# Who has all the money which is on deposit?



## Shelleyb (20 Oct 2010)

I'm genuinely surprised by the amount of money that seems to be wafting around.  People transferring theirs savings, yes 'savings' to banks outside of Ireland, people who have their mortgages cleared and don't want to part with their safely hoarded large disposal incomes, ghost estates with 5 bed houses been paid for in cash down the country, apartments on the Southside completely selling out, so maybe freezing mortgages is a bad idea so I have a better one...hey why don't we tax THOSE people, I want to know who they are.  There seems to be quite a lot of them, under the radar and not paying their share.

There are three middle-aged Irish people living in my work car-park. They moved in a few months ago.  They have all lost their jobs and their homes.  As it was so cold this morning, I bought them breakfast but then who really cares about this kind of pathos?


----------



## jpd (20 Oct 2010)

Interest income is taxed @ 25% - maybe this should be changed and be taxed at your marginal rate?

Or are you suggesting a wealth tax?


----------



## RonanC (20 Oct 2010)

So you want people who have been wise and saved their money that they have *already* paid tax on to pay tax on it *again*??


----------



## Potatoeman (20 Oct 2010)

There are allot of people that didn't buy into the housing boom. They have been waiting for houses to come to a reasonable level. They didn't borrow beyond their means and rented when everyone was in a buying frenzy. They are waiting for the market to level off at a reasonable level i.e. three of four times the average industrial wage or they'll just buy a house in Spain and retire there.
Also if you sold a house at the peak you could be an accidental millionaire as David McWilliams has written about.


----------



## DB74 (20 Oct 2010)

RonanC said:


> So you want people who have been wise and saved their money that they have *already* paid tax on to pay tax on it *again*??


 
Their savings are not being taxed again - the interest is being taxed, not the capital


----------



## Potatoeman (20 Oct 2010)

DB74 said:


> Their savings are not being taxed again - the interest is being taxed, not the capital


He means they earned the money and paid tax on their earnings already.


----------



## RonanC (20 Oct 2010)

DB74 said:


> Their savings are not being taxed again - the interest is being taxed, not the capital


 
And this is called DIRT and applies to everyone who has a deposit account. 

Is this what the OP means by taxing the savings of account holders ?


----------



## DB74 (20 Oct 2010)

Apologies - I misread the thread in my indignation!


----------



## fender (20 Oct 2010)

Some of these are people who did not take out big mortgages to buy second houses and live the champagne lifestyle but who invested and saved wisely. There are plenty of these people who saw recessions before are were cautious.

Some are undoubtably those that profited from the money that people so unwisely borrowed in the boom years to finance the building trade.


----------



## shnaek (20 Oct 2010)

Tax the responsible to pay for the irresponsible. It's the new vogue, and our leaders will not be happy until we are all irresponsible - because that is what they are trying to promote.


----------



## canicemcavoy (20 Oct 2010)

> hey why don't we tax THOSE people, I want to know who they are


 
Yes, goddamit it. We should tax people like me, who saved deposits during the boom, and give all that tax to, say, [broken link removed]to pay for her huge mortgage. That'll teach us to be responsible.


----------



## sam h (20 Oct 2010)

We have savings....yes, "saving".

We have them because:
 - we have worked hard
 - we have always been frugal with our hard earned cash (I reckon I'm in-vogue these days 'cos I love a bargain)
 - extra cash has never equalled a buying spreed.....it has been saved
 - items (car, sofa, TV) are replaced when they need to be, not just 'cos we fancy the latest greatest new model 
 - we have never borrowed to buy anything other than our house
 - we considered buying somewhere bigger about 4 years ago but reckoned prices totally over the top, so decided not to.  

We have been careful so yes, we do have saving to protect us should something happen (job loss, illness, unexpected emergency etc).
We have never claimed anything off the state and we have alway paid out fair share of tax.

......and you reckon I should be taxed/penalised for being careful and being in a fortunate position to protect our future ??

I don't think so


----------



## Marietta (20 Oct 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> There are three middle-aged Irish people living in my work car-park. They moved in a few months ago. They have all lost their jobs and their homes. As it was so cold this morning, I bought them breakfast but then who really cares about this kind of pathos?


