It has been estimated that resolving negative equity would cost 14bn and this would directly benefit more "real" people amongst us than the 62.9bn already put into the banks has.
Is the 14 billion figure the value of wiping all negative equity or just those that are in trouble?
But as the welfare state is in place already, and society already does this for its less well off, is it really such a stretch of this concept that we would transfer - on a once off basis - a lesser amount (€14bn) to that section of society which is struggling the most in this regard. Given the likely knock-on benefits to the rest of society through economic impact, maybe we need to re-consider.
It has been estimated that resolving negative equity would cost 14bn and this would directly benefit more "real" people amongst us than the 62.9bn already put into the banks has.
All negative equity apparently (http://www.independent.ie/business/...ge-debt-plan-would-cost-euro14bn-2903148.html) which means for those only in trouble it would presumably cost less
It's not an 'either/or' choice. The welfare state is already in place for everybody. If those in mortgage difficulties find themselves in dire straits, the State welfare supports will kick in. If those supports aren't kicking in, then maybe the straits aren't so dire after all.With the arguments against debt forgiveness mainly focusing on the "why should I pay my neighbour's mortgage" point, its made me think about the whole concept of the welfare state, and whether something so ambitious, and costly, could ever get off the ground now, if it wasn't in place already?
Internet forums, TV & radio would be overflowing with outrage at the very thought that society would voluntarily transfer over €20bn per year to people....just because they have no money for food, heat, or accommodation! Imagine!
But as the welfare state is in place already, and society already does this for its less well off, is it really such a stretch of this concept that we would transfer - on a once off basis - a lesser amount (€14bn) to that section of society which is struggling the most in this regard. Given the likely knock-on benefits to the rest of society through economic impact, maybe we need to re-consider.
I know plenty of people like that are in negative equity but are happy where they live and can easily make their repayments. In some situations, people on trackers actually have lower payments than they did 3 years ago. I don't see why they should have half their debt paid by taxpayers money.
The real problem is with those that cannot make their repayments. Negative equity is only an added problem here is that they cannot sell their house and move on.
I have been made redundant, my husband was made redundant. Neither of us could have foreseen that.
It's not an 'either/or' choice. The welfare state is already in place for everybody. If those in mortgage difficulties find themselves in dire straits, the State welfare supports will kick in. If those supports aren't kicking in, then maybe the straits aren't so dire after all.
Best post of these whole discussions. The state will ensure everyone ultimately has the safety net of social welfare. That ensures a minimum standard of living.
Those who are worse off than people on social welfare need not be. There are existing mechanisms to ensure this.
Those better off than people on social welfare should count themselves as fortunate and not expect handouts to sustain a standard of living in excess of everybody else who relies on the state.
There is already a mechanism in place to pay the interest on the mortgages of people who are unemployed.
There is a world of a difference between that are paying off the a loan on an asset for an individual so that they can retain that asset.
I would like to see a reform in the personal bankruptcy laws, much like the American model.
In the case of people who simply cannot pay there should be a mechanism for debt write-off with their bank. I don’t see why they should use other people’s money to retain ownership of their home.
I find it very depressing the lack of sympathy, empathy or compassion with regards to mortgage holders in trouble.
But it can be said that you were "foolish" to not plan for a worst case scenario by having a big enough rainy day fund to see you through troubled times.I have been made redundant, my husband was made redundant. Neither of us could have foreseen that.
Absolutely agree, if the bankruptcy process was less complicated and faster to organize, problems could be solved on an individual basis.I agree that something should be done but it’s such a complex area that a blanket scheme will inevitably be open to abuse or will at least help some people and not others who need that help more. I would like to see a reform in the personal bankruptcy laws, much like the American model.
Well said, doesn't happen often that we agree ;-)It's not an 'either/or' choice. The welfare state is already in place for everybody. If those in mortgage difficulties find themselves in dire straits, the State welfare supports will kick in. If those supports aren't kicking in, then maybe the straits aren't so dire after all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?