# Letter from Irish Moral Hazard Organisation  to Government re Mortgage Arrears



## Sarenco

[broken link removed]

Link to an online letter to the Government criticising the proposed change of policy in relation to mortgage arrears.

No connection with this organisation but it seems an interesting approach.


----------



## Purple

Great idea.


----------



## TTI

Agreed, signed!  I like it... can I get my share investment losses refunded if others are getting writedowns?!


----------



## Gerry Canning

I strongly sympathize with the idea but can not support it as presented.
.I want  you the ordinary taxpayers to be treated in the same way as other debts are treated.

Businesses eg (Independent News & Media) get  huge write offs and continue to live and work and make profit with zilch future benefit to Mr Taxpayer..
I presume that without a write off/down the business must be (repposessed) etc and sold to highest bidder.
And remember it was Taxpayer not business who bailed out Banks. 

We Mr Taxpayer have subsidized our Banks to make fair and reasoned write downs were necessary.
I have no issue with realistic writedowns but would strenuously object to said beneficiary getting windfall money in future.
I strongly believe that any writedown must be couched that Mr Taxpayer gets the larger share of any upturns.
I do not want writedowns to be a money spinner for anyone other than the Taxpayer.


----------



## michaelm

Are those in arrears who can now pay their mortgage, but not their arrears, afforded the option of a reset with the arrears folded into an extension of the term?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

michaelm said:


> Are those in arrears who can now pay their mortgage, but not their arrears, afforded the option of a reset with the arrears folded into an extension of the term?



Yes, they usually would be. That is called "capitalizing" arrears and is the most common form of rescheduling.

Brendan


----------



## demoivre

Did the moral hazard brigade give their blessing to NAMA when they gave a €300 million write down in the loans of the top 23 developers on their books ? Selective moral hazard anyone ?


----------



## Delboy

I'm sure there's plenty of other threads about the place on the cushty treatment that Developers got from NAMA


----------



## Sunny

demoivre said:


> Did the moral hazard brigade give their blessing to NAMA when they gave a €300 million write down in the loans of the top 23 developers on their books ? Selective moral hazard anyone ?


 
Indeed. Quote from Michael Noonan today:

_“If you look at the billions that were involved in Nama and the billions that were involved in all the banks, the way of restructuring was write offs so there is nothing unusual about huge write offs, massive write offs."_

Hmmmmm.


----------



## Jim2007

demoivre said:


> Did the moral hazard brigade give their blessing to NAMA when they gave a €300 million write down in the loans of the top 23 developers on their books ? Selective moral hazard anyone ?



Once difference though is that in the case of NAMA all taxpayers carry the can, in this particular case we have a group of taxpayers expecting the rest of the taxpayers to carry the can to their benefit...


----------



## Gerry Canning

Jim 2007, Not sure what you mean?

In Nama , I would think that in most cases pragmatic deals were done.
In Mortgages , pragmatism and what suits us should trump any Moral Hazard argument.
As an example if it costs us in write down k50 to keep someone in a home v cost of rehoming/housing at say societal cost of k100, then sense says do it and swallow hard!


----------



## Jim2007

Gerry Canning said:


> As an example if it costs us in write down k50 to keep someone in a home v cost of rehoming/housing at say societal cost of k100, then sense says do it and swallow hard!



To a certain extend I agree with you, but only if social housing is defined along the same lines as in mainland Europe - in other words a roof over your head, but we both know that that is now what we are talking about!  To mind my in such situations the family should be assessed for social housing and if their current house was found to be inline then fine they get to stay, but if not they get moved on to an appropriate housing scheme while someone more deserving of that house moves in.  If we are really going to do this under social housing then it should be exactly that.

The politicians know very well that there is very few votes in writing down some people's debt, while others must continue meeting their financial commitments.


----------



## theo67

Gerry Canning said:


> Jim 2007, Not sure what you mean?
> 
> In Nama , I would think that in most cases pragmatic deals were done.
> In Mortgages , pragmatism and what suits us should trump any Moral Hazard argument.
> As an example if it costs us in write down k50 to keep someone in a home v cost of rehoming/housing at say societal cost of k100, then sense says do it and swallow hard!



That is based on the assumption that all/most would qualify for housing/rent allowance.I hate this being part of the reasoning because I think the reality would be different and suspect many in arrears have reasonable income.David Hall and others want to convey the idea that all/most in arrears are unemployed and on social welfare,and would go straight to rent allowance.As  I say, I reckon the reality would be different.


