stop blaming mortgage holders

Of course I blame people who took out excessive mortgages when they, in all probability, were not going to be able to repay these in the long term!!

I got a D in PASS leaving cert maths and even I was able to differentiate between NEED and GREED at the peak.

I lived for over 10 years in a tiny house WAY too small for my needs because I knew that getting a huge mortgage was unsustainable.

If you wanted to provide for your children, why did you sink their education money into an inflated mortgage instead of renting?


Ryandd said:
Crazyone
families have only got the roof over their heads and there is no such scheme to deal with all the families that would be out on the street, it was a crazy statement to make and will only cause more hurt to people in already awful circumstances.
Click to expand...
Please spare us the emotional blackmail: families would NOT be out on the street - they would be in a lovely rental, of which there are many.
 
galwayhous said:
..families would NOT be out on the street - they would be in a lovely rental, of which there are many.
Click to expand...

What's your basis for this statement?

On prime time the statement was made that "losing your home was good for" the 20,000 or so mortgage-holders that are hopelessly insolvent.

Who will provide the rental properties for these families under your model?

Where will the rent come from?
Who will maintain the properties?
 
hastalavista said:
What's your basis for this statement?

On prime time the statement was made that "losing your home was good for" the 20,000 or so mortgage-holders that are hopelessly insolvent.

Who will provide the rental properties for these families under your model?

Where will the rent come from?
Who will maintain the properties?
Click to expand...

Where do we think these families would be living if they had not taken mortgages in the first place?
 
People should be able to rent a home similar to their current one for less than their current mortgage repayments - which puts them in a better day-to-day position than they were before. For example, someone with a 400K mortgage on a property now worth 200K will move from paying the mortgage on 400K to paying rent on a 200K property. If they can't afford the rent on a 200K property, then there's no way they could have paid the 400K mortgage. And if they can't afford the 200K rent, their finances are probably such that they would qualify for rent allowance etc.
 
We are one of those families who are in financial trouble. And believe me we did not borrow more than we could afford. We built our house back in 2000 when both of us were working in good solid permanent jobs. Roll on 10 years, I have lost my job and my DH wages have gone down to below what he was taking home back 10 years ago (oh and btw he is a public servant) and I get a whopping €13 a week on Jobseekers!!! We also now have 4 kids to support.
Please don't anyone have a cheek to tell me we deserve what we get for being greedy. When we got our mortgage, we did the sensible thing and only borrowed what we could afford. We live in a rural area and at the time we built our house renting wasn't an option - we purchased a site and built a modest 3 bedroom family home. A few years later we added a garage. Thats it - nothing more, nothing less.
We never had the luxury of going on holidays or driving new cars so please do not tar all mortgage holders with the one brush. Yes there have been many who did borrow recklessly but many more just borrowed what they needed, and then circumstances changed.
I am not looking for sympathy or pity just a little bit of understanding.
 
bugler said:
Where do we think these families would be living if they had not taken mortgages in the first place?
Click to expand...

If statements focussed on the past wont help the 20,000.

orka: the rental property will probably cost 200k or so and who will buy the house from which they have been evicted.

The rent allowance comes from the tax payer, as does the write-down on the house.

The more pressure that comes on the income payout side of the Gov finances the more taxes will need to go up.

Writing off capital values on the balance sheet of the taxpayers owned banks will not have the same effect.
 
