stop blaming mortgage holders

Bronte said:
There are quite a number of people who demand antibiotics and won't leave the GP be unless they get them.
Click to expand...

The GP is more to blame - patients can shout and roar all they like but if the GPs won't prescribe the drug the patient doesn't get the drug - it is that simple. In the context of some of the mortgages given out by banks, instead of showing restraint when the prospective borrower shouted and roared for the bigger mortgage the bank gave three year fixed rates to borrowers knowing that the borrower would not past the stress test if they offered a variable rate mortgage !! And what's even more farcical is that it was all done under the watchful eye of the Regulator and the Central Bank . We are, and deserve to be, the laughing stock of Europe.
 
demoivre said:
And what's even more farcical is that it was all done under the watchful eye of the Regulator and the Central Bank . .
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware the regulator and central bank were not keeping a watchful eye, they were in cahots with the banks and politicians.
 
To be fair, I would find it quite hard to blame the average mortgage holder for the state of affairs they are in. I borrowed 60% of what the bank was willing to give and I'm still screwed.

At the time, 04 - 07, people needed places to live. They had jobs and felt secure. Everywhere they turned politicians, banks and developers were telling them to buy. Most were just buying a family starter home or something in that regard. I wouldn't say they were reckless. They were not investing for profit. Hindsight is great for all the detractors, but the time it was a perfectly reasonable move.

Now, if you have no reason to move and can afford your mortgage, then there is no problem of course. Negative equity is of no consequence. However, for those who do need to move and there are many reasons for needing to move to a larger accomodation or a smaller one (separation, new arrivals, emmigration, etc) , these people are stuck. I can understand the "well screw them! I was sensible" attitude but I think, as citizens, they deserve some kind of assistance rather than being completely marginalised. It is a sorry state when we "screw them" and didn't "screw" the bankers, bond holders, developers, politicians, etc.
 
 

Well said. I don't think everyone thinks these buyers were irresponsible. I, for one, feel incredibly sorry for anyone in this situation.
 
I personally think it's bizarre that there is an expectation that the taxpayer has a responsibility to help people resolve issues in their personal life.

Got separated? Let the taxpayer help you out.
Want to move country? Let the taxpayer help you out.
Don't want your kids to share a room? Let the taxpayer help you out.

I do support measures to help people who are in hopeless situations, mostly to write off debt while they surrender the property, but if anything this thread shows what a slippery moral slope it is.
 

thats because we weren't given the option to screw the bankers...believe me the majority wanted too
 
The TEAPARTY is alive and well in Ireland !

Looking at some of the posts in this and other threads it appears that some people believe ( and I use words and quotes from those people)

The Irish Tea Party share some things in common with their USA counterpart:-

1. THEY DISPLAY A HEARTLESS ARROGANCE . (Those in trouble should have read economic history and seen what was coming . I did - so it serves them right they're in trouble)

2. THEY INFER THEY ARE SMARTER AND MORE HARD-WORKING THAN THOSE IN TROUBLE. They constantly irepeat how they knew what was coming , and how hard-working taxpayers should not bail others out .As if those in trouble are not hardworking ,or are stupid.Or both.

3. THEY DONT LISTEN OR READ WHAT OTHERS SAY...
There have been many suggestions on how to alleviate the mortage distress situation that do NOT involve the taxpayers paying. And yet the TeaPartyers keep on harping on about" why should the taxpayers pay?" Look at Buglers last post -WHERE does anyone say in the previous posts that the tax-payer should pay if people want to move because of seperation ,larger families etc? Why make those statements when it is so clear that Lenders flexibility does NOT mean debt foregiveness.

4. THEY DON'T COME UP WITH ANY IDEAS as to how to solve this problem. A problem that,if not solved, could cost great social and economic damage. All we hear is attacks on those in trouble .

5. SOME SEEM ALMOST MALICIOUS. I'm saddened at how they react. One of them said I must be in negative equity for taking the stand I have -he even quoted another post where I mentioned some of my properties i have. (almost as if to say "look,look, Old Nick has a lot of properties -he must be in trouble")
Evidently he could not believe that a comfortable property owner who did not buy Irish property in the last decade and has paid all loans on irish properties could possibly sympathise and support those seeking help. ("OldNick has his own vested interest").

Well, I've been self-employed all my life. no dole, no sick-pay, or any social welfare. All taxes and debts paid. A middle income shop-keeper who has made and paid for some dumb business/investment plans but never sought a cent from the govnt until my OAP comes along next year (a year later than if I had been a PAYE worker).

Suggesting help for others does not have mean that one has a vested interest in those others. Not only is it morally right -it actually is socially and economically beneficial.
 
trailblazer does not clarify what "assistance" people wanting/needing to move or 'forced' into it should be given, it may be debt-forgiveness or a NE mortgage. I am not against the latter.

While it may not be a stated intention in this thread (frankly I am not going to read back through it as I don't have the time), the idea that debt forgiveness should be given for a variety of reasons (ranging from it's a "family home", to "we could afford it at the time") is in open discourse in the public realm. Any such effort will be highly prone to abuse or manipulation.

