IMHO: "The state should supplement the mortgage for those who can't pay"

Bronte said:
It would seem to be vastly unfair of course. But it has to be looked at as a whole. As in what is best for society. Not sure that evicting lots of families would seem like a good idea, not if another solution can be found.
Click to expand...

There are many people who cannot pay their mortgage for lots of reasons. I don't think that anyone should be able to hide in amongst those unfortunates who have found themselves in this position. And believe me there are people hiding in the multitude and getting away with it. My neighbour parks his expensive car down the road from his house and not in his driveway. What's that about?. He will also disappear to his holiday home when the kids are out of school for the summer. The kids are in a fee paying school. His debt collectors call to my house in error. Why should I pay for him?
We now know that NAMA was about bailing out the speculators and the builders and the big players. This has already cost the taxpayers billions. Is this going to be round 2.
We are now down to to the ordinary person and I think that the banks should reschedule the term of these people's mortgages and capitalise their arrears but only after a thorough trawl has been done of their finances and lifestyle. Then the banks should be told to drop their rates and bring them in line with the European average. Lots of stuff can be done before the tax payer is asked to pay up again.
 
I would agree with Grizzly on last point and for the life of me i cant understand why the government dont take what appears to me to be the obvious option : Extend the terms of the mortgages :
Outcomes :
1. Family stays in family home - no additional social housing issue.
2. The tax payer doesn't have to fund the mortgage.
3. The bank capitalised and arrears and takes ownership of the property when the morgagee dies ... hopefully this covers the outstanding loan. Note under no circumstance should the tax bayer bail out a morgagee only for them to pass that asset onto there childern.
4. Morgagee should be required to pay whatever they can reasonably afford (independently assessed).

Why would this not work...?
 
I don't know how you manage to stay calm around that guy, Brendan. He's accused you of being a banking shill at the weekend and again this eve. He's practically accused you of being a liar and a fantasist.

He just attacks with bluster and bombast if anyone is against his side of things
 
Hi Delboy

It's something I have learnt from Askaboutmoney. Readers and listeners lose respect for someone who attacks the person and not the argument.

I think his attacks on me reflected badly on him and not on me. I just ignored them and focussed on the argument.

The Saturday with Claire Byrne was particularly stupid of him. I had spent 30 minutes arguing why mortgage rates must be reduced and then in the second half of the programme he attacked "you and your banker friends". I don't think that the listeners are idiots. I assume that they see through it.

I have long argued that we need repossessions. It's not easy to convince people of that, but, I think that they will see it in time.

Brendan
 
To Delboy/Brendan.

From reading your threads on Banking/Mortgage issues , you both seem to always start on .
1. Pay your bills.
2. Live within your means.
3. Minimal bail-outs ,unless absolutely necessary.

And you are both correct.

Another view.
1. It is a mess fanned by greedy Banks.
2. Poor Joe Soap got suckered in.
3. The Banks/Us should help Joe Soap.

Again correct.
................

Another-another view.

It is difficult to read/listen without getting caught on soundbites.

This issue requires no (sides) but a pragmatic look at what is best for Ireland.

a. If it means that in subsidizing mortgage holders is better/cheaper for Ireland than large scale repos ,then go for it . I do understand that Moral Hazard comes in but we ain,t structured to carry huge numbers of repos.
b. Subsidies can be engineered to stall Banks or mortgage holders having full control of any future upside.

.........
From my own view.
Those that can and won,t pay should be chased down and thrown out now,
All these chancers do, is dilute our empathy with genuine people who should be assisted.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The Saturday with Claire Byrne was particularly stupid of him. I had spent 30 minutes arguing why mortgage rates must be reduced and then in the second half of the programme he attacked "you and your banker friends". I don't think that the listeners are idiots. I assume that they see through it.

I have long argued that we need repossessions. It's not easy to convince people of that, but, I think that they will see it in time.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Hi Brendan did you get the email about our open letter on mortgage arrears?
 
That's funny Sarenco, that's the letter I put up for the Duke yesterday - that you subsequently opened a thread on.
 
Hi IMHO

I didn't get it directly, but I have seen it discussed on askaboutmoney.

It's a great name. I got a good laugh from it.

Brendan
 
Brendan

You said on the radio yesterday that you had attended court in Trim recently where over 80 repossessions cases were heard but very little happened except more adjournments.
You mentioned 1 case where the person involved actually showed up before the Registrar- it transpired nothing at all had been paid for at least 5 years on the property. And yet the Registrar gave another 8 month adjournment to allow the person make contact with the bank!!!