lulubenny said:
Please don't anyone have a cheek to tell me we deserve what we get for being greedy. When we got our mortgage, we did the sensible thing and only borrowed what we could afford. We live in a rural area and at the time we built our house renting wasn't an option - we purchased a site and built a modest 3 bedroom family home. A few years later we added a garage. Thats it - nothing more, nothing less.
We never had the luxury of going on holidays or driving new cars so please do not tar all mortgage holders with the one brush. Yes there have been many who did borrow recklessly but many more just borrowed what they needed, and then circumstances changed.
I am not looking for sympathy or pity just a little bit of understanding.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately we currently tend to have either a "black" or "white" approach to this issue. I.e. That all of those who purchased property in the boom years were greedy and borrowed beyon their means and as a result should now suffer the consequences of such actions. The corollary of this is that all those who purchased property in that period were seduced into borrowing beyond their means by greedy bankers and developers and cannot be held accountable for such actions.
The truth as in most generalisations lies somewhere in between. There are a large number of people such as the above Poster who borrowed within their means at the time but have suffered a loss of employment or income reduction due to economic circumstances. Equally there have been a number of those who initially borrowed above their means and subsidised a high lifestyle through further loans based on Equity Releases as the associated houses increased in value. Every case is different and this is why there can be no standard solution to these problems. There is no benefit to either the Banks or the borrowers in re-posessing property unless all other options have first been explored and co-operation has totally broken down. Does that mean that a developer or other "high roller" who lives in a high spec property should be treated the same as an ordinary punter living in a 3 bedroom semi? Possibly not, but where do you draw the line? These are not easy decision but will need to be made in what is percieved to be a fair and equitable manner. MARP is an attempt to do that but is not itself a final solution. We need a focussed long term solution that addresses all of the issues and gives some level of comfort to those who cannot deal with the burden of debt that they are currently carrying.
 
This site is full of people who love pointing the finger and tuting down the unfortunate people like yourself Ryandd.
Most of the people doing just that most likely made money from property or other related services and through nothing other than timing or stage of life avoided the carnage that our young people and young familes now find themselves in.

Don't expect anything other than you were greedy and you deserve it type response as time and again that is what comes up here. Many people on here want to know whats in it for them to help the most unfortunate of this mess and nothing more so I would not not expect any sympathy from people who in general think they are above you and as many of them say, "I knew it would happen"

I was fortunate in that I did not get caught like youself but I feel your pain and hope that the goverment will do something to help people and families like yourself.

Do not rely on that "expert group" on mortgage arrears though, you only need to see the stuff that was coming out of the half of them before all this happened to see actually how "expert" they are!
It's a difficult problem but i hope that solutions can be found for the benefit of the whole of society.
 
johnnygman said:
This site is full of people who love pointing the finger and tuting down the unfortunate people like yourself Ryandd.
.
Click to expand...


Ryandd did not give any real facts for you to make the assumption that he is in an unfortunate position. It is my experience of AAM that those who come on here in real financial difficulty and distress get good advice on here.
 
lulubenny said:
We are one of those families who are in financial trouble. And believe me we did not borrow more than we could afford. We built our house back in 2000 when both of us were working in good solid permanent jobs. Roll on 10 years, I have lost my job and my DH wages have gone down to below what he was taking home back 10 years ago (oh and btw he is a public servant) and I get a whopping €13 a week on Jobseekers!!! We also now have 4 kids to support.
Please don't anyone have a cheek to tell me we deserve what we get for being greedy. When we got our mortgage, we did the sensible thing and only borrowed what we could afford. We live in a rural area and at the time we built our house renting wasn't an option - we purchased a site and built a modest 3 bedroom family home. A few years later we added a garage. Thats it - nothing more, nothing less.
We never had the luxury of going on holidays or driving new cars so please do not tar all mortgage holders with the one brush. Yes there have been many who did borrow recklessly but many more just borrowed what they needed, and then circumstances changed.
I am not looking for sympathy or pity just a little bit of understanding.
Click to expand...