----------



## Gerry Canning

theo67 said:


> That is based on the assumption that all/most would qualify for housing/rent allowance.I hate this being part of the reasoning because I think the reality would be different and suspect many in arrears have reasonable income.David Hall and others want to convey the idea that all/most in arrears are unemployed and on social welfare,and would go straight to rent allowance.As  I say, I reckon the reality would be different.


..............Theo.

If many in arrears have reasonable income that would come out in any type of check.
I do not think that people on (hidden) reasonable income are many and I would be fairly sure they would baulk at being checked to see if they are genuine.
David Hall & others, from my reading ,included the coping classes ie taxpayers who in fluffy times could manage but now are over squeezed.It would I think be reasonable to assist them.  
I have no truck with leg-lifters or those who think they are entitled without having responsibility. 
..........Jim2007.
I 100% agree with you.
I am not wanting us to simply pay for lifestyle preferences.


----------



## Bronte

theo67 said:


> That is based on the assumption that all/most would qualify for housing/rent allowance.I hate this being part of the reasoning because I think the reality would be different and suspect many in arrears have reasonable income.David Hall and others want to convey the idea that all/most in arrears are unemployed and on social welfare,and would go straight to rent allowance.As  I say, I reckon the reality would be different.


 
Agreed, the issue is people do not want to leave a very nice family home to go into the rental market.  And whose fault is it the rental market is not attractive, governmetn policy which does not encourage refurbishment, which does not encourage investors (taxes making it unprofitable, hard to remove bad tenants and exit taxes at 33% if you should by any chance make a capital gain)


----------



## Purple

If a house is repossessed it is not knocked down or blown up. It doesn't disappear into a void in the space-time continuum. It will be sold to someone else and they will live in it. That person will most likely be moving from rental accommodation and if not then from another home and so the cycle of movement within the market will continue.
The "We'll have to pay for them to go into social housing" argument is nonsense.
I know a person who hasn't paid their mortgage in 7 years but still goes on at least 2 holidays a year and lives an opulent lifestyle. They should have been dragged out of the house about 5 years ago.


----------



## Bronte

Purple what is the thinking behind that?  A write down, large NE?  Why did they stop paying.  Are they putting a nest egg aside etc


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Begrudgery is alive and well. The "moral hazard" people are akin to Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake". The financial crisis has left hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens crippled financially. I didn't suffer the same fate. Do I care if the State helps people get back on their feet? No, because it's the right thing to do. Those in arrears are being painted as spoofers and it's being implied that they are milking the system. I don't see that - I see people who are probably crying themselves to sleep and wondering how they can get their families out of the holes that they're in. I see the spike in the suicide figures that nobody talks about.


----------



## epicaricacy

Gordon Gekko said:


> Begrudgery is alive and well. The "moral hazard" people are akin to Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake". The financial crisis has left hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens crippled financially. I didn't suffer the same fate. Do I care if the State helps people get back on their feet? No, because it's the right thing to do. Those in arrears are being painted as spoofers and it's being implied that they are milking the system. I don't see that - I see people who are probably crying themselves to sleep and wondering how they can get their families out of the holes that they're in. I see the spike in the suicide figures that nobody talks about.



Well done Gordon!!!!!!!!

I've grown weary from the same old arguments being trotted out about all of the 'strategic defaulters' out there. Every one seems to know of at least 1 person who is going on 2 holidays per year etc. whilst paying nothing towards their mortgage (as if anyone would be stupid enough to broadcast his / her 'strategy' in a country full of begrudgers) and from this specific 'example', they engage in inductive reasoning (from the specific to the general) and suggest massive numbers of our fellow citizens are at it.

They seem to conveniently ignore the reality of the financial crisis and how the crisis disproportionatley affected certain demographics of our economy e.g. constuction workers. Figures are freely manipulated to 'back up' the unfounded hypothesis of widespread strategic default. The Einstellung Effect is proven again and again. 

The 'would anyone think about the SVR payers' is being cynically used as a smoke screen to attack the 'strategic defaulters'.

Unfortunately, history has taught us again and again, that people turn on each other in times of financial distress and that certain personality types thrive in identifying some 'greedy and selfish minority' (strategic defaulter) that is to somehow to 'blame'.


