English rather than English itself - a view to which I would be inclined to give some credence.


----------



## Purple (17 Apr 2009)

The fact that they have 40% more pay than the UK with much longer holidays is damning.
The fact that teachers opted for pay increases rather than smaller classes over the last few years exposes the lie that they have the interests of students as their top priority.


----------



## cork (17 Apr 2009)

> [that German schools produce students with a higher level of english than Irish schools.


 
The level of teaching in schools leaves much to be desired.

The standard of teaching Irish is a  disgrace.

The Dail is made up with many teachers and the teachers lobby is strong so change is really not on the agenda.

What political party favours extending the school year or cutting teachers pay?

Even favouring tax investigating teachers grinds business?


----------



## Simeon (17 Apr 2009)

Why would teachers leave the teaching profession for the Dail? The holidays are longer and the wages doubled. And they have a more mature audience but less mature peers. If that's possible


----------



## UptheDeise (17 Apr 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> I'm not absolving the people who get into mortgage trouble because they've borrowed too much of any of the blame for the situation they find themselves in. On this we definitely agree.
> 
> But the next stage of the problem is where they default and the bank shareholders take the hit. In this situtaion it is the bank management who have been imprudent with their shareholders money. *The shareholders employed the management to look after their interests so they can't blame anyone else.*
> 
> ...


 
Hi Derkaiser, quick question, in the UK if the shareholders vote on an issue the board of management can override it. According to Max keiser anyway. Does that hold true here?


----------



## DerKaiser (17 Apr 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> Hi Derkaiser, quick question, in the UK if the shareholders vote on an issue the board of management can override it. According to Max keiser anyway. Does that hold true here?


 
I've no idea, that would be like the government overriding a referendum vote wouldn't it?


----------



## Yachtie (17 Apr 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> I've no idea, that would be like the government overriding a referendum vote wouldn't it?


 

 Perhaps they can just have a vote as many times as it takes to get it 'right'!


----------



## Staples (17 Apr 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> You've also mentioned lax regulation. We've enough regulation in place and we don't need anymore. By regulating, we introduce more complexity and expand the governments interference in the market place. No thank you very much.


 
Isn't that what Sean Fitzpatrick said?


----------



## UptheDeise (17 Apr 2009)

Staples said:


> Isn't that what Sean Fitzpatrick said?


 
No amount of regulation would have stopped Sean Fitzpatrick from doing what he did. Useless you regulate the market into oblivion. Besides you can't regulate against cronyism.

The best regulator we have is the free market. It is fair and totally unbiased.


----------



## Staples (17 Apr 2009)

Howitzer said:


> How could she have thought it was a good idea to have so much of her (very good for her age) income going on mortgage payments.


 
Look. She's angry because she's experiencing hurt that she never thought would come her way.  You could argue whether or not she should have seen it coming but, let's face it, a lot of people choose to work in the civil/public service because of the job and wage security.  As a civil servant, I know of several who voluntarily took a pay cut from their private sector jobs for this very reason.

The concept of a pay CUT is not one that public servants have ever had to contemplate in the history of the State and it would have been unthinkable as recently as 9 months ago. I worked in the civil service in the dark 80s and the pay was poor then relative to the private sector but at least it was guaranteed and there was a value attached to that. You could argue at length as to whether public servants are currently overpaid but one thing that has always a given was that salaries would never go south. If we are overpaid, it's the combined fault of government and unions for agreeing soft-option money-led solutions to compensate for structural deficiencies. You can't blame workers for taking money that was offered unconditionally.   

This teacher, like all public servants, has made long-term financial decisions on the basis of what she reasonably assumed was a guaranteed level of income and the sudden loss of income is causing many people some hardship - not as bad as losing your job, but hardship nonethless.  None of us will make that mistake again in the brave new world in which we now exist. Her anger and frustration, on a personal level, is understandable but her behaviour is unacceptable.  Her hurt, anger and frustration are probably representative of many public servants who feel they've been led a merry dance by government and unions.  Her behaviour and reaction, however, is representative of far fewer.


----------



## diarmuidc (17 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> Kevin Myres in todays Irish Independent makes some excellent points on the subject of teachers. One of which is that German schools produce students with a higher level of english than Irish schools.



While I agree with Myers on certain subjects, I find that he plays loosely with the facts. Am always suspicious of his claims.


