Letter from Irish Moral Hazard Organisation to Government re Mortgage Arrears

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.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Begrudgery is alive and well. The "moral hazard" people are akin to Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake".
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TTI
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.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
My view is that those who cannot pay deserve our (i.e. society's) help.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
That distinction ended when the State and the banking sector became intertwined
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Whatever gives you that idea?
 
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'.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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?”
Click to expand...

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

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


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?
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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'.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

'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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top