----------



## Sarenco

epicaricacy said:


> Well done Gordon!!!!!!!!
> 
> I've grown weary from the same old arguments being trotted out about all of the 'strategic defaulters' out there. Every one seems to know of at least 1 person who is going on 2 holidays per year etc. whilst paying nothing towards their mortgage (as if anyone would be stupid enough to broadcast his / her 'strategy' in a country full of begrudgers) and from this specific 'example', they engage in inductive reasoning (from the specific to the general) and suggest massive numbers of our fellow citizens are at it.
> 
> They seem to conveniently ignore the reality of the financial crisis and how the crisis disproportionatley affected certain demographics of our economy e.g. constuction workers. Figures are freely manipulated to 'back up' the unfounded hypothesis of widespread strategic default. The Einstellung Effect is proven again and again.
> 
> The 'would anyone think about the SVR payers' is being cynically used as a smoke screen to attack the 'strategic defaulters'.
> 
> Unfortunately, history has taught us again and again, that people turn on each other in times of financial distress and that certain personality types thrive in identifying some 'greedy and selfish minority' (strategic defaulter) that is to somehow to 'blame'.




Hi epicaricacy

Given your own experiences, you understandably have strong views on the subject of resolving mortgage arrears.  However, I am unclear what approach you would take to resolving this problem.  If you were King for a day, what would you do?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The letter has really struck a chord

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f6c2eb1a-e8ee-11e4-87fe-00144feab7de.html#axzz3YWkOHoP7
_
In the unending fallout from Ireland’s great property-market crash, a latte-sipping 42-year-old Dublin mother-of-four is an unlikely champion of a hard-nosed view increasingly popular among this country’s frustrated middle class — don’t ask me to subsidise your mortgage payments.

Amid growing calls for official action to help the 110,000 Irish mortgage holders who are [broken link removed] on their repayments, Sandra — who declines to give her surname because her message is so unpopular — says there must be no taxpayer-funded relief for “deadbeat” mortgagees. If people cannot pay their mortgages, she has no objection to their houses being repossessed._


----------



## Purple

Gordon Gekko said:


> Begrudgery is alive and well. The "moral hazard" people are akin to Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake".


It's very like the truth about that story alright; she didn't say it. She was an intelligent and compassionate woman who gave generously to charity and was deeply concerned about the poor.
The moral hazard people want people who need help to be helped but don't want the state (other people) to pay for anyone to acquire an asset.
As for those in the construction sector; they are the same people who shafted consumers, charged vast amounts of money for shoddy work and scammed like it was going out of fashion. It's not so long ago that bricklayers were getting €800 for a days work and plumbers were charging €300 for a nixer that took a couple of hours. What comes around goes around. I served my time as an apprentice in the early 90's and even back then construction trades were grossly over paid.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

I never mentioned the construction sector?

Also, these 'moral hazard' people explicitly say that their position is in relation to those who cannot pay and those who will not pay.

My view is that those who cannot pay deserve our (i.e. society's) help.


----------



## Sarenco

Gordon Gekko said:


> My view is that those who cannot pay deserve our (i.e. society's) help.


 

I share your view that people who cannot afford to house themselves are deserving of society's help. 

However, I don't see how that view is in any way inconsistent with taking the position that people should not be entitled to remain in houses if they can't or won't repay the associated mortgage in accordance with its original terms or as modified.  Mortgage lenders should not be expected to house people any more than supermarkets should be expected to feed them.  In my opinion, it is vital in an efficient, competitive economy that banks remain commercial organisations and not become an extension of the Department of Social Protection.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Sarenco said:


> I share your view that people who cannot afford to house themselves are deserving of society's help.
> 
> However, I don't see how that view is in any way inconsistent with taking the position that people should not be entitled to remain in houses if they can't or won't repay the associated mortgage in accordance with its original terms or as modified.  Mortgage lenders should not be expected to house people any more than supermarkets should be expected to feed them.  In my opinion, it is vital in an efficient, competitive economy that banks remain commercial organisations and not become an extension of the Department of Social Protection.



That distinction ended when the State and the banking sector became intertwined. It is also generally cheaper to keep someone in his or her home rather than moving them into the DSP's realm.