----------



## diarmuidc (17 Apr 2009)

Staples said:


> a lot of people choose to work in the civil/public service because of the job and wage security.  As a civil servant, I know of several who voluntarily took a pay cut from their private sector jobs for this very reason.



That doesn't mean  it should continue like this. As someone who pays these salaries I want to see some performance related metric. The days of getting arbitary and guaranteed raises are over and should never have existed.


----------



## Simeon (17 Apr 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> No amount of regulation would have stopped Sean Fitzpatrick from doing what he did. Useless you regulate the market into oblivion. Besides you can't regulate against cronyism.
> 
> The best regulator we have is the free market. It is fair and totally unbiased.



 If the auditor/regulator was on top of his job, the Anglo debacle would not have taken place. Fitzpatrick may have gotten away for 12 months max but it should then have been twigged. One of the buttresses of the financial lending houses is prudence. Blatant ramping (make no mistake about it, 'cause that is what it was) took place. If the management were transparent with the paperwork, the shares would not have soared. So anyone that had a true picture is culpable. This being Ireland, I doubt that these pirates will walk the plank. But there are other newer democracies where they and their immediate families would have had to get a one way after dark flight.


----------



## Complainer (18 Apr 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> No amount of regulation would have stopped Sean Fitzpatrick from doing what he did. Useless you regulate the market into oblivion. Besides you can't regulate against cronyism.
> 
> The best regulator we have is the free market. It is fair and totally unbiased.


You can regulate against cronyism. The Cadbury report in the UK into good corporate governance recommended that you don't let CEOs become Chairperson in the same organisation, to stop this kind of cronyism. That simple rule would have prevented Seanie's abuse.


----------



## liaconn (18 Apr 2009)

Staples said:


> Look. She's angry because she's experiencing hurt that she never thought would come her way. You could argue whether or not she should have seen it coming but, let's face it, a lot of people choose to work in the civil/public service because of the job and wage security. As a civil servant, I know of several who voluntarily took a pay cut from their private sector jobs for this very reason.
> 
> The concept of a pay CUT is not one that public servants have ever had to contemplate in the history of the State and it would have been unthinkable as recently as 9 months ago. I worked in the civil service in the dark 80s and the pay was poor then relative to the private sector but at least it was guaranteed and there was a value attached to that. You could argue at length as to whether public servants are currently overpaid but one thing that has always a given was that salaries would never go south. If we are overpaid, it's the combined fault of government and unions for agreeing soft-option money-led solutions to compensate for structural deficiencies. You can't blame workers for taking money that was offered unconditionally.
> 
> This teacher, like all public servants, has made long-term financial decisions on the basis of what she reasonably assumed was a guaranteed level of income and the sudden loss of income is causing many people some hardship - not as bad as losing your job, but hardship nonethless. None of us will make that mistake again in the brave new world in which we now exist. Her anger and frustration, on a personal level, is understandable but her behaviour is unacceptable. Her hurt, anger and frustration are probably representative of many public servants who feel they've been led a merry dance by government and unions. Her behaviour and reaction, however, is representative of far fewer.


 
Well said.  Rightly or wrongly, public servants' mortgages were stress tested against a guaranteed salary and incremental scale. This is genuinely  leaving a lot of public servants in a difficult position. Its not the same as losing your job, but it is still worrying and stressful and having people point fingers and (in some cases) almost crowing at these people's misfortune is a bit distasteful.


----------



## DerKaiser (18 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> Public servants' mortgages were stress tested against a guaranteed salary and incremental scale. This is genuinely  leaving a lot of public servants in a difficult position. crowing at these people's misfortune is a bit distasteful.



If you think she's misfortunate then you have not thought very much about real misfortune.

Look, everyone's mortgage was stress tested against the wage they had.  Don't try to construct an arguement that this entitles them to the net income the bank assumed they would earn.  It's logic like this that is the problem.

No one is questioning that people are stressed out over tax hikes.

The person in question must have been pretty indignant though to harass the minister for 15 minutes.  

We've been through her situation.  She chose to buy a 3 bedroom house at the age of 24, borrowing almost 8 times her salary.  She now has a smaller disposable income that she thought she would, but has a guaranteed job, enough to pay for food and the roof over her head.

