He didn't post a link that I saw - which is why I asked for a link?
stop blaming mortgage holders
- Thread starter Ryandd
- Start date
He didn't post a link that I saw - which is why I asked for a link?
RE the salary amount being extortionate I note the following
The suggestion was made (and I am expanding it a bit for effect here) that because a person saves or earns a company more than he costs, he justifies his salary
For the sake of exposition, lets peg that at 40-50% of what he saves/makes the firm.
If you're paying for a competent guy to fulfill a job description, why should he be paid an amount that in any way reflects the value he brings to the company?
I once helped a guy realise a profit of over €750,000 by obtaining a permission.
I didn't ask for €500,000 because he'd gotten an extra €450,000 than what I was asking.
Another client realised a profit of €12Million because of work I did negotiating a permission and designing a housing estate.
This was back in 2002 or so, before things went mad and reflected the difference between zoned land and land with a permission on it.
I didn't get to bill that client €6M.
How can CEO's claim the outrageous salaries they seek? Some are getting bonuses for doing very little it seems.
The suggestion was made (and I am expanding it a bit for effect here) that because a person saves or earns a company more than he costs, he justifies his salary
For the sake of exposition, lets peg that at 40-50% of what he saves/makes the firm.
If you're paying for a competent guy to fulfill a job description, why should he be paid an amount that in any way reflects the value he brings to the company?
I once helped a guy realise a profit of over €750,000 by obtaining a permission.
I didn't ask for €500,000 because he'd gotten an extra €450,000 than what I was asking.
Another client realised a profit of €12Million because of work I did negotiating a permission and designing a housing estate.
This was back in 2002 or so, before things went mad and reflected the difference between zoned land and land with a permission on it.
I didn't get to bill that client €6M.
How can CEO's claim the outrageous salaries they seek? Some are getting bonuses for doing very little it seems.
This kind of talk is exactly why I have my doubts about this guy! When the banks were taken over and recapitalized, the loan books were evaluated and the capital introduced was sufficient to bring the banks into line with acceptable European T1 ration requirements. If we not go and use up that capital writing of what were thought to be good loans, we'll be back to square one in no time once again recapitalizing the banks yet again.
Jim2007
Agree Jim2007.
Having read this thread Cromwell is very much alive and well!
Has anybody read the article this morning on the Irish Independent website; about the guy who is now livinging in a NAMA property?
My point being, if people are kicked out of their homes will we see cases like this springing up all over the country; people squating here there and younder.
I am having difficulties with my computer and cannot copy the link so if somebody would be kind enough . . .
Having read this thread Cromwell is very much alive and well!
Has anybody read the article this morning on the Irish Independent website; about the guy who is now livinging in a NAMA property?
My point being, if people are kicked out of their homes will we see cases like this springing up all over the country; people squating here there and younder.
I am having difficulties with my computer and cannot copy the link so if somebody would be kind enough . . .
Hi
I read the article and happy they let him stay, only I hope that we don't all find we have to follow. I do think its time for home owners to speak up there is enough of us been made scape goats for bad policies and corrupt dealings in this country we are really mugs for taking it all. I have been on to the new beginning group who are offering legal advice for people in distress, really worth a call and are very understanding. I have no problem making realistic payments within my means but I don't want to be told that now the council own your house and you can pay rent to them. Apparently now people will be categorised into what plan the banks feel you should go with. I asked the question of negative equity and who was responsible for the shortfall as it never stated in my contract and therefore the responsibility is been forced on homeowners who have lost their jobs and facing on increasingly hard times with the next budget. I would oppose plans by the government that dictate what happens to our homes and what cateagory we fit into like a herd of cattle. I applaud all of thees groups Blank of Ireland is another should take a look at their campaign.
I read the article and happy they let him stay, only I hope that we don't all find we have to follow. I do think its time for home owners to speak up there is enough of us been made scape goats for bad policies and corrupt dealings in this country we are really mugs for taking it all. I have been on to the new beginning group who are offering legal advice for people in distress, really worth a call and are very understanding. I have no problem making realistic payments within my means but I don't want to be told that now the council own your house and you can pay rent to them. Apparently now people will be categorised into what plan the banks feel you should go with. I asked the question of negative equity and who was responsible for the shortfall as it never stated in my contract and therefore the responsibility is been forced on homeowners who have lost their jobs and facing on increasingly hard times with the next budget. I would oppose plans by the government that dictate what happens to our homes and what cateagory we fit into like a herd of cattle. I applaud all of thees groups Blank of Ireland is another should take a look at their campaign.
