That Brian Lucey newspaper prediction is shocking.
Back on topic, imagine if some people were desperately trying to get their mortgage moved from the normal category to the stressed one. I have heard from a financial industry insider that people are desperately trying to do this, some to give the impression they are bankrupt. I presume all this takes is missing a few mortgage payments and running up the overdraft and credit card and living off funny money. If some form of debt forgiveness did come in they would be in the running. Given what has taken place this is believable.
Anyway, the Bank Bailouts and Nama were just debt forgiveness in another form. This is a bailout for those next in pecking order, masquerading as ‘for the little people’. A few pages in the sunday papers and on RTE and it seeps into the consciousness and it has a good chance of becoming real, except who pays?
I found it disturbing to see Min Noonan trying to spin the recent market meltdown in a positive light for Ireland. I wonder if he will be able to say the same if the Euro and frozen European banking industry collapse. Are people secretly wishing something like this washes away Ireland’s debts thus cutting off our nose in spite of our botox treated faces.
no mention of snooztalk’s Dunphy Show with ger Colleran today? Ja Deeter was a panellist and explained about the kerry letter family. he said that they got a subprime loan and dont qualify for mortgage interest relief, they could rent and get Eur 800/m rent allowance.
I think we’ve hit the panic phase, the society is about to ‘reset’.
To get attention then attacking from the outside is best. Some well placed Irish strategic default shenanigans in german anti bailout media outlets and suddenly german domestic political concerns create greater scrutiny in the supervision of Irish domestic debt obligations.
That’s true. He shouldn’t undo the good work by trying to become some kind of social commentarist. He needs to remember as well that the more predictions he makes, the sooner he’ll make one that is horrendously wrong !
And when that happens the Sindo et al will be all over it.
I don’t see any benefit in not just leaving it to a properly resourced social welfare system to pick up the pieces. If people have a genuine need for food or clothing then that need can be met by the State at a fraction of the cost of trying to maintain their expectations of foreign holidays, fine clothes and Sky Sports. I’m not trying to be a total c*nt about this, but we are faced with a reality of having feck all resources to deal with this mess. Better to stimulate the creation of real production and job creation now and hope that the further resources can be created to deal with this problem as time goes by.
Administer the scheme through the Community Welfare Officer, as per normal practice. Anyone who hasn’t needed to visit their local CWO for emergency assistance in the past or any time before the scheme commences shouldn’t be entitled to mortgage debt forgiveness. Make it as difficult as it is currently to get assistance with a gas bill when in genuine hardship.
I think Karl misread the details, I don’t think the mortgage is subprime and is probably on the original terms he got with maybe AIB or BOI.
A normal 130k mortgage @ 4% for 20 years is almost exactly 780 a month. Nine years or so on the principal will be reduced to 80k. (I’m a little surprised the supposedly financially illiterate letter writer knows his current principal)
The thing is the guy (if he exists and isn’t partially fictionalizing his or someone else’s situation) is an ideal case for restructuring, he could knock around 300 euro a month off the mortgage by turning it into a new 20 year mortgage starting from now.
The story reminds me a little of the Gay girl in Damascus hoax a few months ago. Media lapping it up originally because the details were so newsworthy, now they’re worrying if they’ve been had.
There are too many things that just don’t add up, but as the letter writer said, they just want to ‘stimulate a debate’. The difficulty is that nobody in favour of debt forgiveness has any firm ground to debate from. They have no way of quantifying the scale of the problem, how to contain it to that scale, what form ‘debt forgiveness’ should take, how to avoid the contagion of ‘moral hazard’, how to be fair and equitable, how or when to begin the scheme, when to end it, and most importantly, whether or not it would serve any public good.
Can anyone forward a reason why it wouldn’t be fairer and more effective to do as myself or Lir suggested above?
This story of kids being forced to eat cardboard for breakfast is shocking beyond belief, and is probably true.
That’s why this morning I wrote to the head of Kelloggs Ireland about packaging cornflakes in edible rice paper instead, a method widely used in China.