This situation for me does not warrant ministerial time.  If the minster does pay her any heed, where does she expect to be subsidised from? People need to have a bit of cop on as to how well they are doing relative to say starving kids in Africa or Cystic fibrosis sufferers with a life expectancy of 21 (just two examples of where just a fraction of the money raised in the recent tax increase could save or immeasurably improve many lives).

As an act of utter selfishness and disregard for society this attitude absolutely sickens me.


----------



## Purple (18 Apr 2009)

The minister should not attend the teachers union conferences next year without guarantees that those attending will not behave like petulant children (like that stupid, self indulgent buffoon who made a show of herself chasing after the minister or the other clowns that stuck their noses in the air and walked out when he got up to speak).

The very least they should do is show a little respect for their boss.


----------



## Chocks away (18 Apr 2009)

And so say all of us. Imagine the indignation of a teacher if a pupil walked out because he/she didn't like what the teacher was saying. This is no way for them to show consideration, leadership, understanding and manners. Most are an obnoxious bunch of egocentrics. And as far removed from normality as their inflated sense of self allows.


----------



## liaconn (19 Apr 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> If you think she's misfortunate then you have not thought very much about real misfortune.
> 
> Look, everyone's mortgage was stress tested against the wage they had. Don't try to construct an arguement that this entitles them to the net income the bank assumed they would earn. It's logic like this that is the problem.
> 
> ...


 
I am not defending the way that particular individual behaved. I'm saying that an extra factor taken into account when public servants applied for a mortgage was the fact that their salary and increments were perceived to be 100% secure and this was an important element in the stress test. If a private sector worker said that, due to a 10% deduction in his pay he was now in trouble with his mortgage he would, quite rightly, gets nods of sympathy and understanding. When a public servant says the same thing, the attitude of a lot of people is 'tough'. Not nice, in my view. That's all.

Also, please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say public servants were entitled to the same salary as they had at the time they took out their mortgage. I said it was understandable that they are just as upset as people in the private sector if they feel they may not be able to meet their mortgage repayments due to a salary reduction,.


----------



## shanegl (19 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> I am not defending the way that particular individual behaved ... When a public servant says the same thing, the attitude of a lot of people is 'tough'. Not nice, in my view. That's all.


Perhaps the two are linked?


----------



## liaconn (19 Apr 2009)

shanegl said:


> Perhaps the two are linked?


 
Another sweeping statement about the public service and exactly the type of attitude I'm talking about.


----------



## shanegl (19 Apr 2009)

I see now how that post could have been misconstrued, however:

You complained about the lack of sympathy this person seems to be getting. I suggested that this may be caused by her behaviour.


----------



## DerKaiser (19 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> I am not defending the way that particular individual behaved. I'm saying that an extra factor taken into account when public servants applied for a mortgage was the fact that their salary and increments were perceived to be 100% secure and this was an important element in the stress test. If a private sector worker said that, due to a 10% deduction in his pay he was now in trouble with his mortgage he would, quite rightly, gets nods of sympathy and understanding. When a public servant says the same thing, the attitude of a lot of people is 'tough'. Not nice, in my view. That's all.
> 
> Also, please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say public servants were entitled to the same salary as they had at the time they took out their mortgage. I said it was understandable that they are just as upset as people in the private sector if they feel they may not be able to meet their mortgage repayments due to a salary reduction,.



Again Lianconn, this is not a public vs private issue.  I'd be making the exact same point for junior accountants and solicitors.  I doubt if a 24 year old trainee accountant who took a cut in their net wage would be looked on more favourably by anyone.

You talk about putting words in people's mouths?  I said that no one was entitled to the wage their loan applications were based on and you are requoting as if this was somehow limited to public servants?

You are being hyper sensitive to criticism of anyone who works in the public service as if its a criticism of the entire public service.  This is not the case. I work in financial services and don't consider criticism of Bank Chiefs to be private sector bashing


----------



## liaconn (19 Apr 2009)

Like I said, I'm not supporting the behaviour of this individual teacher. But there have been many postings on this board bascially saying 'yeah, tough' to public servants who are now struggling to pay their mortgages because they were taken out on the assumption that their salaries and incremental scales were 100% safe. Some people are almost crowing about it, (you're not as safe as you thought you were, kind of thing) and I just think its a bit nasty. Also, I was trying to get across the fact that public servants' mortgages were not stress tested in the way that private sector workers' were because of the assumption that their salaries could not be reduced and their jobs were secure, so criticising them for being in a bit of shock to now discover that this is not the case, is not fair. You seemed to take this to imply that I was saying people should still be on the same wages that they got at the time of taking out their mortgage.