----------



## Sarenco

Gordon Gekko said:


> That distinction ended when the State and the banking sector became intertwined


 
Eh, no it didn't.  The State may currently hold a majority stake in AIB and PTSB and has a significant shareholding in BOI but that does not mean that these banks amalgamated with the Department of Social Protection.  The State's holdings in these banks are likely to be sold in the coming months and there are mortgage lenders that are still operating in Ireland that have nothing to do with the State.



Gordon Gekko said:


> It is also generally cheaper to keep someone in his or her home rather than moving them into the DSP's realm.


 
Whatever gives you that idea?


----------



## epicaricacy

Begrudgery isn't exclusive to Ireland, it's one of the odious aspects of humanity that we usually keep hidden - e.g. the wonderfully evolved latte sippling Susan in the FT who understandably declined to provide her surname. 

An old Latvian expression states 'it's better for your neighbour's donkey to die than for you to get a second donkey'.


----------



## Sarenco

It doesn't seem very productive to ascribe unattractive motives to people who simply don't share your worldview.

In ny event, would you be willing to share your own views as to how the mortgage arrears problem should be resolved?


----------



## Delboy

Well done to Sandra...good to see an alternate view finally getting some media space, even if Casino director David Hall was quoted in the piece also.
This quote from Sandra somes it up really


> “I’m much more in danger of being homeless than anyone on a mortgage. If I miss two rent payments, I’m out. Yet there are people who haven’t made mortgage interest payments for several years and they are still living in their homes. Why is that right?”



She rang in to Joe Duffy a few weeks ago and came across very well.


----------



## epicaricacy

Sarenco

Sandra is quoted in the FT as describing people who can't pay their mortgage as 'deadbeats' and Brendan Burgess - has chosen to reproduce this disgusting adjective on this thread.
Yet, you question the wisdom in 'ascribing unnatractive motives to people (Sandra) who simply don't share your world view'. I'm presuming that your defence of her must be prompted by a shared worldview? 
Is it OK - in your opinion - to use words like 'deadbeats' in civilised discourse and for the chief moderator of AAM to reproduce this term on a consumer forum in a country where so many of our fellow citizens are struggling?
I'm absolutely disgusted that Brendan Burgess reproduced it.


----------



## epicaricacy

Brendan

I'm disgusted at your decision to reproduce the disparaging term 'deadbeat' mortgagees. This type of discourse belongs in a soap opera.


----------



## Sarenco

epicaricacy said:


> Sarenco
> 
> Sandra is quoted in the FT as describing people who can't pay their mortgage as 'deadbeats' and Brendan Burgess - has chosen to reproduce this disgusting adjective on this thread.
> Yet, you question the wisdom in 'ascribing unnatractive motives to people (Sandra) who simply don't share your world view'. I'm presuming that your defence of her must be prompted by a shared worldview?
> Is it OK - in your opinion - to use words like 'deadbeats' in civilised discourse and for the chief moderator of AAM to reproduce this term on a consumer forum in a country where so many of our fellow citizens are struggling?
> I'm absolutely disgusted that Brendan Burgess reproduced it.




While the phrase is not commonly used in Ireland, my understanding is that a "deadbeat" simply refers to somebody who does not pay their debts.  i'm not sure why but you seem to think the phrase has prejoritive connotations.  

With the greatest of respect epicaricacy, I would suggest that you are very quick to take offence at the most innocuous of phrases but you seem to be quite comfortable describing people who happen to disagree with you in extremely emotive terms.

For the record, I have not offered a defence of anybody.  i have no idea who Sandra is but yes, it is quite possible that I share her worldview - is that ok with you?   I certainly happen to agree that the taxpayer should not be required to subsidise the loans of dilinquent borrowers.  

I have politely asked you on more than one occasion how you would deal with the mortgage arrears crisis.  Rather than lashing out at perceived slights, would you be kind enough to address the substantive issue?


----------



## Sophrosyne

The last time I checked their website, IMHO had a total of just 475 signatures!


----------



## Sarenco

And that proves what exactly?


----------



## Bronte

epicaricacy said:


> Brendan
> 
> I'm disgusted at your decision to reproduce the disparaging term 'deadbeat' mortgagees. This type of discourse belongs in a soap opera.


 

That's a quote from the article.  What do you call someone who has paid zero mortgage for years?  Even people on social welfare have to pay something for their housing.


----------



## epicaricacy

Sarenco said:


> And that proves what exactly?



It proves that this horrible little venture hasn't acquired any real traction as the vast majority of our fellow citizens don't suffer from an empathy deficit.


