Letter from Irish Moral Hazard Organisation to Government re Mortgage Arrears

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

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 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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi Brendan,

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

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.
 
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% ?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Sophrosyne said:
Could you say why your bank has not initiated proceedings against them. Is it a legal difficulty
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Lots of leaps there. I'm a fan of slow thinking.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
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% ?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Gerry Canning said:
People who genuinely cannot afford to repay mortgage on average homes , must be assisted.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top