And if you've read other posts of mine on this board, you will realise that I'm far from 'hyper sensitive' about criticism of the public service.


----------



## liaconn (19 Apr 2009)

shanegl said:


> I see now how that post could have been misconstrued, however:
> 
> You complained about the lack of sympathy this person seems to be getting. I suggested that this may be caused by her behaviour.



No, you didn't. You took two parts of my post and put them along side each other out of context to suggestthat this individual'sbehaviour might suggest the lack of sympathy for 'public servants' in a financial predicament. That may not be how you intended it to come across, but that was the reason for my response. It was the lack of sympathy for all public servants that I was expressing concern about.


----------



## bamboozle (28 Apr 2009)

Staples said:


> This teacher, like all public servants, has made long-term financial decisions on the basis of what she reasonably assumed was a guaranteed level of income .


 
this teacher and those other public servants who showed zero ambition by targeting jobs with safe salaries and safe pensions deserve the dose of reality that the pension levy has brought.  If only they could take a moment to try comprehend how the 400,000 plus people we now have on the dole around the country feel they would certainly appreciate their safe jobs.


----------



## DublinTexas (29 Apr 2009)

But isn't the whole problem deeper than the feeling of entitlement or unrealistic expectations from the majority of people in this country.

For some reason we are a nation where we think that owning a house is a must (like a status symbol) and large parts of the population wanted to participate in the boom created by bankers/builders and following the supply/demand way the prices went up and people ended up taking out finance that they did now would not be sustainable in future if the slightest change happens to our economy. Personal responsibility went out of the windows.

In other countries where there is no such attitude towards owning houses the current crisis is not feelt as hard as here. Take Germany for example, a nation of renters and while they have problems their banks are in problems because of the US market and not domestic lending. So the folks there don't suffer as much from the crash in the housing market as people here.

A teacher especially should have known what she got herself into. And if she did not know than she might not be the right person for her job.

If you look at other countries for example their civil servants don't have the right to strike in return for their benefits of a life long job and state pension. Sure their public service staff can strike and has less benefits but the core part of the civil service can't strike.

Fact is this lady like others took willingly responsiblity for a lending she did know was not sustainable so I'm sorry she is part of the problem in this country.


----------



## casiopea (30 Apr 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> We've been through her situation.  She chose to buy a 3 bedroom house at the age of 24, borrowing almost 8 times her salary.  She now has a smaller disposable income that she thought she would, but has a guaranteed job, enough to pay for food and the roof over her head.





DublinTexas said:


> Fact is this lady like others took willingly responsiblity for a lending she did know was not sustainable so I'm sorry she is part of the problem in this country.




Surely the glaring problem here is that she was allowed to borrow 8 times her salary for a property.  In most (I want to say just about all but without actual figures Ill settle for most) other countries this person wouldnt get that mortgage.  It is as simple as that. It doesnt matter if she is responsible or stupid or just naive or works for the public/private sector or is a teacher or is 24 ....she simply should not have gotten a mortgage on that salary with her downpayment.  That is the problem and that is something that warrants the governments attention (even if she did communicate her case badly) so at the very least it doesnt happen again.


----------



## Caveat (30 Apr 2009)

casiopea said:


> ....she simply should not have gotten a mortgage on that salary with her downpayment. That is the problem and that is something that warrants the governments attention


 
Yes, I agree that it is a problem.

But much more fundamental is her acceptance of the loan - she didn't have to take it but the fact that she did puts the onus on her to ensure that she can afford it. If she can't, it's her own fault completely.  

Nobody forces anyone to take any loans out. There was nothing stopping her getting a more modest mortgage for a more modest home.


----------



## Pique318 (30 Apr 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> I'm sorry she is part of the problem in this country.


I'm sorry that she's teaching kids how to become responsible adults.

Can anyone see where that particular scenario could lead.


Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach 
Hope she's not an economics teacher !