Lastly, you'd be better served by laying off the hysterics. References to one of the more disturbing political movements of recent times in a different country are not helpful. It's easy to be populist.
 
Like mentioned earlier, we weren't given a choice when government gave blanket guarantees across the board, remember who we are bailing out its not just your neighbour who has lost his job due to the downturn, or the business that couldn't access credit from banks and had to close making redundant their staff, the way I can see it is that negative equity is the least of peoples worries, if the government don't address the growing employment issues that are presenting in this country there will be no let up on growing poverty and mortgage default, social welfare bills rising, mental health issues, and the list goes on....
 

ah so you are a " A middle income shop-keeper" ...no such thing with the prices that you guys were chaging during the boom.... which also explains the number of properties you were able to get.
 
People who did not buy property during the bubble benefited from the low taxes on their income while paying low taxes on their outgoings.

It seems to me there are a lot of people who seem to have known the future and press this point like everybody should be an economics master.

So did you pay more tax than you had to because you knew taxes were too low ? or did the narrow and low tax base benefit you for the period of the boom ?

Surely you spread the word that everyone should pay more tax ?
or having accumalated whatever wealth you may have off the back of this same system, you have convinced yourself you had no benefit from it.
 
SteveW9 said:
ah so you are a " A middle income shop-keeper" ...no such thing with the prices that you guys were chaging during the boom.... which also explains the number of properties you were able to get.
Click to expand...

Thats such a generalised statement. You have no way of knowing how much he charged, made etc. And remember, he employed people, paid taxes, rates and possibly rent too. One thing is sure, the poster you are negative towards did not cause the mess we are in. So why the harsh words?
 
Liuternau - you're right in what you say.

I didn't bother replying to such a ridiculous statement, especially as it's not the first completely false one made about me by SteveW9 ( last time it was the accusation that I must have a vested interest in helping people in negative equity because obviously I'm in negative equity!) -
His last statement was even sillier and very insulting to all self-employed people such as small shop-keepers.
I'm only commenting on it now due to your own accurate post.
 
How are the mortgage holders to blame ? The prices increased because the banks where reckless in handing out large sums of money therefore allowing to developers to increase prices on each phase of their developments. People therefore had very little choice but to borrow in fear that they would be unable to afford to buy the house they wanted. Supply and demand, its simple economics.I have to laugh at Dunlin3 and Bronte saying that the ordinary person fuelled this problem. Did we go into developers and say "actually could you add and extra 100k onto the price of that house because i really dont think i'm borrowing enough from the bank". How can you justify a 500k mortgage to a family on 70k ? And dont tell me that everyone lied about their income, why should people lie, banks handed out 100% mortgages. If this is not reckless conduct i really dont know what is.
 
This discussion is becoming rediculous. There is no one thing to blame, but many. Yes the mortgage holders are to blame, yes the banks are to blame, yes the developers are to blame, but mostly, in my opinion, the government/regulators are to blame. It is their job to put controls in place so disasters of this nature cannot happen.
 
I appreciate your opinion that all are to blame but I do feel that it is the mortgage holders that are being punished the mosts, bankers are getting their bailout and bonus, developers are getting out through Nama and the regulator has taken no responsability for not doing their job instead they got lump sum payment in golden handshake so this all needs to be considered, there is still no positive solution from government to help stressed mortgage holders in negative equity, people are stuck in houses that cannot sell for a very long time with no ability to pay due to job loss which ultimatley came from the banks misconduct and irresponsability over the years unnoticed by the regulator. I hope you can see the point Im making, why is it there has been no help apart from humiliation from banks when we approach them because we can no longer afford the repayment and are in arrears. Some back in the thread mentioned about how people should have seen the property bubble coming as they had, if thats true it should be the same case in the banks crystal ball, instead they up their game and continued to lend not considering the devastasion, but I bet alot of them have now left with their bonus for targets achieved and with no moral obligation to its customers, If ordinary people should have seen it coming then I would expect that government and banking experts should have taken more heed instead they did the opposite.
 
I posted the following in another thread on Mortgage arrears etc, but its just as relevant here;


This is chicken and egg stuff with differing degrees of involvement and responsibility for all involved in this mess. Blaming Mortgage holders (or lets call them buyers) for taking out large mortgages to buy over priced homes or properties to rent out is too easy.

Where was the the regulation on the amounts banks were lending to developers and buyers? Of course, in order to get their money back from the developer, banks had to lend to buyers, so the variables on lending were relaxed and people were able to get massive mortgages, over 40yrs. Sometimes you have to say no, bu the banks kept on cashing in.

All was going just 'Grand' as Bertie would have us believe but for one thing - money became scarce for the banks to get partly due to their own exposure to development and partly due to external factors, way way beyond their control.

But to go back to my chicken and egg scenario, its not the eggs fault that the chicken laid it. Therefore, why should any of the real blame rest with buyers (mortgage holders)? Like the egg, they were the tail end of a process they had no control of, and very little involvenment in.
 
I agree with you on those issues, but I often heard the general term that people got massive mortgages, but they forget this was the market value, people had incomes that satisfied banks criteria, the mortgages only seem hugh because of the fall in prices but at the time they were in line with economic trends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register