Who has all the money which is on deposit?


Why, certainly! Feel free to stick, say, a 10% per annum tax on the savings, of those who have lived within their means and not spent every cent they earn. They were subject to income tax on earning, and will be subject to VAT or stamp duty when spent, but I quite understand that's not enough.

By the way, I assume that you'll be paying the same 10% on your property, which you bought while some of us were saving?

Or is it a case of savings tax good, property tax bad?
 


Marietta,
I gave their location to a member of the Simon Community who were very interested as they had no record of this particular location being used. I believe they have started to visit them.
S
 
Is there a realistic possibility that this year's budget will impose a tax on savings? If so, does anyone have any creative suggestions as to how one might legally avoid this tax? For example, could the money be transferred to an overseas bank account?
 
who has all the savings?

I notice Shelleyb has made no attempt to engage with the substantive replies to her/his rather childish initial posting. I feel most people have wasted their time contributing to this post.
 
Some very interesting comments here along with the usual "I'm alright jack" responses. It still doesn't answer where all the money went, it has to have gone somewhere and there obviously is considerable money still in the country. Personally I would not like to see savings taxed. I've paid a lot in tax myself and they went towards my own property. I'm angry because I guess last year I could afford my mortgage and now with the up-and-coming Budget I will find it difficult and start to default in at least 1 to 2 mortgage rate increases. I'm waiting for the mortgage bloodbath that is coming but if the posts that are on here are anything to go buy it looks like I'll be in a minority. From the bank defaulting to the next wave of default by mortgage holders - I wonder who will pay for that?

I worked for over 10 years for all the top 5 lawyers and accountants here in Dublin in hindsight I guess I know whereat least some of the money went.
 
You still haven't explained why the following is morally valid.

You are asking those who felt they couldn't afford a house, rented and saved, to pay for your mortgage, when they are saving to own one themselves. You are asking pensioners who are saving for ill health and medical bills to pay for your mortgage. This is all given that tax has already been paid on all savings.

For the record, I have worked as self-employed and full time in the internationally competitive sector of the economy. The money was borrowed and the money supply has now severely contracted. Very few now have cash to pay for the mortgage crisis, and removing the savings of others in a grab of taxed money (except earnings and interest) is wrong and will cause a flight of capital.
 


I don't condone pensioners being further taxed. My parents are pensioners and they are going to be hit badly this coming Budget. [Although, there are well off pensioners with private pensions receiving a state pension also but that is a different argument.] Also either this is or isn't a moral argument which is it? Morals are based on religion which supposedly preaches charity, altruism, equality, love-thy-neighbour etc. You cannot choose when and where to be moral but oh boy, I'd love it to wholly be a moral issue. So if the majority are against bailing/helping out struggling mortgage holders (to stay in their homes), what's the answer? Turf them all out on the street. Have all those on low to low middling incomes pay for all this (which will happen). Is that moral?

Fair enough, I think if people are going to loose their homes and it looks like its going to happen, then private rents should be capped as they are abroad and there should be a property tax which increases with the more properties one has.

I still don't understand how ordinary people can pay 150,000 in cash for a 5 bed home(sold in a matter of hours) in this climate and these people are not property developers, lottery winners etc? Some savings!

Instead of a moral argument what about the 'universal good' argument?
 
Shelleyb said:
So if the majority are against bailing/helping out struggling mortgage holders (to stay in their homes), what's the answer?
Click to expand...

I think the answer here is that people resent the idea of bailing out people who made silly financial decisions and took out mortgages that they couldnt afford or that they wouldnt be able to afford if all went belly up - as has happened.
However - I agree - something should be done to help struggling mortgage holders, but I dont think taxing the savings of people who have been sensible and saved is the answer.

Shelleyb said:
I still don't understand how ordinary people can pay 150,000 in cash for a 5 bed home(sold in a matter of hours) in this climate and these people are not property developers, lottery winners etc? Some savings!
Click to expand...

I dont understand this? Who bought a 5 bed home for 150,000 cash in a matter of hours?
 