 

Shellyb - God bless your kind soul for bringing food to these poor people, this is an example of the human tragedy of the fall out and set to get worse as the recession deepens. Do you know if they are engaging with any  of the homeless services or are these services now stretched to breaking point due to lack of funding and cutbacks.


----------



## RonanC (20 Oct 2010)

canicemcavoy said:


> Yes, goddamit it. We should tax people like me, who saved deposits during the boom, and give all that tax to, say, [broken link removed]to pay for her huge mortgage. That'll teach us to be responsible.


 
I totally agree with you on this one canicemcavoy. 

This is the same Alison O'Riordan who has been looking for sympathy from every newspaper in the land. The same Alison O'Riordan who paid [broken link removed]. The same Alison O'Riordan who would not listen to the advice given to her by her own father. And the same Alison O'Riordan who is now renting out her "spare" room for €700 a month.

Ah sure I dont mind paying to help her out


----------



## DB74 (20 Oct 2010)

RonanC said:


> And the same Alison O'Riordan who is now renting out her "spare" room for €700 a month.


 
You don't even get parking!


----------



## canicemcavoy (20 Oct 2010)

RonanC said:


> I totally agree with you on this one canicemcavoy.
> 
> This is the same Alison O'Riordan who has been looking for sympathy from every newspaper in the land. The same Alison O'Riordan who paid [broken link removed]. The same Alison O'Riordan who would not listen to the advice given to her by her own father. And the same Alison O'Riordan who is now renting out her "spare" room for €700 a month.
> 
> Ah sure I dont mind paying to help her out


 
You could add:

* The same Alison O'Riordan who belongs to one of Ireland's richest family businesses ()
* The same Alison O'Riordan whose Bebo page shows that she bought the apartment just after returning from a 9 month round-the-world trip
* The same Alison O'Riordan who while complaining that she now can't afford her mortgage, writes how her normal activities include Superquinn over Lidl, shopping in high-end boutiques and paying a grand a year for gym: (http://www.independent.ie/national-...t-hurts-to-part-with-the-pennies-2271802.html)

Making her the poster girl for a "NAMA for everyone" was a fantastic idea.


----------



## missdaisy (20 Oct 2010)

The OP's comment frustrates me. 

I have savings and don't see why I should have to be punished for this.  I am definitely "paying my fair share" as is my self employed partner who is receiving little more than the amount of unemployment benefit as a salary at the moment.  We are a two person household and have one ten year old tiny car and try to live within our means, but yeah I should definitely have to suffer more because I have savings in the bank to use in the event my partner's business is no longer viable, I lose my job etc. Sorry, mini rant over!!


----------



## canicemcavoy (20 Oct 2010)

I note the OP purchased an apartment last year according to another thread. I presumed they used their savings towards this apartment. I wonder how they would feel if they didn't buy last year and now someone else was being told they were one of THOSE people who should be taxed.


----------



## shnaek (20 Oct 2010)

The message I'm getting is - protect yourself from this country, because it is not your friend.


----------



## Frank (20 Oct 2010)

Maybe people are saving now because we all know the ECB will raise interest rates sooner rather than later.

if you save the extra money now, maybe you will be able to keep the house.


----------



## Bessa (20 Oct 2010)

shnaek said:


> The message I'm getting is - protect yourself from this country, because it is not your friend.



Well said, i agree.


----------



## Bessa (20 Oct 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> I'm genuinely surprised by the amount of money that seems to be wafting around.  People transferring theirs savings, yes 'savings' to banks outside of Ireland, people who have their mortgages cleared and don't want to part with their safely hoarded large disposal incomes, ghost estates with 5 bed houses been paid for in cash down the country, apartments on the Southside completely selling out, so maybe freezing mortgages is a bad idea so I have a better one...hey why don't we tax THOSE people, I want to know who they are.  There seems to be quite a lot of them, under the radar and not paying their share.



It is not a crime in this country to have savings. People can spend their hard earned taxed money on whatever they want. I am sure if you had savings yourself you would be singing off a different sheet.
We were not all irresponsible in the so called boom times, and plenty of us saw previous depressions.


----------



## Taxi Driver (20 Oct 2010)

This is an interesting topic.