----------



## epicaricacy

Come on Sarenco, stop being disingenuous. I certainly don't believe that 'deadbeat' is an 'innocuous phrase' - in fact, quite the opposite, I believe it to be a highly provocative word. I believe that its usage by Sandra and its reproduction by BB was designed to insult the mortgagees in distress and to elicit a condemnatory reaction from the type of person who signs the IMHO letter.

I'm not too sure about my 'highly emotive responses'? Would you care to provide examples? BTW - I stand over what I've written about what history has shown us - i.e. people turn on each other in times of financial distress and certain personality types thrive on fomenting discord. I also believe that the worst side of us - 'the primitive mechanism' - rears its ugly head when the pressure is on. Some of us lose reason, compassion and empathy when 'we don't get what we want' or when the limbic system is under sustained threat over a protracted period of time - and of course, some of us never have any access to compassion, empathy etc. in the first place and believe that others displaying these charcteristics are engaging in a fraudulent performance (there is little point in communicating with the latter personality type).  

Besides, neuroscience has revealed that for us to arrive at a 'gut reaction' that we can trust, there needs to be a choreagraphy between our emotional and cognitive processing. In other words we can't make a decision that we can trust without having access to our emotions. If anger is an appropriate response, then so be it. There is a difference between appropriate anger and inchoate rage. I believe you may be confusing the two.

Antonio Damasio - the prominent neuroscientist - believes that 'we are not thinking machines, rather we are feeling machines that think'.


----------



## 44brendan

Epi! To be fair to Sarenco he has on a number of occasions asked you to propose an alternative solution for dealing with those in mortgage arrears that would not involve commercial businesses (banks) subsidizing those who can't/won't pay the mortgages on their houses. The standard response re bankers causing the difficulties or having a duty to bail out those in distress will not hold water as this is an emotive rather than rational argument and such actions would ultimately result in the taxpayers bearing the cost.
Strategic defaulters are not the norm. However in my own experience we do have a reasonable number of those who can pay but refuse to do so. They remain in their homes for a number of years paying nothing. Allowing this type of action to go unpunished is surely neither equitable nor fair to those who struggle to meet their mortgage/rent payments!


----------



## epicaricacy

Bronte said:


> That's a quote from the article.  What do you call someone who has paid zero mortgage for years?  Even people on social welfare have to pay something for their housing.



'That's a quote from an article' - It's very easy to hide behind someone else's words. BB consciously reproduced the paragraph that included it.

I'm not sure 'I would call some who has paid zero mortgage for years' anything. They are our fellow citizens, many of whom are doubtless in terrible distress. I certainly don't believe it's appropriate to describe them as 'deadbeats'.

'Even people on SW have to pay something for their housing' - In Cork, it's 35 euros towards a property that accepts Rent Supplement and the same for a Social House. BTW - I'm in receipt of neither. Do you really believe that a bank would accept 35 per week in lieu of a 1400 per month mortgage? Would you support keeping someone in a house when they can only pay 10% of the mortgage? Would you consider this a sustainable mortgage? I'm aware that your sister was / is in some form of mortgage difficulty from your posts. Would you be OK with someone calling her a 'deadbeat' because she may end up costing the 'taxpayer' money?


----------



## epicaricacy

Brendan44

Where have I suggested that Commercial Businesses (banks) should subsidise people who can't / won't pay their mortgage? I would appreciate it if you could provide a single example.

The issue that is being debated here - and in other similar threads - is that certain people with an agenda (whether that's to remain in the public eye and benefit financially from remaining there or because it suits their own narrow ends) continue to disparage our fellow citizens who are in mortgage distress. I understand that the human condition demands that we attempt to make sense of what is happening around us and that we need to place random stimuli into patterns. What I'm suggesting is that perception is more active than passive and that certain people are looking at 'can't pays' and seeing 'won't pays' as the prism through which they are viewing the world has been jaundiced by prior experience, self interest and bias (Hence my postings on The Einstellung Effect).

I'm stuggling to see how this can be dismissed as an emotive response. Maybe you'd care to expatiate? Or maybe, like Sarenco, you're unaware of the highly choreographed relationship between feeling and thought that occurs in the human brain? The idea that rationality is in some way compromised by emotion is an outdated concept. I would recommend 'Descarte's Error', by the eminent neuroscientist Antonio Damasio as a starting point.