----------



## homeowner (30 Apr 2009)

Staples said:


> The concept of a pay CUT is not one that public servants have ever had to contemplate in the history of the State ...
> 
> This teacher, like all public servants, has made long-term financial decisions on the basis of what she reasonably assumed was a guaranteed level of income and the sudden loss of income is causing many people some hardship - not as bad as losing your job, but hardship nonethless.



Are you seriously arguing that she correctly made a long term financial commitment on the assumption that her income would only ever go up?  

She never thought that taxes would rise? or that she may have a long term illness or have to look after someone with a long term illness?  or that she might have children and have to leave work?  or that for the rest of her life nothing in her personal circumstances would change that would negatively impact her income? 

There are alot of ways your income will reduce without a pay cut.  Any sane person knows this.  That she is a teacher and didnt account for this is mind boggling.


----------



## DerKaiser (30 Apr 2009)

casiopea said:


> Surely the glaring problem here is that she was allowed to borrow 8 times her salary for a property. In most (I want to say just about all but without actual figures Ill settle for most) other countries this person wouldnt get that mortgage. It is as simple as that. It doesnt matter if she is responsible or stupid or just naive or works for the public/private sector or is a teacher or is 24 ....she simply should not have gotten a mortgage on that salary with her downpayment. That is the problem and that is something that warrants the governments attention (even if she did communicate her case badly) so at the very least it doesnt happen again.


 
Spot on she should not have got that mortgage. 

Why? Because there is a chance she will not be able to pay it and will become a burden on the rest of society. 

But she was not making that point, she was complaining that _her_ standard of living wasn't all she wished it would be, and that much she is responsible for. 

At the end of the day she has a number of avenues open to her such as taking in an extra lodger or selling to reduce her debts to a level she can service. But it seems that people would rather throw a public tantrum these days than show a bit of initiative.

We will probably have have over 600,000 people unemployed and 1,800,000 in jobs by next year with about 400,000 of those in the public service. We'll be in a situation where we'll almost have one person on social welfare or in the public service for every private sector taxpayer. 

Is this sustainable? How can anyone in this country believe that a pensions levy amounting to 4% of net pay is something to wail about. Consider a 30% reduction in net pay and you'll be closer to where we are headed


----------



## casiopea (30 Apr 2009)

Caveat said:


> Yes, I agree that it is a problem.
> 
> But much more fundamental is her acceptance of the loan - she didn't have to take it but the fact that she did puts the onus on her to ensure that she can afford it. If she can't, it's her own fault completely.
> 
> Nobody forces anyone to take any loans out. There was nothing stopping her getting a more modest mortgage for a more modest home.




I agree with what you say with the exception of where you are placing the word "fundamental" (!).  For me it is the other way around.  Ultimately we are all responsible for our choices (this lady included) but the fundamental problem is that she and many many many people like her were allowed to take ridiculously excessive mortgages (EIGHT times her salary in this case).  If proper, stricter and simply more sensible criteria had been in place (as they are in so many other countries) preventing people like this lady borrowing so ridiculously beyond their means then the economy would be a lot healthier now.  This woman should face up to her choices and their consequences - but so should the government and the banks.  I dont mind (couldnt care less about) the former being immature and in denial but I really hope the latter isnt!


----------



## Caveat (30 Apr 2009)

Yeah OK I accept your point - but I can't get away from her misplaced, arrogant indignance at her predicament.  

And, I say it again, nobody put a gun to her head and she was presumably well aware of the ratio of the loan to her earnings.


----------



## liaconn (30 Apr 2009)

Caveat said:


> Yeah OK I accept your point - but I can't get away from her misplaced, arrogant indignance at her predicament.
> 
> And, I say it again, nobody put a gun to her head and she was presumably well aware of the ratio of the loan to her earnings.


 
I agree with you in relation to this particular teacher,who was only in her early twenties and should have waited a while before buying. However, I know people who were in their late thirties/early forties and were fast approaching a stage where they would be considered too old to take out a  mortgage.They were, therefore, faced with a choice of:

Living in rented accommodation for the rest of their lives, in a country where the rental market is very, very poorly regulated. Therefore, even in old age they would be vulnerable to being evicted at short notice, being subject to unexplained rent rises or having to live in sub-standard accommodation

Staying at home with their parents for ever more

Taking out mortgages that they knew would stretch them to the limit because three times their salary wouldn't buy them a shoebox in Dublin.