By my reckoning saving is nearly the only (legal) thing you can do with money that isn't taxed.  Virtually everything else to do with money is taxed in some form: earning, spending or even giving it away.

The argument that money saved is money that has already been taxed is inconsistent.  When I go to the shop for anything I am spending money that has already been subject to Income Tax, yet very few crib against the "double" taxation imposed by VAT.

A tax on saving (rather than savings) might encourage consumption.  This is generally achieved through inflation which is currently absent.  A saving tax in times of deflation could possibly be justified.  But the arguments against it are manifold.

Why punish savers who delay their consumption?  They would get taxed when they earn the income, when the save money, and then when they spend the money.  Saving simply delays the consumption tax they will pay, so there is no reason for triple taxation.  

Saving money is actually a good thing, though the 'animal spirits' of the market means it happens in the opposite cycle than would be most beneficial to the economy.  Dissaving (and borrowing) occurs when the economy is booming, while saving (and repaying) occurs when the economy is in recession.


----------



## gearoid (20 Oct 2010)

"Hey why don't we tax these people. I want to know who they are" 

The short answer is because it would be double taxation, as DIRT tax is. A little is reasonable as it gets savers spending. A lot discriminates against those who have been responsible.

You personally have no right to know who has what wealth.

If someone has savings rather than bricks and mortar they are right to be concerned about the safety of their deposits just as someone wouldn't let their roof fall in or leave their front door open to robbers.

It is wrong to begrudge others of their financial concerns.

Many people saved, studied hard, educated themselves and earned what they have now fairly.

Some people avoided luxuries and scrimped.

Some people inherited family money. This is not wrong.

I am comfortable but don't own a house. I have saved up to 50% of my salary for over ten years to do this. I drove a fourteen year old car until recently. I worked hard in a job. I am self-employed and may soon lose my job, but because I have saved I won't need money from the government.

Personally, nobody could or should begrudge me for what I have. I am neither rich nor safe in the future. I just planned for the rainy day, and saw a housing bust coming early.

improve yourself and take responsibility for your own future, rather than castigate others. 


By the way, excellent post taxi driver!


----------



## Protocol (21 Oct 2010)

Here is the data for deposits in current a/c and savings alc


PLEASE NOTE: deposits are made by businesses and households.

Example: Aer Lingus have 500m+ on deposit.

Currency = 11bn

Overnight deposits (current a/c) = 78bn

Other deposits, incl An Post deposits = 100 bn approx


----------



## BOXtheFOX (21 Oct 2010)

I could have sold my home at the top for a few million and walked off in to the sunset. The thought crossed my mind.
I could have borrowed against the equity and bought the new latest kitchen, replaced fireplaces, marbalised our bathrooms, got the garden designer in complete with decking, got the 40" t.v in the cinema room. The thought crossed my mind.
I could have borrowed and purchased a top of the range Lexus people carrier or similar for both myself and my wife. The thought crossed my mind.
I could have borrowed and travelled the world upgrading flights, hotel rooms and the rest. The thought crossed my mind.

I got a bit of fun out of these thoughts.  That was all.

It's hard to believe that a lot of people did all of the above and some of the above but I can understand why they did it. The thought crossed my mind.

For those of you that did it I am sure that you have enjoyed surrounding yourself with all of the latest luxuries and are still enjoying them. Good on you.

But please don't look at me with hungry eyes to get your next fix because if you are you haven't really learned anything at all.


----------



## Protocol (21 Oct 2010)

There are millions of people and firms who have deposits.

From retired workers depositing their pension lump-sum, to the many pensioners who save out of their 200 pw State pension.

Tesco, Dunnes Stores probably have 100m+ on deposit (I'm guessing)

If you check CU a/c, they have millions on deposit.


----------



## demoivre (21 Oct 2010)

canicemcavoy said:


> Yes, goddamit it. We should tax people like me, who saved deposits during the boom, and give all that tax to, say, [broken link removed]to pay for her huge mortgage. That'll teach us to be responsible.



You are already paying for Alison's mistake, and the thousands like her, and so you will be for a long, long time to come.


----------



## tallpaul (21 Oct 2010)

sam h said:


> We have them because:
> - we have worked hard
> - we have always been frugal with our hard earned cash (I reckon I'm in-vogue these days 'cos I love a bargain)
> - extra cash has never equalled a buying spreed.....it has been saved
> ...