Did I hear that right?
 
The ever excellent Seamus Coffey has a great post up on his blog from a recent court sitting in Cork
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2015/04/cork-county-registrars-list-civil.html

Here's a snapshot from the days proceedings:
Orders%252520Granted_thumb%25255B3%25255D.png

Could you imagine how worse that would read if we did have Strategic Defaulters in this country which we of course!!!!
 
I think the comments from the registrar make for interesting reading

  • "Everyone needs to show goodwill; some repayments need to be made."
  • "Nothing possible without engagement; engagement involves making some repayments."
  • "There needs to be a level of engagement; make interim payments."
  • "It is helpful if one makes interim payments; it doesn't have to be all or nothing."
  • "I have little interest in making orders for possession but there has to be engagement."
  • "Some money must be paid; take it one step at a time."
  • "I am concerned to see few repayments; some repayments have to be made on a regular basis."
 
Delboy said:
The ever excellent Seamus Coffey has a great post up on his blog from a recent court sitting in Cork
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2015/04/cork-county-registrars-list-civil.html

Here's a snapshot from the days proceedings:

Could you imagine how worse that would read if we did have Strategic Defaulters in this country which we of course!!!!
Click to expand...

I just love the owner of no 10 in Colorado. Paid 38 Euro, that's right three eight Euro in August 2014. With montly payments at 360 Euro. I'd love to know the thinking behind the 38 Euro.

And 11 already adjourned in Dec 2014 for engagement, none and a stay of 6, yes six months. What a circus and there is no other word for it.


Thanks Delboy for posting, I knew it was a circus but it's even worse than I had thought.
 
Last edited:
aidamcg said:
I think the comments from the registrar make for interesting reading

  • "Everyone needs to show goodwill; some repayments need to be made."
  • "Nothing possible without engagement; engagement involves making some repayments."
  • "There needs to be a level of engagement; make interim payments."
  • "It is helpful if one makes interim payments; it doesn't have to be all or nothing."
  • "I have little interest in making orders for possession but there has to be engagement."
  • "Some money must be paid; take it one step at a time."
  • "I am concerned to see few repayments; some repayments have to be made on a regular basis."
Click to expand...

One borrower has made no payment since April 2009 and it was adjourned. That's 6 years !!!!!
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I will be discussing this with David Hall on Matt Cooper at 5.45 this evening.

Brendan
Click to expand...

It might be helpful, just saying,if you could post up the links or transcripts would be better. In 10 years time we will all think we dreamt the whole thing. The celtic tiger and aftermath that is.
 
Gerry Canning said:
It is difficult to read/listen without getting caught on soundbites.

This issue requires no (sides) but a pragmatic look at what is best for Ireland.

a. If it means that in subsidizing mortgage holders is better/cheaper for Ireland than large scale repos ,then go for it . I do understand that Moral Hazard comes in but we ain,t structured to carry huge numbers of repos.
b. Subsidies can be engineered to stall Banks or mortgage holders having full control of any future upside.
Click to expand...
You're right but why, oh why, does Ireland think it has to do this differently to the rest of the civilised world? Restructuring, insolvency, bankruptcy and repossession *are* the humane mechanisms by which this is achieved. People should be dealt with fairly and evenhandedly, and helped to restart their lives through insolvency or bankruptcy where necessary.

There is simply no way to go back and undo the fact that the "hit" of our false credit boom fell very unevenly, depending on people's circumstances. You cannot now do anything that involves subsidies for mortgage holders that isn't unfair to everyone else (with the sole exception of debt write-off upon asset surrender for those in unsustainable situations which, again, needs no new convoluted mechanism that doesn't already exist). There is simply no case to be made that having a huge loan entitles you to handouts. If we're going to go that route, why is nobody talking about levying a huge windfall tax on the hundreds of thousands of home owners who bought in the last millennium and have seen soaring equity that they did nothing to deserve? I'd love to see that one run up the flagpole and see who salutes!

Property booms and busts have been around a long time, probably since Homo sapiens first took a shine to nicely appointed south-facing caves. The mechanisms to deal with them have been around a long time too. We just need to use them, and stop pretending we're in some kind of unique situation. Anyone proposing handouts needs to stand back and consider why those receiving them deserve them more than those who will be paying for them. They need to consider why those who -- however unfortunately -- can't pay their mortgages, should be prioritised above those who have to rent, live with relatives, queue for social housing, or any of the plethora of situations that the rest of the population lives with.

This is not about being mean spirited or hard hearted, it is about equable treatment for all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top