The guy in the Independent is not a mortgage holder, he took a house in an estate where there are mortgage holders that are suffering the effect of their purchase decision. The person in question lives off the state and we have now incurred the cost of an investigation and legal proceedings because he decided to claim 'adverse possession' of a house that he had no interest in.
well the question has to be asked, who was looking after the property that allowed this person to enter and reside there, was it alarmed, maintained, obviously not so they harp on at us for having home insurance and alarms. If the banks own the property maybe they should take more care in maintaining their interests. If a court ruled in favour for the person to remain there, they obviously found the owner to be irresponsible, it is obviously another eye off the ball situation for the bankers!
L
London Irish
Guest
I think you say later that "ordinary" people could not have known what was going to happen, but as you say, there was people (McWilliams et al) who offered an alternate viewpoint. And they were on PrimeTime and the papers, with regular counterpoints from bank economists, EAs and the construction industry.
Both sides lay out their positions on an ongoing basis, and the majority of the population sided with one of them - a sort of affluent apathy. And here we are.
I do feel for your position, but the truth is, the taxpayer can't pay anymore. Yes, the government have already bailed out the banks, etc etc, but in reality that money is debt that is stacked on top on the taxpayer, and the taxpayers children - and will already ruin the nation. There was a storm of comment and protest in the papers and other media when NAMA was formed - but the Irish people seemed largely unmoved, almost unnaturally quiet. (I've always thought that it was a mixture of general apathy and a hope of further bailouts for other interests that ushered in NAMA...)
Yes, bankers and ex-government minsters are getting away with fat bonuses and pensions, and there is still terrible waste in spending, but is that a reason to look for more money? Surely instead its a reason to stanch the bleeding of cash for the sake our childrens future.
We're been kept alive by the IMF/EU. We have increased the nation debt massively. We blew the NPRF on the banks. We have nothing else in reserve. Its not a case of the taxpayer not wanting to pay for homeowner bailouts, the taxpayer can no longer pay - certainly not in the amounts (billions) that can now make a difference.
These points are made over and over again. I think some people are frustrated that you didn't heed the message and warnings in the boom, and now you are not heeding the message and lessons during the bust. Thats is where a lot of frustration is coming for me, certainly.
We just have to wait for the endgame to play out on the Euro crisis, and ask what lessons from this we really want to pass to the next generation.
P
PiedPiper
Guest
The tax payer cant pay anymore because they have given away all the money to the banks and the IMF.
The reason the goverment needs all this money is to pay the interest on loans and bonds that have nothing to do with us.
The reason the goverment needs all this money is to pay the interest on loans and bonds that have nothing to do with us.
These points are made over and over again. I think some people are frustrated that you didn't heed the message and warnings in the boom, and now you are not heeding the message and lessons during the bust. Thats is where a lot of frustration is coming for me, certainly.
We just have to wait for the endgame to play out on the Euro crisis, and ask what lessons from this we really want to pass to the next generation.[/QUOTE]
It is very hard to put your life on hold based on economist views in the media especially when government and likes are assuring us, all is well in the country. People weren't stupid, we were strung along with false hopes and a drip fed fiasco that emerged in 2008 when neither government nor the regulator could face the country honestly to let people know the seriousness of the state of the country it was deception that cost the party its place in politics and they were now all paying the price in some way or another.
We just have to wait for the endgame to play out on the Euro crisis, and ask what lessons from this we really want to pass to the next generation.[/QUOTE]
It is very hard to put your life on hold based on economist views in the media especially when government and likes are assuring us, all is well in the country. People weren't stupid, we were strung along with false hopes and a drip fed fiasco that emerged in 2008 when neither government nor the regulator could face the country honestly to let people know the seriousness of the state of the country it was deception that cost the party its place in politics and they were now all paying the price in some way or another.
lONDON IRISH - The tax-payer will pay far more if we don't help those in real trouble.