 
My God!! Are you me?? Sums up everything to perfection..


----------



## DerKaiser (21 Oct 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> There are three middle-aged Irish people living in my work car-park. They moved in a few months ago. They have all lost their jobs and their homes. As it was so cold this morning, I bought them breakfast but then who really cares about this kind of pathos?


 
That's terrible. How did they lose their homes?


----------



## camlin90 (27 Oct 2010)

Taxing monies on deposit would serve to accelerate the current flight of capital overseas & under the mattress, leading to a run on all banks, a call upon the guarantee and the end of the Republic of Ireland as a sovereign state.

Bring it on - might as well get it over with.


----------



## Bessa (27 Oct 2010)

I saved for my rainy day, and not for the governments rainy day.


----------



## shnaek (28 Oct 2010)

Bessa said:


> I saved for my rainy day, and not for the governments rainy day.


Lol. Well said.


----------



## Complainer (28 Oct 2010)

Wealth taxes are not unusual around Europe - see France and Switzerland for example. They seem to manage to survive with having 'flights of capital'.


----------



## shnaek (28 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> Wealth taxes are not unusual around Europe - see France and Switzerland for example. They seem to manage to survive with having 'flights of capital'.



People pay on average 16% income tax in Switzerland, and the wealth tax is quite low. We pay over 55% income tax above 35k, this is very high. In France the higher rate of tax kicks in at a much higher income.


----------



## jpd (28 Oct 2010)

In France, you also pay PRSI at 15% even at low wages - and there are property taxes that almost everyone has to pay - rich and poor alike.


----------



## mammyof2 (28 Oct 2010)

I am almost tempted to think that this suggestion is a wind up.

I have a small pot of savings that I have been building up over the past 5 years, despite the same high mortgage and childcare cost facing every other family in the country. With pay cuts and levies, I can't add to this pot at present and doubt I will be in a position to save again for another 4/5 years at least but at least I feel that I have a small safety net. All the money I have saved is from my (PAYE) salary and has therefore already been taxed. 

In my case, I have a specific 'rainy day' scenario in mind - coming from a family with a long history of mental illness and having spent some time in psychiatric wards myself and, particularly, having seen the appaling provision for adolescent psych care in this country, I want to be sure that, if my two young children need early intervention at any time in the future which will almost inevitably not be provided for them by the state or via my private health insurance, that I am in a position to pay for it and quickly. It was also very helpful to have these savings when I needed to pay for supplementary childcare when I was too ill to look after my children (state alternative would have been foster care I suppose).

I imagine that most people who have savings have all sorts of similar scenarios at the back of their mind, depending on their families, histories, priorities. 

And, ShellyB, you are suggesting that, in addiiton to DIRT on the interest accrued on savings (which I have no problem with), that my savings be taxed? And presumably to a level where it would make no sense in me having them?

So what do you suggest? That it would make more sense for my family and for the nation that I take this money out of my savings account and quickly spend it on --- what? Consumer goods? A new car? A Caribbean holiday? And be left with no safety net, for which I personally saved my post-tax income, and jsut rely entirely on the state to get me and my family through any bad times that might befall us?

Are you insane?


----------



## camlin90 (28 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> Wealth taxes are not unusual around Europe - see France and Switzerland for example. They seem to manage to survive with having 'flights of capital'.


 
A quick google suggests that the French wealth tax kicks in at 732K (that's correct as of 2005).
Not sure how infrastructure & public services compare between France & Ireland.

Anyway, you're welcome to pay - I'll have my shillings (well below 732K) safe deep underground


----------



## jpd (28 Oct 2010)

camlin90 said:


> Not sure how infrastructure & public services compare between France & Ireland.



They have service station all over their motorway network.
High speed rail transport
metro, trams in all big cities


----------



## Mommah (28 Oct 2010)

I see, so we punish/resent cautious people who have a lifelong habit of spending less than they earn.

We reward the people who borrowed to buy fancy cars, holidays and houses.( Not the poor eejits fault anyway...the banks and politicians "forced" them into it.)

With thinking like this it is no wonder the country is up the creek.

