IF only what?
If only we had a similar banking sector which, supported by government, took actions to get the property market moving through enforcement.
a pro rata number here would be 600, doesn’t seem like enough to fill many hearts with glee
If you can’t afford to pay your mortgage. Move out, it very simple.
The government have actually incentivized the non-payment of mortgage debt with the principles of NAMA, the moratorium and the new insolvency regime.
It’s very simple alright. Simple to say it from a position where there’s no risk of it happening to you. Being homeless with children isn’t simple though. Getting cash together for a rental deposit and removal van when you can’t afford to pay the mortgage isn’t simple.
I’m all for a return to normal principles of lending and risk - but these are extraordinary times we live in and facile heartless shite like that doesn’t help
I don’t want to subsidise anybody’s mortgage, but there is a need to process NE and distressed cases swiftly and humanely.
The evidence from the Smart repossessions is that borrowers stop paying and live in their houses for years without paying a red cent. More than enough time to save for a rental deposit and a van.
well pro-rata to the population it might be 600. but prorata to the volume of mortgages in arrears I thin it would be much higher. Including BTLs and restructured mortgages one broker this week estimated that 17.7% of all irish mortgages are in arrears (compared with less than 4% in UK). will try to dig out more data on it
Just an addendum to last post. The PCAR assumptions used to stress test the banks in 1Q11 (and put the requisite amount of cash equity into them) included an assumption of +20,000 repossessions for 2011. This test was based on UK experience in 1980s. I know there are myriad of difference between UK and Ireland insolvency/forebearance…but thought it was interesting…
I hope more people will die from cancer so there are more houses on the market. And whats with all the fucking road safety shit? Plenty of upside potential there.
People are “hoping” they don’t have to pay to keep people in properties they can’t afford, not that people will fall upon hard times and be unable to afford their property.
If everyone in the country was comfortably paying back their mortgage I don’t think a single person on this forum would have issue.
Before you expend all your righteous indignation consider this: There are people who do not own property who have a family and aspirations of owning their own home. They’re being asked to pay for the people who took risks that didn’t pay off.
To make your comparisons valid:
-Cancer patients being forced to pay for a cancer cure for everyone else and be left unable to afford it for themselves.
-Safe drivers and pedestrians being asked to pay for replacement cards for bad drivers that kill other drivers and pedestrians in collisions.
You seem to assume that repossessing homes is the best outcome for the taxpayer. Without a functioning mortage system, selling them off for the price of a packet of crisps, as cheeky wants, does not necessarily achieve this.
My default assumption is that people who can’t afford things don’t get to maintain possession of those things.
There are houses in this country not even worth the price of a packet of crisps, that’s how assets end up being exchanged for nominal fees. There’s nothing inherently different with property that demands it always be worth something. Applying artificial value under force of law is the worst kind of simplistic thinking.
Important to consider the long term economic value…
Woah, I will pay a fair price for a house. The problem is that my supply of property is limited due to current policies. For example and no offence to the areas, why should I have to pay nose in Lucan whilst some muppet is living at my expense in Foxrock?
I have cash, probably enough to buy somewhere outright…but I am on the fence, as this is a disfunctional market.
The economic recovery has started after all.
So you want someone elses house cos they have fallen on hard times?
That muppet is more than likely under sever stress, and doesnt deserve your judging him, not least because he is not living at your expense. If you live in a country where the government bailed out the banks, it doesn’t mean that that was his choice, of something he is responsible for. What about someone who defaults and voted against the bailout?
The issue is between the lender and the mortgage holder.
I find your attitude repulsive and divisive, especially in light of the fact that these are exceptional times
500,000 people? Where are they going to go??
They ONLY possible solution under your proposal is shanty towns
Picking an extreme example is not much of an argument. It should contain a little more substance than that