If they wanted to buy they had to decide quickly because prices were rising every week. It was inevitible in these circumstances that people were going to borrow more than they could afford, and in fairness these people were in a difficult position. If they waited until the bubble burst they would then have found it very difficult to get a mortgage because of their age.


----------



## DublinTexas (1 May 2009)

Pique318 said:


> I'm sorry that she's teaching kids how to become responsible adults.
> 
> Can anyone see where that particular scenario could lead.
> 
> ...


 
To be able to tech someone to become responsible that person needs to have managed that skill themselves which I don't think is the case here.



			
				liaconn said:
			
		

> Living in rented accommodation for the rest of their lives, in a country where the rental market is very, very poorly regulated. Therefore, even in old age they would be vulnerable to being evicted at short notice, being subject to unexplained rent rises or having to live in sub-standard accommodation.


 
So than what a responsible goverment should do is change that rather than participating in a ponzi scheme that was called housing market. Other nations are doing fine as a society of "renters", there is no reason why we could not do that here too.



			
				Caveat said:
			
		

> But much more fundamental is her acceptance of the loan - she didn't have to take it but the fact that she did puts the onus on her to ensure that she can afford it. If she can't, it's her own fault completely.
> 
> Nobody forces anyone to take any loans out. There was nothing stopping her getting a more modest mortgage for a more modest home.


 
I agree, just because something is on offer does not mean you have to take it. Just because I could get 8 times my salary on a fixed rate mortgage does not mean that I have to take it over in my case even would consider taking it.

But while she has to take personal responsiblity for her action the problem is that large parts of our govement were funded by unresponsible people like her. Instead of seeing there is an issue the state willingly supported and incentified the ponzi scheme. I'm not saying that relieves her of her personal responsibility but it most certainly is a contributing factor.



			
				DerKaiser said:
			
		

> We will probably have have over 600,000 people unemployed and 1,800,000 in jobs by next year with about 400,000 of those in the public service. We'll be in a situation where we'll almost have one person on social welfare or in the public service for every private sector taxpayer.
> 
> Is this sustainable? How can anyone in this country believe that a pensions levy amounting to 4% of net pay is something to wail about. Consider a 30% reduction in net pay and you'll be closer to where we are headed.



I think that you are more looking at 1,000,000 unemployed with 1,250,000 in jobs (with 400,000 in public service). And before you ask the 150,000 that are missing here are the foreign workers that left the country because they found better jobs at home.

And at the same time the top earners that can work from anywhere have deceided to leave the country.

We need a goverment that acts now and not our lame duck goverment.


----------



## liaconn (1 May 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> So than what a responsible goverment should do is change that rather than participating in a ponzi scheme that was called housing market. Other nations are doing fine as a society of "renters", there is no reason why we could not do that here too.


 

I agree, but until the government start acting responsibly in this area they are pushing people into buying properties they can barely afford.


----------



## Purple (1 May 2009)

liaconn said:


> I agree, but until the government start acting responsibly in this area they are pushing people into buying properties they can barely afford.


No they're not. If people make bad/stupid decisions that's their own fault. They are not children and the government isn't their mammy.


----------



## Latrade (1 May 2009)

liaconn said:


> I agree, but until the government start acting responsibly in this area they are pushing people into buying properties they can barely afford.


 
Just out of interest, how can a government have a responsibility for a culture of wanting to be a home owner, inculcated over generations? There are many things that Cowen and Bertie should be dragged over the coals for, but I just cannot see the logic in saying this Irish need to own property and land is their fault or that the government would or could have any success in changing our views.

This need has a whole historical and cultural impacts behind it. It has nothing to do with how easy it was to get a mortgage. The banks facilitated this, but the need was and always will be there until collectively the nation changes its values on home ownership.


----------



## liaconn (1 May 2009)

Latrade said:


> Just out of interest, how can a government have a responsibility for a culture of wanting to be a home owner, inculcated over generations? There are many things that Cowen and Bertie should be dragged over the coals for, but I just cannot see the logic in saying this Irish need to own property and land is their fault or that the government would or could have any success in changing our views.


 
That is not what I said. I said that the Government has responsibility to ensure that the rental market is properly regulated. This would make renting  a viable alternative to home ownership. At the moment, in this country, renters are very vulnerable and have very few rights. Therefore, it is not a position most people are happy to be in long term.


