Sir, – “If you cannot afford your present accommodation or a sensible debt restructuring then unfortunately you should declare insolvency and forfeit your house” writes Adrian Mulryan (February 25th) with a compassion that makes Attila the Hun look like Mother Teresa.
We have to recognise that in the midst of Celtic tiger property hysteria most buyers acted not of out greed or stupidity, but out of a desire to provide a long-term housing solution for themselves and their families.
In writing about the moral hazard of some potential resolutions one could equally highlight a point in our history when the residents of council estates were given the opportunity to purchase their homes at prices substantially below market levels, effectively being subsidised by the taxpayer. This was correctly regarded at the time as giving folk an opportunity that might not have otherwise have possible. Such enlightened and non-condemnatory thinking is badly needed in the current environment. – Yours, etc,
Long term lurker here who’s interest in this thread has led me to put my head above the parapet.
As has been alluded to, we’re met a wave of emotional indignation every time we question the ethical or financial justification for debt restructuring on mortgages. Those of us who didn’t get involved in the madness are about to undertake more tax increases to keep people in a lifestyle they can’t afford.
I have a lot of sympathy for people who are in dire straits but everyman and his dog knows there’s a huge amount of strategic defaulters out there and it really gets my gut that these people will get off scot free as it seems.
Can someone more enlightened then myself tell me what is wrong with people downsizing to fit their means? We’re not talking about throwing them out on the streets.
Once again, we’re just keeping property prices artificially high and the bubble will burst again in the not too distant future as you can guarantee a hell of a lot of those who got themselves into trouble will again!
I am about to lose my home and agree entirely! I am losing it as I cannot afford the very small mortgage, due to job loss and illness, in that order. The arrears are terrifying, and the mortgage company have agreed to take the house back and sell it themselves, So then the arrears stop building up, so anything I would still owe will be less in the long run. Bought house for 114k during the boom, and it is worth a lot less now obviously. Mortgage was 70k and small at the time, but life happens eh? I am not moaning about it, just looking for somewhere to go so I can get out and move on, basically. I was never mad for a big house, never spent beyond my means and could have gotten a far higher mortgage at the time, like everyone else seemed to be doing. It is shitty, but it could have been a heck of a lot worse if I had wanted a fancy house. Tough shit for me basically, but life/happiness is not about wealth and possessions. It is a huge hassle and very stressful, but not the end of the world. Plenty of places to rent out there basically. I will be glad to get out of here to be honest. I don’t understand people who want to stay in a house loaded with debt… The headache and stress is just not worth it. There are houses to let from 400 a month upwards. That should be affordable for most, and the council house option is there for people with kids. I’d be on a waiting list for years though as have none.
These people who moan annoy me too. Just bloody get on with it! Those who took crazy mortgages were fools and I have even less sympathy for them… They can find it between sh*t and syphilis in the dictionary if they really want it…
Well done for having such a positive attitude Pinkie. Sorry it had to come to this for you but you are right when you say that there are plenty of options and that you’ll be better off without the stress. Hope you’re health is on the mend and good luck getting a new place to live.
What a crap way to end a letter. I assume the Editor edited it? Anyone who went to the trouble of reading it would be left with the impression that the author has described his own argument as 'damaging, rooted in begrudery and false doctrine’. Way to lose the audience.
I don’t see a topic here on the Private School issue but surely the counter-argument to Scargill et al is that the money the parents would have spent on fees is not destroyed, they now have higher discretionary income which they can now spend on the non-private school, improving facilities etc.