It was about 1/5 months ago outside Limerick I believe. People queued for hours.

So what's the difference between someone who at the time could afford a home but due to a number of factors coming together then couldn't. At what point do you decide you can afford/manage something for sure and certain. For me this means, paying for something completely in cash ,no loans or relying on third parties for finance. However, I will never have 150,000 or 200,000 its just not going to happen. Most have to borrow their mortgage. Jobs come and go, people get ill, luck turns, events happen - what's the determining factor. What is the 'risk' event horizon? I ask again, where's the missing money, it didn't just disappear???
 
I tried to engage with the OP via PM, but it was utterly futile. Someone who bought an affordable - ie, tax-payers subsidised - property using a 100% mortgage has absolutely no moral basis on which to call for others to fund their lifestyle.
 

Bear in mind that public service pensions have not been cut at all.


I still don't understand how ordinary people can pay 150,000 in cash for a 5 bed home(sold in a matter of hours) in this climate and these people are not property developers, lottery winners etc? Some savings!
Click to expand...

People could have rec'd gifts, inheritances, etc.

Plenty of people in their 30s / 40s have 50-100k in savings, this is not unusual.

An acquaintance phoned me asking on advice for a 50k lump-sum he received.
 


When you ask "where did all the money go??", can you please be more specific??
 

Well there are some very obvious examples of silly borrowing, people taking out 100% mortgages where the amount borrowed is 6 or 7 times their salary.

Yes, jobs come and go, people get ill etc... Personally (and Im no guru on this), for the first couple of years of my own mortgage repayments (not a massive mortgage btw, friends thought I was mad borrowing so 'little' at the time - but I wanted somewhere I could afford and not have a crippling repayment each month), I saved to the point that now if I lost my job I could continue to pay my mortgage for a few years. Or if I got sick etc... This was before the market crashed and I went into negative equity. It just seemed like a sensible back up plan, save so that you can continue to meet your mortgage replayments in the event of bad things happening.

Now if something super-bad had happened during the first 2 years of my mortgage I probably would only have had a cushion for a short time frame, as Id used up my savings on the deposit etc.. But at that point I could have sold the place for close enough to what I paid for it and gotten rid of the mortgage.

I dont want to sound all smug and organised - but surely sorting yourself out with a manageable mortgage and a few bob saved in case the worst happens is just a reasonable sensible way to be doing things?
 
Is it a moral issue? Surely morals cannot be selective?

Affordable housing is NOT social housing. Those who bought AH paid tax and subsidized the scheme too.

Maybe I am wrong and maybe I'm the only one who's never had those kind of savings then? So it is a genuine learning curve for me.

If there was no money to begin then we don't owe anything - just a thought?

I have to admit it is getting a bit like "I have no toys and want to play with yours" or "I have toys and you're not playing with mine..."
 
Protocol said:
People could have rec'd gifts, inheritances, etc.

Plenty of people in their 30s / 40s have 50-100k in savings, this is not unusual.
Click to expand...

I agree. Even without an inheritance or gift, if you managed to save 5k a year for 10 years you'd have 50k.
 
I agree with this post but you did buy during a different time and there was a certain set of 'sufficent conditions' for you to make a wise decision to take out a mortgage. Of course, it could be argued that this can be done at anytime. I really don't know.
 
Shelleyb said:
Affordable housing is NOT social housing. Those who bought AH paid tax and subsidized the scheme too.
Click to expand...

[broken link removed]

Shelleyb, as someone who bought affordable housing, you were subsidised by other taxpayers. It was a scheme designed to offer property _below_ the then market rate for the same properties. You can keep denying this 'til you're blue in the face but it's simply economic fact.
 

I only bought in 2004. Im still in negative equity. My salary has decreased (with pay cuts and levies) to pre 2004 levels.
 


I bought a house in 2005.

I borrowed 56% LTV, the rest I paid for with savings.

I don't know what you mean by "sufficient conditions", but I compared my mortgage repayments with my income / lifestyle / costs, etc.

I also shopped around and luckily got a 0.5% tracker mortgage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register