Well said. A lot of people who are now suffering just bought the most affordable house or apartment they could get, many of them were in public service employment where it was absolutely unprecedented for salaries to be revised downwards. Even the banks assumed they would always be on their existing salary scale when calculating how much they could afford to borrow. I bought an apartment in a very ordinary part of Dublin, nothing fancy or 'beyond my needs', based on a salary scale that was 'set in stone'. I have now had four pay cuts and am in negative equity. I waited as long as I could before buying but you cannot wait forever or you will then be considered 'too old' for a mortgage. As for asking why people didn't just continue to rent, I would not fancy being old and renting in this country. The whole rental market is very very poorly regulated and renters have very few rights. The whole attitude towards renting in Ireland -particularly during the boom years - is that it is a temporary situation, mainly for the young, and anyone still renting after about 35 is a 'loser', and so very little is done to make it a viable alternative to owning your propery.
Even before my salary was slashed I did not have fancy holidays or new cars or expensive furniture or 'go mad' in any way. I am fed up of some people smugly coming on here and telling people it's all their own fault, they just shouldn't have bought a house when they did. We are not all economists, and even the economists didn't all see this coming. We were fed a huge amount of mis-information by the Government, the banks and many so called 'experts'. So maybe a little bit of sympathy instead of preening lectures.
 
Liaconn I don't see preening lectures on here. But are we not allowed to question what happened without anyone in negative equity seeing it as a personal attack on them.

Take the example on Primetime last week. Which was a showcase of how awful things are for those in negative equity/debt etc.

We were given scant details but the lady in question had split up from her partner and the bank took the property and this was an example of something bad. Well her being split from the ex is sad, but nobody's fault only the couples. Losing the property, was that actually bad or good? Her debt has been written off and she can start again. I'd say that there are an awful lot of people who would be delighted to be in her situation and not tied to paying a mountain of debt for the next 35 years.
 
I agree with your post Johnnygman.


We’d be looking into a catastrophe if they started taking people out of their homes. It would cost the tax payer millions upon million in re-housing.

I have no interest in kicking my fellow Irish man when he is down; but there is a consensus out there, that he should be bare foot on the side of the road with his belongings in hand.

Investment properties and the likes should be talking from them but they should not be removed from the home were they live. It wouldn't rectify the problem.
 
Bronte said:
Liaconn I don't see preening lectures on here. But are we not allowed to question what happened without anyone in negative equity seeing it as a personal attack on them. .
Click to expand...

There's a difference between questioning what happened and some of the indignant 'It's their own fault. Tough luck' type of posts that I have read on this and similar threads. Of course some people lost the run of themselves and borrowed stupid amounts of money for fancy properties they knew in their heart and soul they couldn't afford and didn't need. But not everyone is in that situation and that needs to be acknowledged.
 
Stop making generalisations
Stop blaming
Stop complaining
Stop waiting for the silver bullet

Look to the future

Start helping family and friends if you have the means.
Start contributing to your community if you have time either by choice, retirement or job loss. Share your skills – develop new ones.
Start looking for job creation opportunities either for yourself or others.
Start making decisions based on critical thinking, not based on what the neighbours are doing or what it says in the newspaper supplement.
 
ontour said:
Stop making generalizations
Stop blaming
Stop complaining
Stop waiting for the silver bullet

Look to the future

Start helping family and friends if you have the means.
Start contributing to your community if you have time either by choice, retirement or job loss. Share your skills – develop new ones.
Start looking for job creation opportunities either for yourself or others.
Start making decisions based on critical think not based on what the neighbours are doing or what it says in the newspaper supplement.
Click to expand...

Excellent post ontour.

While the human aspect of this has to be looked at, so too, unfortunately, does the financial cost of it. I don't think there's anybody on here "pointing the finger" as one poster put it.

The point I've made previously is that sometimes we make decisions that don't turn out well. We, as adults, have to as best we can deal with the consequences of our decisions.
I agree wholeheartedly with ontours attitude, we're in one hell of a mess, and we have to work our way out. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, there is no silver bullet solution. And blaming the banks, Estate Agents, Newspapers, or even ourselves won't change the past.

For a long as we look back and are intent on finding people to blame, we will not get out of this mess.
 
Greensquare said:
Excellent post ontour.

While the human aspect of this has to be looked at, so too, unfortunately, does the financial cost of it. I don't think there's anybody on here "pointing the finger" as one poster put it.