----------



## liaconn (1 May 2009)

Purple said:


> No they're not. If people make bad/stupid decisions that's their own fault. They are not children and the government isn't their mammy.


 
No but the Government is responsible for regulating. See my post above.


----------



## Shawady (1 May 2009)

The main factor here seems to be that she fixed her repayments rather than go with a variable rate. If she was on a tracker, she would get the benefit of all the interest rate cuts and would go some way to cancelling her cut in salary.
The decision to go fixed cannot be blamed on the government. If interest rates had have gone up she would probably thought she had made a wise decision to initially choose a fixed rate mortgage.


----------



## DerKaiser (1 May 2009)

Purple said:


> No they're not. If people make bad/stupid decisions that's their own fault. They are not children and the government isn't their mammy.


 
I have to make a rare objection!

I do blame people for their own decisions and the impact it has had on their lives.

But there is a certain amount government is responsible for. I'll illustrate.

1) Security. We could have no guards on the street and tell people that it's their own stupidity that got them beat up by being in town after dark.

2) Food. The EU operated a policy of subsidising farmers to give them a stable income to ensure stable food production and stable food prices.

3) Shelter. It's the government responsibility to ensure we have a sufficient supply of housing affordable to the majority (be it rents or ownership)

To the extent that house prices were completely out of whack with rents, I believe those who bought were responsible for their actions. 

I do believe, however, that good government would have encouraged a culture of secure tenancies when it became obvious that people did not trust the rental market to the extent that they were prepared to value a house at 50 times its annual rent


----------



## csirl (1 May 2009)

I would not advocate policies which encourage that reduction in home ownership and expansion of the rental market, even if the rental market is properly regulated. Some posters have hinted that as rental is more common in some other countries, then we should place less emphasis on ownership.

What people fail to understand is that the proliferation of rental in a lot of European countries has a lot to do with their feudal pasts - where you have different classes of people - property owners, who are richer and more powerful and renters who, by virtue of their dependance, are subject to the property owners. We dont want to go down the road of having different classes based on property. Some posters may reply that some of these countries are now fully democratic and have come a lot way from feudal princes and lords, but the vestiges are still very evident and tied up in landownership.

It is perferable to have a system whereby people have access to a wide range of properties to suit their needs and budgets. Where home ownership is the norm for long term occupants. A rental market will always be needed, but it should be geared towards temporary residents, students, young adults starting out in life etc. and not viewed as a long term option for the vast majority of families.


----------



## DerKaiser (1 May 2009)

On reflection we would have been fine if the annual demand had stayed at the long term average of 30,000 or so units a year.  The real issue we need to understand is why there was temporary demand for 80,000 units a year throughout the decade.  

Maybe it was due to single 24 year olds suddenly believing that the norm was for them to have an entire house to themselves!!!


----------



## UptheDeise (1 May 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> Spot on she should not have got that mortgage.
> 
> Why? Because there is a chance she will not be able to pay it and will become a burden on the rest of society.
> 
> ...


 
Hi DerKaiser,

As a matter of interest where did you get the 400,000 figure for public sector workers? I thought it was 369,000? Do you reckon that the government will employ those extra PS people?


----------



## DerKaiser (1 May 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> Hi DerKaiser,
> 
> As a matter of interest where did you get the 400,000 figure for public sector workers? I thought it was 369,000? Do you reckon that the government will employ those extra PS people?



Whenever I use figures I'm pretty loose in the rounding so long as the basic point is the same


----------



## sidzer (1 May 2009)

we all lost the plot and were part of the giant pyramid scheme.... as a teacher and from my experience my colleagues are grateful to be in a job and the teacher conferences were not a true or accurate reflection of the mood or expectations of the members of the profession...

the girl in question is bound to be very annoyed as are others in private sector who are being squeezed in a similar way. a few years ago being a teacher was not such a glamourous or lucrative place to be. I had to listen to my private sector friends discuss share options and big salaries and also had to pay the plumber more than i pay my gp. 

We need to rebuild this country and hopefully learn from the mistakes we all made... public service needs major reform and wages have to fall to make the whole system work. however when we pick up we need to have systems in place to ensure that working people can afford a basic house -


----------