Savers are people who don't pay high interest rates on car loans...don't max out their mortgage...always pay off their credit card every month...don't keep up with the jones...don't pay €70 per month for a 12 week blow dry....its not rocket science....you should try it.


----------



## xanadu1 (28 Oct 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> I'm genuinely surprised by the amount of money that seems to be wafting around.  People transferring theirs savings, yes 'savings' to banks outside of Ireland, people who have their mortgages cleared and don't want to part with their safely hoarded large disposal incomes, ghost estates with 5 bed houses been paid for in cash down the country, apartments on the Southside completely selling out, so maybe freezing mortgages is a bad idea so I have a better one...hey why don't we tax THOSE people, I want to know who they are.  There seems to be quite a lot of them, under the radar and not paying their share.



Why, certainly! Feel free to stick, say, a 10% per annum tax on the savings, of those who have lived within their means and not spent every cent they earn. They were subject to income tax on earning, and will be subject to VAT or stamp duty when spent, but I quite understand that's not enough.

By the way, I assume that you'll be paying the same 10% on your property, which you bought while some of us were saving?

Or is it a case of savings tax good, property tax bad?


----------



## Shelleyb (29 Oct 2010)

Marietta said:


> Shellyb - God bless your kind soul for bringing food to these poor people, this is an example of the human tragedy of the fall out and set to get worse as the recession deepens. Do you know if they are engaging with any of the homeless services or are these services now stretched to breaking point due to lack of funding and cutbacks.


 

Marietta,
I gave their location to a member of the Simon Community who were very interested as they had no record of this particular location being used.  I believe they have started to visit them.
S


----------



## Homer (7 Nov 2010)

Is there a realistic possibility that this year's budget will impose a tax on savings?  If so, does anyone have any creative suggestions as to how one might legally avoid this tax?  For example, could the money be transferred to an overseas bank account?


----------



## gearoid (7 Nov 2010)

*who has all the savings?*

I notice Shelleyb has made no attempt to engage with the substantive replies to her/his rather childish initial posting. I feel most people have wasted their time contributing to this post.


----------



## Shelleyb (8 Nov 2010)

Some very interesting comments here along with the usual "I'm alright jack" responses.  It still doesn't answer where all the money went, it has to have gone somewhere and there obviously is considerable money still in the country.  Personally I would not like to see savings taxed.  I've paid a lot in tax myself and they went towards my own property.  I'm angry because I guess last year I could afford my mortgage and now with the up-and-coming Budget I will find it difficult and start to default in at least 1 to 2 mortgage rate increases.  I'm waiting for the mortgage bloodbath that is coming but if the posts that are on here are anything to go buy it looks like I'll be in a minority. From the bank defaulting to the next wave of default by mortgage holders - I wonder who will pay for that?

I worked for over 10 years for all the top 5 lawyers and accountants here in Dublin in hindsight I guess I know whereat least some of the money went.


----------



## gearoid (8 Nov 2010)

You still haven't explained why the following is morally valid.

You are asking those who felt they couldn't afford a house, rented and saved, to pay for your mortgage, when they are saving to own one themselves. You are asking pensioners who are saving for ill health and medical bills to pay for your mortgage. This is all given that tax has already been paid on all savings. 

For the record, I have worked as self-employed and full time in the internationally competitive sector of the economy. The money was borrowed and the money supply has now severely contracted. Very few now have cash to pay for the mortgage crisis, and removing the savings of others in a grab of taxed money (except earnings and interest) is wrong and will cause a flight of capital.


----------



## Shelleyb (8 Nov 2010)

gearoid said:


> You still haven't explained why the following is morally valid.
> 
> You are asking those who felt they couldn't afford a house, rented and saved, to pay for your mortgage, when they are saving to own one themselves. You are asking pensioners who are saving for ill health and medical bills to pay for your mortgage. This is all given that tax has already been paid on all savings.
> 
> For the record, I have worked as self-employed and full time in the internationally competitive sector of the economy. The money was borrowed and the money supply has now severely contracted. Very few now have cash to pay for the mortgage crisis, and removing the savings of others in a grab of taxed money (except earnings and interest) is wrong and will cause a flight of capital.