The point I've made previously is that sometimes we make decisions that don't turn out well. We, as adults, have to as best we can deal with the consequences of our decisions.
I agree wholeheartedly with ontours attitude, we're in one hell of a mess, and we have to work our way out. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, there is no silver bullet solution. And blaming the banks, Estate Agents, Newspapers, or even ourselves won't change the past.

For a long as we look back and are intent on finding people to blame, we will not get out of this mess.
Click to expand...

Nice words, but no a lot of use to people who can't pay their mortgage and can't sell because they're in negative equity and face having their house repossessed because they've lost their job or are having to take a huge pay cut.
 
Llaconn's right. And I'm a bit shocked at the rather heartless attitude displayed by some posters on this and on other threads.

Maybe it's the way they express themselves - appearing crueller than intended.

Or maybe they are part of that special group who had the foresight to disbelieve all the advice,indeed persuasion of banks, politicians, accountants, newspapers et al.
(Strangely i never found many members of that group a few years who "knew" the market would crash 50% and that there be a deep long lasting recession.)

I remember some years back my youngish staff starting families constantly bombarded with advice with experts - banks, auctioneers, newspapers,policiticians -the very leaders of this nation. It was not just advice -it was years of persuasion -buy buy buy borrow borrow borrow. Or else you'll be left behind.

That's why we need a bit of a blame game. So that the rich,respected experts who gave wrong advice should share some of the blame -and cost - with those who in good faith heeded their advice.

If a bank CEO earning over a million a year (and still on a pension of a third of that) tells young couples that they'd be silly not to buy and here's loads of money - is anyone really saying that the bank should not share the loss?
Are some posters really saying it was entirely the purchasers fault that they bought?
 
I think a bit of it stems from the fact that if houses had continued to go up people would've taken their profit and not said a word (as would I!). Now that the situation has gone the opposite way some people seem to feel well why should we be compasionate?
 
oldnick said:
If a bank CEO earning over a million a year (and still on a pension of a third of that) tells young couples that they'd be silly not to buy and here's loads of money - is anyone really saying that the bank should not share the loss?
Are some posters really saying it was entirely the purchasers fault that they bought?
Click to expand...
I would have no dispute with anything said in the above post. Yes the Banks did take a reckless attitude to lending money and as is normal in these circumstances have suffered significant losses as a result. Is it right that senior bankers who by the reckless and incompetent actions cost their banks and their country billions should retire on comfortable pensions? No it's not. Is it right that those who followed the advice of the Bankers and borrowed above their means should now have to suffer all of the consequences of the subsequent economic collapse? No it's not. So what can and should be done to rectify this position?
In reality very little can be done. Our legal system and employment contracts held do not facilitate a personal penalty for those involved in reckless corporate trading. While those who borrowed based on bad advice should have some recourse in law to those who lent to them recklessly, they haven't. This is part of the price we pay for living in a democratic society. All laws are not based on what is equitable. As Brendan B outlined in his proposals for dealing with homeowners in difficulty we must approach the proposed solutions in a pragmatic manner and now look for resolution rather than scapegoats.
 
It appears that anyone who does not want to wallow in pity and head shaking is heartless. Did we learn nothing from the tribunals – years passed, millions were spent and there was little or nothing productive achieved. We are not going to get back banker’s bonus’s, we are not going to put the editor if the Independent property supplement on trial, shoddy conveyancy solicitors are not going to end up in Mountjoy. The simple fact is that the efforts spent on solutions to people's problems are far more important than the blame game.

I am tired of platitudes such as Liaconn's that drive the discussion in to a cul de sac. If the efforts were focused on the resolution of personal bankruptcy in Ireland, then the individuals in the worst financial positions can at least see closure to a very difficult time in their life.

I would love to see the likes of Fingleton pay for the disaster that he contributed to but I would be far happier if their were 50 families who were getting out from under their debts and able to focus on their family. It may not make the best media headlines but IMHO what drives media content is usually not the most important social or economic issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top