In addition, I'm not sure why my own personal opinions on how to 'solve' the mortgage crisis is in any way relevant to the above.


----------



## 44brendan

That wasn't an accusation Epi! I was referring to "the standard response", rather than one supported specifically by yourself!


----------



## Sarenco

epicaricacy said:


> Come on Sarenco, stop being disingenuous. I certainly don't believe that 'deadbeat' is an 'innocuous phrase' - in fact, quite the opposite, I believe it to be a highly provocative word. I believe that its usage by Sandra and its reproduction by BB was designed to insult the mortgagees in distress and to elicit a condemnatory reaction from the type of person who signs the IMHO letter.
> 
> I'm not too sure about my 'highly emotive responses'? Would you care to provide examples? BTW - I stand over what I've written about what history has shown us - i.e. people turn on each other in times of financial distress and certain personality types thrive on fomenting discord. I also believe that the worst side of us - 'the primitive mechanism' - rears its ugly head when the pressure is on. Some of us lose reason, compassion and empathy when 'we don't get what we want' or when the limbic system is under sustained threat over a protracted period of time - and of course, some of us never have any access to compassion, empathy etc. in the first place and believe that others displaying these charcteristics are engaging in a fraudulent performance (there is little point in communicating with the latter personality type).
> 
> Besides, neuroscience has revealed that for us to arrive at a 'gut reaction' that we can trust, there needs to be a choreagraphy between our emotional and cognitive processing. In other words we can't make a decision that we can trust without having access to our emotions. If anger is an appropriate response, then so be it. There is a difference between appropriate anger and inchoate rage. I believe you may be confusing the two.
> 
> Antonio Damasio - the prominent neuroscientist - believes that 'we are not thinking machines, rather we are feeling machines that think'.


 
I wasn't being disingenuous, I was quite genuine about my understanding of the phrase.  I've now checked my trusty Oxford dictionary and, where relevant, it defines a deadbeat as "_North American:_ A person who tries to evade paying their debts".  I really don't see how that could be described as  "disgusting", "disparaging" or "highly provocative".

In contrast, phrases like "horrible little venture", "primitive mechanism", "misanthropes", "begrudge", "empathy deficit", "fraudulent performance" and (my personal favourite) "odious aspects of humanity" are all loaded with emotion.

I'm afraid I am not qualified to comment on your observations on human psychology and I have no idea whether your level of anger is appropriate or not.

Having got all that out of the way, is there any chance at all that you could address the substantive issue under discussion?


----------



## epicaricacy

Sarenco said:


> I wasn't being disingenuous, I was quite genuine about my understanding of the phrase.  I've now checked my trusty Oxford dictionary and, where relevant, it defines a deadbeat as "_North American:_ A person who tries to evade paying their debts".  I really don't see how that could be described as  "disgusting", "disparaging" or "highly provocative".
> 
> In contrast, phrases like "horrible little venture", "primitive mechanism", "misanthropes", "begrudge", "empathy deficit", "fraudulent performance" and (my personal favourite) "odious aspects of humanity" are all loaded with emotion.
> 
> I'm afraid I am not qualified to comment on your observations on human psychology and I have no idea whether your level of anger is appropriate or not.
> 
> Having got all that out of the way, is there any chance at all that you could address the substantive issue under discussion?



Sarenco -

A quick perusal of the internet threw up some definitions of 'deadbeat' that diverge from your conveniently narrow definition -  such as 'a lazy or socially undesirable person'. 'a sponger', 'being a parent who neglects parental responsibilities', 'an idle, feckless or disreputable person', 'layabout, loafer, lounger, idler, wastrel, good for nothing, parasite' etc. etc.

Besides proving The Einstellung Effect - whereby we only see what backs up our initial bias, it seems like you've either being living in some literal bubble, where context has no currency or that you are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous.

I stand over all of the words that you've placed in inverted commas above and again would suggest Antonio Damasio's 'Descarte's Error' as a starting point. The book is written so that the lay man can understand the way our brains work - and specifically, in this context, re. how feeling and thought need to work in tandem to provide a 'gut response' that we can trust.

The 'substantive issue under discussion' is the IMHO's letter and BB's reproduction of the term 'deadbeats' and not my opinions on solving the mortgage crisis.


----------



## Sophrosyne

44brendan said:


> However in my own experience we do have a reasonable number of those who can pay but refuse to do so. They remain in their homes for a number of years paying nothing.