Helping does not mean debt-forgiveness (though this may be needed in a few cases). It means any number of schemes as propsoed by New Beginnings group or last year by the advisory group(Forget name, B.Burgess was on it).
Not helping -or not properly helping , and the Keane report is certainly an example of "no-real-help", means tens of thousands of families stuck ina situation where they have no money to spend on anything else.Bad for the economy. It means a social despair which weakens society and prevents a country to go forward. And it will certainly mean tens of thousands of people giving up their keys and going abroad or moving into council accommodation.
If I was in my thirties with children and owed 300k on a 150k property and was faced with the proposals so far on offer i would certainly start planning a life anywhere but here - and throw back the keys. Irresponsible, immoral? UUmm... My family's future versus that of the banks, even of the nation ? An easy choice for an increasing number of people.
These are the real costs of not solving the situation.
Helping does not mean debt-forgiveness (though this may be needed in a few cases). It means any number of schemes as propsoed by New Beginnings group or last year by the advisory group(Forget name, B.Burgess was on it).
Not helping -or not properly helping , and the Keane report is certainly an example of "no-real-help", means tens of thousands of families stuck ina situation where they have no money to spend on anything else.Bad for the economy. It means a social despair which weakens society and prevents a country to go forward. And it will certainly mean tens of thousands of people giving up their keys and going abroad or moving into council accommodation.
If I was in my thirties with children and owed 300k on a 150k property and was faced with the proposals so far on offer i would certainly start planning a life anywhere but here - and throw back the keys. Irresponsible, immoral? UUmm... My family's future versus that of the banks, even of the nation ? An easy choice for an increasing number of people.
These are the real costs of not solving the situation.
There are some very emotive posts in this thread. For what it's worth I am with Purple. Those who cannot repay for what they promised to repay should lose their homes (not sure I would extend that to pensions). I'm self employed and my wife is about to open her own business in the next 2 weeks. Should it all go wrong for us I would expect that we would lose our home. It would be a massive disapppointment surely, but come on..it's not the end of the world. Renting is no longer the bad word it was and there are more important things in life than home ownership. It's also rubbish that people would end up on the streets...there is already movement that will allow them to rent where they currently live from the state as well as hundreds of thousands of houses in the private rental market. Were the banks still in private ownership then I would be more sympathetic to home owners in trouble, but as we now own them, then it's a bit unfair that we should all pick up the tab. As Purple mentioned there are plenty of people who didn't buy or go mad and why should they pay through higher taxes to enable thhose who did over-extend keep the house they should never have bought?
I think it's also incorrect to say that the banks (and in particular bankers) haven't taken a hit. Granted those at the top who were ousted are no doubt living off nice pensions, but that always happens. I worked in a large Irish bank a number of years ago and am still in regular enough contact with some of my ex-collegues...some had built up quite a nice nestegg in shares over the years and these are all gone. Morale is terrible and lots are trying to leave.
I think it's also incorrect to say that the banks (and in particular bankers) haven't taken a hit. Granted those at the top who were ousted are no doubt living off nice pensions, but that always happens. I worked in a large Irish bank a number of years ago and am still in regular enough contact with some of my ex-collegues...some had built up quite a nice nestegg in shares over the years and these are all gone. Morale is terrible and lots are trying to leave.
I too know some bankers who have lost everything they had in shares. Also have elderly relatives who cannot now earn and have lost via bank shares and face a life of penuiry on state pensions instead of the well funded retirement. Perhaps we should pay for those along with the negative equity generation. It's a mess but it would be better if people helped themselves and got on with it as a first step.
L
London Irish
Guest
Yes. I know that. We all know that. We can walk away from the debt, but we're not going to get the money we put in back. Nor will we get any new lending.
Many people contend we should walk away from the bailout debt and I would be one of them. But doing so doesn't mean we get billions back to spend on a homeowner bailout. Instead the ECB will cut us loose and we'll have a 20 billion euro hole in the economy that the ECB/IMF won't fund anymore.
One way or another, we have no more money.
This "renting = life on hold" mantra needs to be put out to grass or just taken out and shot.