 

I don't condone pensioners being further taxed.  My parents are pensioners and they are going to be hit badly this coming Budget. [Although, there are well off pensioners with private pensions receiving a state pension also but that is a different argument.]  Also either this is or isn't a moral argument which is it?  Morals are based on religion which supposedly preaches charity, altruism, equality, love-thy-neighbour etc.  You cannot choose when and where to be moral but oh boy, I'd love it to wholly be a moral issue. So if the majority are against bailing/helping out struggling mortgage holders (to stay in their homes), what's the answer?  Turf them all out on the street.  Have all those on low to low middling incomes pay for all this (which will happen).  Is that moral?

Fair enough, I think if people are going to loose their homes and it looks like its going to happen, then private rents should be capped as they are abroad and there should be a property tax which increases with the more properties one has.  

I still don't understand how ordinary people can pay 150,000 in cash for a 5 bed home(sold in a matter of hours) in this climate and these people are not property developers, lottery winners etc?  Some savings!

Instead of a moral argument what about the 'universal good' argument?


----------



## truthseeker (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> So if the majority are against bailing/helping out struggling mortgage holders (to stay in their homes), what's the answer?


 
I think the answer here is that people resent the idea of bailing out people who made silly financial decisions and took out mortgages that they couldnt afford or that they wouldnt be able to afford if all went belly up - as has happened.
However - I agree - something should be done to help struggling mortgage holders, but I dont think taxing the savings of people who have been sensible and saved is the answer.



Shelleyb said:


> I still don't understand how ordinary people can pay 150,000 in cash for a 5 bed home(sold in a matter of hours) in this climate and these people are not property developers, lottery winners etc? Some savings!


 
I dont understand this? Who bought a 5 bed home for 150,000 cash in a matter of hours?


----------



## Shelleyb (8 Nov 2010)

truthseeker said:


> I think the answer here is that people resent the idea of bailing out people who made silly financial decisions and took out mortgages that they couldnt afford or that they wouldnt be able to afford if all went belly up - as has happened.
> However - I agree - something should be done to help struggling mortgage holders, but I dont think taxing the savings of people who have been sensible and saved is the answer.
> 
> 
> ...


 
It was about 1/5 months ago outside Limerick I believe.  People queued for hours.

So what's the difference between someone who at the time could afford a home but due to a number of factors coming together then couldn't.  At what point do you decide you can afford/manage something for sure and certain.  For me this means, paying for something completely in cash ,no loans or relying on third parties for finance.  However, I will never have 150,000 or 200,000 its just not going to happen.  Most have to borrow their mortgage.  Jobs come and go, people get ill, luck turns, events happen - what's the determining factor.  What is the 'risk' event horizon?  I ask again, where's the missing money, it didn't just disappear???


----------



## canicemcavoy (8 Nov 2010)

I tried to engage with the OP via PM, but it was utterly futile. Someone who bought an affordable - ie, tax-payers subsidised - property using a 100% mortgage has absolutely no moral basis on which to call for others to fund their lifestyle.


----------



## Potatoeman (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> I ask again, where's the missing money, it didn't just disappear???


There never was any money it was all borrowed.


----------



## Protocol (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> I don't condone pensioners being further taxed. My parents are pensioners and they are going to be hit badly this coming Budget. [Although, there are well off pensioners with private pensions receiving a state pension also but that is a different argument.


 
Bear in mind that public service pensions have not been cut at all.




> I still don't understand how ordinary people can pay 150,000 in cash for a 5 bed home(sold in a matter of hours) in this climate and these people are not property developers, lottery winners etc? Some savings!


 
People could have rec'd gifts, inheritances, etc.

Plenty of people in their 30s / 40s have 50-100k in savings, this is not unusual.

An acquaintance phoned me asking on advice for a 50k lump-sum he received.


----------



## Protocol (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> It still doesn't answer where all the money went, it has to have gone somewhere and there obviously is considerable money still in the country.
> 
> I worked for over 10 years for all the top 5 lawyers and accountants here in Dublin in hindsight I guess I know whereat least some of the money went.


 

When you ask "where did all the money go??", can you please be more specific??


----------



## truthseeker (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> At what point do you decide you can afford/manage something for sure and certain. For me this means, paying for something completely in cash ,no loans or relying on third parties for finance. However, I will never have 150,000 or 200,000 its just not going to happen. Most have to borrow their mortgage. Jobs come and go, people get ill, luck turns, events happen - what's the determining factor. What is the 'risk' event horizon?