 
Hi Brendan,

Could you say why your bank has not initiated proceedings against them. Is it a legal difficulty?


----------



## Bronte

epicaricacy said:


> . BB consciously reproduced the paragraph that included it.
> 
> 'Even people on SW have to pay something for their housing' - In Cork, it's 35 euros towards a property that accepts Rent Supplement and the same for a Social House. BTW - I'm in receipt of neither. Do you really believe that a bank would accept 35 per week in lieu of a 1400 per month mortgage? Would you support keeping someone in a house when they can only pay 10% of the mortgage? Would you consider this a sustainable mortgage? I'm aware that your sister was / is in some form of mortgage difficulty from your posts. Would you be OK with someone calling her a 'deadbeat' because she may end up costing the 'taxpayer' money?


 
I'd just like to say that I and others carry the costs of my sister and others who are in default.  I've another couple of siblings who look on in amazement at the one fighting the banks, you know the ones who keep telling me that I haven't a clue and that their monthly salaries are down hundreds to pay for banks, to pay for defaulters, to pay for people in houses where they are paying zero, to pay for O' Donnell's Lanigans's ball.  The middle Ireland who do register for LPT and water charges, those people.   As a landlord my costs have gone up as well.

There is no justification for someone staying in a house that costs 1400 Euro in mortgage if they cannot afford it.  They should move out and rent.

I have no problem with banks coming to arrangements whereby they write off the arrrears, extend the mortgage and reduce the interest rate to keep a family in the home if they can afford it.  But nobody has the right to own a house at 35 Euro contribution.  And I don't want to pay for that.


----------



## rayn

The way I see it is pretty simple:

A owes B money
C wants to help A
C gives D's money to pay B
D won't vote for C

Will C retrospectively help those who years ago forwent family holidays, new cars, new clothes, and in some cases settled for less nutritious food in order to pay their mortgages when interest rates were 18% ?


----------



## Sarenco

Epi

I simply quoted the definition of the word as used in the particular context.  The word can also mean completely exhausted and, apparently, can also refer to a mechanism in a clock.  I didn't think these alternative meanings were relevant so I didn't quote them either.

Please bear in mind that the phrase was not my own - I simply gave you my understanding of the meaning of the word as used in the particular context and expressed surprise that you felt it had pejorative connotations.  

I have no doubt that you stand over the various phrases used by you.  However, you asked me to point out examples of emotive language that you have used.

It seems to me that you are very anxious to criticise the opinions of others in extremely colourful terms but are not willing to engage in the substantive points raised in the IMHO letter.  That's obviously your choice but you will have to forgive me if I disengage from this exchange.

For what it's worth, I have not signed the IMHO letter as I am not entirely comfortable with the tone of the letter.  However, I do not think it is fair to dismiss the views of others as a "horrible little venture".  As it happens, I agree with the core argument in the letter that the taxpayer should not be expected to subsidise the debts of delinquent borrowers.  I would like to think that this is a considered opinion and not simply a bias.

Best of luck.


----------



## 44brendan

Sophrosyne said:


> Could you say why your bank has not initiated proceedings against them. Is it a legal difficulty


This is where MARP can result in significant delays with progressing against some defaulters who refuse to co-operate. Bank will initiate legal process, but even in situations where it is clear that no effort is being made to reach a solution it can take up to 3 years to repossess a property. Court process tends to be extremely slow even where a borrower is clearly making no effort.


----------



## Purple

epicaricacy said:


> Besides, neuroscience has revealed that for us to arrive at a 'gut reaction' that we can trust, there needs to be a choreagraphy between our emotional and cognitive processing. In other words we can't make a decision that we can trust without having access to our emotions. If anger is an appropriate response, then so be it. There is a difference between appropriate anger and inchoate rage. I believe you may be confusing the two.


Lots of leaps there. I'm a fan of slow thinking.


----------



## Sophrosyne

44brendan said:


> This is where MARP can result in significant delays with progressing against some defaulters who refuse to co-operate. Bank will initiate legal process, but even in situations where it is clear that no effort is being made to reach a solution it can take up to 3 years to repossess a property. Court process tends to be extremely slow even where a borrower is clearly making no effort.


 
Thank you for your reply Brendan.

3 years does seem like a long time.

Is this delay because courts are overwhelmed or is it the court process itself?


----------



## futures

wow - some highly emotive responses here.