I'm 36, married with 2 kids, and renting (though my circumstances are different to most as I made the move to emigrate several years ago and am now in the Middle East). Is my life on hold?
My personal view during the boom years was that I could buy and run the risk of being saddled with a huge mortgage and, through circumstance beyond my control, having to put my life on hold trying to pay it back.
And that's the real story isn't it - many are really, really putting their lives on hold because of their mortgage situation. What lessons are we drawing from this?
Do these other schemes cost money? How much? Hundreds of millions? Billions?
We have no more money. So it hardly matters. Will the social fabric of the nation be torn asunder? Will there be families on the streets as many contend? Will the economy implode as everyone stops spending?
I don't know. I just know that the taxpayer has no more money.
I have to agree with the above. I'm not trying to be harsh or dogmatic but homeowners in trouble need to wait until the bankruptcy law is reformed and brought in line with the norms in the UK, for instance, then enter bankruptcy proceedings and get on with their lives.
Why are some posters objecting to something that almost noboy is proposing? (E.G. people should pay their debts ! The taxpayer can't afford to pay for these people!)
Where does anyone say that there should be a blanket debt forgiveness -either in this thread or generally ? Do not these posters read the papers or watch the news ?. Are they completely unaware of the many proposals made by the bodies alluded to previously, such as New Beginnings et al ?
None of the proposals mean the taxpayer is forking out a fortune to pay for those in trouble, or, at the very least, on a couple of ideas the cost to the tax-payer is no different than the tax-payer would pay anyway for social housing tenants.
So, please , no more responding to comments that were never made.
Where does anyone say that there should be a blanket debt forgiveness -either in this thread or generally ? Do not these posters read the papers or watch the news ?. Are they completely unaware of the many proposals made by the bodies alluded to previously, such as New Beginnings et al ?
None of the proposals mean the taxpayer is forking out a fortune to pay for those in trouble, or, at the very least, on a couple of ideas the cost to the tax-payer is no different than the tax-payer would pay anyway for social housing tenants.
So, please , no more responding to comments that were never made.
clarification on New Beginnings . I;m aware that some proposals do involve a cost to tax-payer and I refer to the interesting discussion on other threads such as "how to deal with mortgage crisis".
My point is that this is one of many proposals made by this body and by Brendan Burgess's body, and nowhere is a blanket debt forgiveness proposed -and at worst a couple of suggestions involve a subsidy or partial debt forgiveness.
My point is that this is one of many proposals made by this body and by Brendan Burgess's body, and nowhere is a blanket debt forgiveness proposed -and at worst a couple of suggestions involve a subsidy or partial debt forgiveness.
P
peelaaa
Guest
But how long do people have to wait, we are already being told that we will be out of the recession in 5 years, but we have already been in it for 3 years, how long are you talking then. None of us are getting younger, I want to live my life and not think about the states problems over my own family. The state as I see it have left us to our own devices to sort out, no assistance, if thats the case then why should people not leave.
I can't see Ireland ever changing for the good.
The mess was caused by the state, simple as that. NAMA should never have occurred.
I don't understand why some people on this thread are still not grasping that removing people from their homes will only be a worse burden on the TAX payer. Frying pan to fire comes to mind
What is the evidence for this? Some people who lose the properties that they purchased will require social housing but many would have the means to rent. Many people may not be able to afford 2.5k of a mortgage but have the income to pay 1k in rent.
The burden on taxpayers is leaving people in limbo for years and hoping that things will get better. We have already had years of the state supporting people with unsustainable debt.
Stop blaming the mortgage holders................. until there is an efficient way for them to get out from under their debts, even if it means forgoing assets ( which are really liabilities!).
What happens the houses that are repossessed?
My guess is the banks will cry wolf, when they realise how many keys are handed back. The then overly burdened TAX payer will have too dig deep once again
I take on your points Ontour but will there be as many 'paying' renters around or will it all be rent allowance?
'Paying' renters need jobs and as we all know there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of them about.
My guess is the banks will cry wolf, when they realise how many keys are handed back. The then overly burdened TAX payer will have too dig deep once again
I take on your points Ontour but will there be as many 'paying' renters around or will it all be rent allowance?
'Paying' renters need jobs and as we all know there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of them about.