 
Well there are some very obvious examples of silly borrowing, people taking out 100% mortgages where the amount borrowed is 6 or 7 times their salary.

Yes, jobs come and go, people get ill etc... Personally (and Im no guru on this), for the first couple of years of my own mortgage repayments (not a massive mortgage btw, friends thought I was mad borrowing so 'little' at the time - but I wanted somewhere I could afford and not have a crippling repayment each month), I saved to the point that now if I lost my job I could continue to pay my mortgage for a few years. Or if I got sick etc... This was before the market crashed and I went into negative equity. It just seemed like a sensible back up plan, save so that you can continue to meet your mortgage replayments in the event of bad things happening.

Now if something super-bad had happened during the first 2 years of my mortgage I probably would only have had a cushion for a short time frame, as Id used up my savings on the deposit etc.. But at that point I could have sold the place for close enough to what I paid for it and gotten rid of the mortgage.

I dont want to sound all smug and organised - but surely sorting yourself out with a manageable mortgage and a few bob saved in case the worst happens is just a reasonable sensible way to be doing things?


----------



## Shelleyb (8 Nov 2010)

Is it a moral issue?  Surely morals cannot be selective? 

Affordable housing is NOT social housing.  Those who bought AH paid tax and subsidized the scheme too.

Maybe I am wrong and maybe I'm the only one who's never had those kind of savings then?  So it is a genuine learning curve for me.

If there was no money to begin then we don't owe anything - just a thought?

I have to admit it is getting a bit like "I have no toys and want to play with yours" or "I have toys and you're not playing with mine..."


----------



## truthseeker (8 Nov 2010)

Protocol said:


> People could have rec'd gifts, inheritances, etc.
> 
> Plenty of people in their 30s / 40s have 50-100k in savings, this is not unusual.


 
I agree. Even without an inheritance or gift, if you managed to save 5k a year for 10 years you'd have 50k.


----------



## Shelleyb (8 Nov 2010)

I agree with this post but you did buy during a different time and there was a certain set of 'sufficent conditions' for you to make a wise decision to take out a mortgage.  Of course, it could be argued that this can be done at anytime.  I really don't know.


----------



## canicemcavoy (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> Affordable housing is NOT social housing. Those who bought AH paid tax and subsidized the scheme too.


 
[broken link removed]

Shelleyb, as someone who bought affordable housing, you were subsidised by other taxpayers. It was a scheme designed to offer property _below_ the then market rate for the same properties. You can keep denying this 'til you're blue in the face but it's simply economic fact.


----------



## truthseeker (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> I agree with this post but you did buy during a different time and there was a certain set of 'sufficent conditions' for you to make a wise decision to take out a mortgage. Of course, it could be argued that this can be done at anytime. I really don't know.


 
I only bought in 2004. Im still in negative equity. My salary has decreased (with pay cuts and levies) to pre 2004 levels.


----------



## Protocol (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> I agree with this post but you did buy during a different time and there was a certain set of 'sufficent conditions' for you to make a wise decision to take out a mortgage. Of course, it could be argued that this can be done at anytime. I really don't know.


 

I bought a house in 2005.

I borrowed 56% LTV, the rest I paid for with savings.

I don't know what you mean by "sufficient conditions", but I compared my mortgage repayments with my income / lifestyle / costs, etc.

I also shopped around and luckily got a 0.5% tracker mortgage.


----------



## Shelleyb (8 Nov 2010)

No I agree with you and I too was one of those taxpayers.  Affordable housing is also private housing.


----------



## canicemcavoy (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> No I agree with you and I too was one of those taxpayers.


 
But you got an affordable house while other taxpayers who pay the same rates of tax with you, didn't. So you are a net gainer from the scheme. You understand this, correct?


----------



## Shelleyb (8 Nov 2010)

canicemcavoy said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> Shelleyb, as someone who bought affordable housing, you were subsidised by other taxpayers. It was a scheme designed to offer property _below_ the then market rate for the same properties. You can keep denying this 'til you're blue in the face but it's simply economic fact.



