Report on public meeting 7 May

[Sarenco]

Frankly, if you rely on cso 'average' figures for your information , you need to reconsider your position in responding to posts such as mine. The pension levy and USC alone account for a 15% deduction from my wages, changes to PRSI and changes in tax bands/ credits and 4 pay cuts, along with a new property charge easily bring the take home pay to half of what it was.

To be fair, you raised your personal circumstances on a public forum - if you don't want responses, why post? USC, income tax changes and PRDs are all imposed on your gross pay after pay reductions and the LPT has nothing to do with your take home pay. I don't doubt for a second that your take home pay has reduced significantly since 2006. I'm simply expressing my disbelieve that your take home is half what it was in 2006.

 

[Sarenco]

I didn't borrow, I used money from the sale of a house, I would have used the money to reduce the cost of the mortgage, so yes this is an additional cost for us

Well if you didn't borrow how do you have an annual servicing cost? I've already explained why the purchase price for the house would have been higher if there was no stamp duty at the time.

 

[rosie]

Sarenco I have no issues with responses from informed posters.
Also you didn't 'explain' that house prices would be higher if there was no stamp duty, you speculated.....there is a difference

 

[Sarenco]

Yes I do find it shocking, I am not aware of any adult who is unaware of the huge cuts the HSE has endured and the knock on effects it has had. Again I would question your choice to respond to posts such as mine if you are so out of touch with reality.

I am obviously aware that there have been significant cuts in the public health services. However, I am not familiar with the specific treatment therapies for people with disabilities that are no longer available in the public healthcare system. Perhaps you're right and this means I'm out of touch with reality.

For the record, I did not discuss the wellbeing of your family - I simply said that the wellbeing of your family was not the responsibility of your lender. Banks are not charities - the State may currently have a significant equity stake in a number of banks but that doesn't make them charities.

I have already expressed sympathy for your circumstances and I commend you for your resolve in dealing with the challenges you are facing.

 

[Sarenco]

Sarenco I have no issues with responses from informed posters.
Also you didn't 'explain' that house prices would be higher if there was no stamp duty, you speculated.....there is a difference

It's not speculation - new build houses were more expensive than comparable second hand houses at the time precisely because there was no stamp duty on new houses. The reason is simple economics - if buyers didn't have to pay stamp duty then they had more resources available to compete with each other to purchase property.

I'll ignore the ad hominem.

 

[Colm41]

I attended the meeting last Week and found it to be reasonably positive as a start point. I have a massive issue with Brian Hayes having been invited to speak and I felt it was sickening to hear him giving his view now, when for over 3 years he was junior minister for finance and actually had the power to do something. He was in power the entire time that the banks were upping the SVR mortgages and did nothing at all to deal with the issue. If he had done anything to deal with the issue while he had the power, there would have been no need for the meeting last week or for this campaign. I think that due to his presence the campaign lost a lot of credibility.
I was also surprised that there did not seem to be more anger in the room. If any of us was doing our weekly shopping in the supermarket and arrived at the till to be told that our shopping came to €123 total but that they had to charge us €450 as they had lost money on the previous customer who had a number of discount vouchers, what would we do? We certainly wouldn't pay it and we certainly wouldn't expect the Government to stand by and let the supermarkets trade like this, so why is it any different with banks. If this campaign is to move forward, there needs to be less pandering and more anger. The obvious solution last week was to get Brian Hayes to take out his mobile phone and to ring either Enda Kenny or Michael Noonan and to ask them what they were going to do about the issue. Brian Hayes was the only person in the room who has any capabilities in this regard and he spoke some nonsense about a bank levy as if he had no other options. I have no doubt that the real reason FG were in attendance was to report back to HQ on whether or not the crowd was big enough to concern them as they will only act if it is going to affect their vote in the next election.
My suggestion would be an online petition where as many signatures as possible are gathered, if there are 500k people affected a large number of signatures could be expected. The petition could say some along the lines of "I pledge not to consider giving a number one preference vote to any Fine Gael or Labour candidate in the General Election unless there is a cap of X%(number TBC) brought in immediately on SVR mortgages."
The latest report in the Examiner today suggests that the report from the Central Bank is going to say that the current SVR rates are fair and sustainable as they have to be kept at current rates as the banks are losing money on tracker mortgages, so we the SVR mortgage holders have to make up the balance to ensure the financial viability of the institutions. Are we going to stand by and allow this scam to continue? Should the Government not be putting pressure on the state owned banks to look at their internal operating costs? 1 in 10 staff in AIB earning over €100k? 160 staff in PTSB earning over €100k? How are these outrageous salaries being paid? By the holders of SVR mortgages... I hope this is the start of the campaign but the anger levels need to increase. The Government will only bow to pressure if they feel it will affect their votes in the upcoming GE. Lets hit them where it hurts, because for too long now they have been hitting us in the pocket.

 

[Bronte]

. Many people affected by this issue are working people with young families (myself included) and it can be difficult to get out in the evenings.

That makes sense. And it the squeezed middle who have no spare money, especially those on high SVR's who could really do with the extra money a lower SVR would bring them.

Probably a march at a time when people can go without affecting work and where they can bring kids. Like a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.

 

[Bronte]

There are around 300,000 SVR mortgages in the country at present so the task is to make as many of these customers as possible aware of the campaign, despite there being no marketing budget.

According to the Independant today, 150,000 of those are not in Negative equity. So they can switch, and David Hall's organisation is lookign at helping them switch. Not sure if this means a reduced legal fee for switching but if you have volume it could be done.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...-switching-will-terrorise-banks-31214275.html

Burgess and AAM mentioned as well.

 

[Bronte]

Did you go?

I'm abroad, have a high variable with Ulster but it doesn't matter to me as I'm basically at the end of that mortgage now. This campaign if it works is worth a lot of money, money that people would put back in the economy and it would give a lot of families a lot of extra breathing space. It's unfair these customers have to pay for trackers and for those who are paying nothing. It's getting great traction politically so I think eventually we will see movement on the rates, and we already have with AIB.

I have no faith in the Central Bank doing anything.

 

[Bronte]

Sarenco I have no issues with responses from informed posters.
Also you didn't 'explain' that house prices would be higher if there was no stamp duty, you speculated.....there is a difference

I would agree with him that house prices would be even higher without stamp duty. The same as the so called first time buyers grant is an illusion as is all talk currently of helping first time buyers by giving them money for deposits.

If you need a bank to change the terms of your mortgage than it is only natural the bank are going to ask you to justify why with figures and they have to be able to question you on those figures, including health costs.

Is there any chance you could extend the term of your mortgage to make it a lower amount monthly. You're nearly 10 years in on your mortgage, are you in negative equity, if not, can you switch?