"If people cannot pay their mortgages, she has no objection to their houses being repossessed." - what is so objectionable about this? 

Someone who deliberately chooses to avoid his commitments is a deadbeat; someone who cannot pay his commitments is something else. However if you cannot pay you should say, "sorry buddy, I just don't have it". 

If you cannot pay for your cake and still want to eat it - you are also some kind of deadbeat. Except probably a bit more sanctimonious


----------



## epicaricacy

Purple said:


> Lots of leaps there. I'm a fan of slow thinking.



They are the words and ideas of Antonio Damasio. Why not write to him? I'm sure he would be interested in your erudite response.


----------



## Purple

epicaricacy said:


> They are the words and ideas of Antonio Damasio. Why not write to him? I'm sure he would be interested in your erudite response.


I'm not so sure so I'll hold off writing to him if that's ok.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

rayn said:


> The way I see it is pretty simple:
> 
> A owes B money
> C wants to help A
> C gives D's money to pay B
> D won't vote for C
> 
> Will C retrospectively help those who years ago forwent family holidays, new cars, new clothes, and in some cases settled for less nutritious food in order to pay their mortgages when interest rates were 18% ?



It's a long time since interest rates were 18%.

Perhaps the smugness of certain people who owned property at that time stems from the fact that they've enjoyed unprecedented growth in respect of that property?


----------



## Andy836

Under no circumstances should the government use taxpayer monies (or monies borrowed on foot of potential future tax receipts) to build equity in the properties of mortgage defaulters.

As for this nonsense argument that people in these positions must be "terribly distressed" - why would anyone who isn't paying a single cent toward their accommodation be stressed?


----------



## advice

Sarenco,


If Gordon was king for a day he would probably behead you for a start, and throw banker Andy836 in irons for the rest of his natural.


----------



## HelpingHand

Andy836 said:


> Under no circumstances should the government use taxpayer monies (or monies borrowed on foot of potential future tax receipts) to build equity in the properties of mortgage defaulters.
> 
> As for this nonsense argument that people in these positions must be "terribly distressed" - why would anyone who isn't paying a single cent toward their accommodation be stressed?



Why not !, the Government used taxpayer monies to build equity back onto the broken bank's balance sheets. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Moral Hazard !! Hmn.


People who genuinely cannot afford to repay mortgage on average homes , must be assisted.

Leg lifters need to be thrown out .

Moral Hazard seems NOT to apply to Banks , , we all bailed Banks out (we were not asked should we) I understood and agree  partly to cover genuine cases, not to have people turfed out ..

Moral Hazard , should that not apply to Banks or indeed our great leaders?


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> People who genuinely cannot afford to repay mortgage on average homes , must be assisted.


 Why just them?
If a family rents the home they live in and that home is repossessed then they are turfed out; their lose their family home. Who owns the home is of secondary importance. Therefore bailing out landlords who own rental properties which are the family home of their tenant is just as morally justified as bailing out homeowners.


----------



## seamus m

Your right purple a landlord should also be assisted in keeping their family home, and your also right a tenant should also be protected .Maybe these homes could be sold with tenant not affected like business properties bringing down there value to bank but providing a business opportunity for other investors.We have to learn to help people and not be worried if someone is getting a better deal than ourselves.


----------



## Delboy

seamus m said:


> Your right purple a landlord should also be assisted in keeping their family home, .


Looks like The Legion Of Mary have discovered AAM


----------



## HelpingHand

Delboy said:


> Looks like The Legion Of Mary have discovered AAM



What on earth does that mean, are you contributing to the thread or just slagging of a voluntary catholic organisation whose mission is to do good, either way this post is just wrong. Thread carefully ! Morally, it is obvious that you are bankrupt.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Whoa folks,

Delboy has a (way) of putting things in! I am sure no offence intended to anyone/thing.
For my part, I don,t want to vet all my comments and will take chastisement ,but go easy on the chastisement , just make the point and only the point, please.


----------



## seamus m

No delboy thats my point too worried about someone getting a better deal than you.The issue is that its not personal and in my  opinion you wont be better off one way or the other .Cornflakes are cheapest in Supervalue at the minute now there is something tangible for you.


----------



## Delboy

Oh, they're all out this week!


----------



## HelpingHand

Delboy said:


> Oh, they're all out this week!



Please, stick to the subject matter of the thread.


----------