I haven't denied it.  My apartment was sold to me at a lesser price then the apartment in the block opposite me.   If I had the same money that the couple in the opposite block had I would have bought it for the price they paid but that's all relative.  I am in negative equity too.  We are just as bad off as each other.  I did not gain anything.  If I go to my bank manager and announce to him that I'm actually a 'net gainer' I don't think that's going to wash.  I'm sensing an assumption here that affordable housing owners somehow made a profit, gained or benefited more than some of the more cannier posters here?  Either way being a 'net gainer' is relative and unfortunately, as positive as it sounds it's of little use to me.


----------



## canicemcavoy (8 Nov 2010)

> I am in negative equity too. We are just as bad off as each other.


 
No you're not because you paid less than they did, so you're in less negative equity. Again, you made a net gain. Note I use the word "net" - I didn't claim you're in profit.


----------



## DerKaiser (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> Morals are based on religion which supposedly preaches charity, altruism, equality, love-thy-neighbour etc. You cannot choose when and where to be moral but oh boy, I'd love it to wholly be a moral issue.


 
Morals are not about religion.

It would not be moral to take the savings from someone who has saved for years to buy a home and pass them on to someone who purchased a home they could not afford so that they could remain in that home.

This, in fact, is what's commonly referred to as moral hazard. It describes a situation where someone is rewarded for engaging in reckless behaviour. It is generally to the expense of someone who has been more conscientious.




Shelleyb said:


> I still don't understand how ordinary people can pay 150,000 in cash for a 5 bed home(sold in a matter of hours) in this climate and these people are not property developers, lottery winners etc? Some savings!


 
If you don't make daft decisions you can live very well on €2k per month.

You don't have to have even earn the average wage to put aside €500 per month in savings after allowing for your living expenses.

A couple who have saved in this way for over 10 years could easily have €150k set aside.

It would takes someone with no financial responsibility to find this hard to grasp.

And finally. I would feel some genuine sorrow for someone living in a car park. But rather than berate people who have lived within their means for having their finances and their lives in order I would look at why the people are where they are. I'm guessing that addictions, mental health issues, etc come into it in situations such as this and addressing the root causes of these problems is your best bet for cutting out homelessness.


----------



## T McGibney (8 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> I don't condone pensioners being further taxed.   My parents are pensioners and they are going to be hit badly this  coming Budget. [Although, there are well off pensioners with private  pensions receiving a state pension also but that is a different  argument.]



I find this comment at odds with your earlier comments, eg



Shelleyb said:


> I'm genuinely surprised by the amount of money that seems to be wafting around.  People transferring theirs savings, yes 'savings' to banks outside of Ireland, people who have their mortgages cleared and don't want to part with their safely hoarded large disposal incomes, ghost estates with 5 bed houses been paid for in cash down the country, apartments on the Southside completely selling out, so maybe freezing mortgages is a bad idea so I have a better one...hey why don't we tax THOSE people, I want to know who they are.  There seems to be quite a lot of them, under the radar and not paying their share.



...as a large proportion of the savings held in deposit accounts are owned by pensioners.


----------



## Protocol (8 Nov 2010)

Here is an example of a couple in mid-40s with 2 children, they have 350,000 in savings on deposit.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=146181

They have 150,000 in other investments and a 450,000 pension fund.


----------



## RMCF (8 Nov 2010)

Protocol said:


> Here is an example of a couple in mid-40s with 2 children, they have 350,000 in savings on deposit.
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=146181
> 
> They have 150,000 in other investments and a 450,000 pension fund.




All I can say to that is


----------



## Shelleyb (9 Nov 2010)

Thanks for all your comments, they were really interesting and insightful.  I'll let you talk among yourselves of you want but I'm signing off.   I read a really interesting quote from someone who said "we are all now in the workhouse" whether we like it or not.


----------



## Potatoeman (9 Nov 2010)

Shelleyb said:


> My apartment was sold to me at a lesser price then the apartment in the block opposite me.   If I had the same money that the couple in the opposite block had I would have bought it for the price they paid but that's all relative.  I am in negative equity too.  We are just as bad off as each other.  I did not gain anything.


Wow. I would have thought you should have a brighter outlook considering the Sun orbits your personal wonderland.


----------

