P.I.G.S.

A number of busted countries had their debts forgiven in the past by the World Bank, so I think that where the cause of the debt crises can be proven to be the result of the recession, debt forgiveness for businesses and individuals alike would be the most humane resolution. I think it's obscene that a person loses their job through no wrongdoing of their own, cannot then sustain their mortgage or other lien, gets the place whipped from under them and too often their young family, and loses all the capital they've sunk into it. What happens to the families then? Does the Council automatically find them some cramped flat on a sink estate, or are the children taken into 'care' and the family smashed up by bureaucracy? I don't know - I'd like someone who does to tell me how this works, and how it works for the greater benefit of society.

We hear a lot of bollocks about the sanctity of human life, yadda yadda, but when it comes to debt situations, it seems that this notion goes conveniently out of the window and it's all down to base economics. I'd like to think that we aren't just commodities, especially since so many thousands, if not millions, of people affected throughout the world are innocent of contributing to any mismanagement and over-reaching by the banks. We trust the Establishment to do its best by us, yet it lets us down regularly and we have no other alternative suitably in place.
 
Last edited:
Krizon

"dbet forgiveness' for businesses or individuals is an absolute nonsense.Think it through...

Where does it start and where does it finish? Who qualifies and who doesnt?

You really think a goverment is going to sell a policy of paying off overspent credit cards and rescuing crap businesses just because they blame their failings on the "recession"?
 
krizon said:
We hear a lot of bollocks about the sanctity of human life, yadda yadda, but when it comes to debt situations, it seems that this notion goes conveniently out of the window and it's all down to base economics. I'd like to think that we aren't just commodities, especially since so many thousands, if not millions, of people affected throughout the world are innocent of contributing to any mismanagement and over-reaching by the banks. We trust the Establishment to do its best by us, yet it lets us down regularly and we have no other alternative suitably in place.
Click to expand...

More or less very civilised!

There are others who find that taking is their way of life and will argue accordingly .. surprise.

It wasn't Deuteronomy with the description of Jubilee - try Leviticus 25. It's worth putting aside oh so modern views ... read it and open the mind.
Or try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_%28biblical%29

Too difficult to go there? Try!
 
Clivex, I did say where it can be proven, not just an open invitation for everyone who's simply overspent for fun.

Soary: I don't think anyone, even the Israelites themselves, goes for 50-year loans of land any more, certainly if after that relatively short span of time it would all revert to the priests!
 
Last edited:
Verily it is there for all to see,
The old Zion's system of Jubilee:
You're loaned the land for years but fifty
Which is fine for working while you're nifty,
After which the land and beasts
Are turned to the ownership of the priests.

(Hey, you gave me the link, matey, and asked me to keep an open mind, wot I did.)
 
I might be persuaded to pay some of my income on a tax to fund debt forgiveness. The following would be my conditions:

1. Reposession of all homes that people cannot afford. Your debt is forgotten about, but you can't live in the home that you can't pay for.
2. 25 year limit on all new mortgage terms.
3. Mortgages in future limited to 3 x first income, 1 x second income.
4. All new mortgages must be stressed at 4% over prevailing rates. No more than 35% of after tax income should be paid in mortgage repayments after
5. National property price database, giving full transparency over property transactions
6. Reform of tenancy laws, requiring landlords to give 6 months' notice to any tenants who are in the property for a period of time. Rent increases should be limited to the CPI index. Minimum tenancy provided by landlord should be 2 years (tenants can get out after 1 year). Tenants should have right of first refusal on sale.

Ideally there should be some type of means assessment to stop people buggering off on holidays, smoking, buying expensive perfume or drinking for a few years after the debt that they have accrued is paid off by my taxes. But that is probably an invasion of privacy or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
I might be persuaded to pay some of my income on a tax to fund debt forgiveness. The following would be my conditions:

1. Reposession of all homes that people cannot afford. Your debt is forgotten about, but you can't live in the home that you can't pay for.
2. 25 year limit on all new mortgage terms.
3. Mortgages in future limited to 3 x first income, 1 x second income.
4. All new mortgages must be stressed at 4% over prevailing rates. No more than 35% of after tax income should be paid in mortgage repayments after
5. National property price database, giving full transparency over property transactions

Ideally there should be some type of means assessment to stop people buggering off on holidays, smoking, buying expensive perfume or drinking for a few years after the debt that they have accrued is paid off by my taxes. But that is probably an invasion of privacy or whatever.
Click to expand...

Despite the name, really just a big softy, huh?
 
I think (1) has to be looked at purely in terms of value for money for the taxpayer. You'll get abuse of the system either way and people caught in the middle either way.
 
Bar the Bull said:
I might be persuaded to pay some of my income on a tax to fund debt forgiveness. The following would be my conditions:

1. Reposession of all homes that people cannot afford. Your debt is forgotten about, but you can't live in the home that you can't pay for.
2. 25 year limit on all new mortgage terms.
3. Mortgages in future limited to 3 x first income, 1 x second income.
4. All new mortgages must be stressed at 4% over prevailing rates. No more than 35% of after tax income should be paid in mortgage repayments after
5. National property price database, giving full transparency over property transactions

Ideally there should be some type of means assessment to stop people buggering off on holidays, smoking, buying expensive perfume or drinking for a few years after the debt that they have accrued is paid off by my taxes. But that is probably an invasion of privacy or whatever.
Click to expand...

1. Too tough. Let em pay an economic rent for a set period, say up to 5 years, to compensate the lender, whilst their financial affairs are reviewed, simply, every 6 months. Don't know what you'd do if the review showed poor resources. Probably need to factor in the state of the market, too, vis a vis the 'value' of the house. If they're still not able to afford normal repayments after 4 years, give them 1 year's notice to quit, subject to review.
People are the community, too.

2. ok.
3. ok.
4. 35% probably reasonable, coupled with points 2 & 3.
5. ok
6. ok in principle.
7. Tax the increase in property value not due to inflation or owner-funded improvements. about 100%. when sold. That should cool things down.
8. Lift restrictive planning causing squeeze on domestic land.

All in all, take the big out of the deal in domestic property. It should not be a big deal. These days it's an inflated deal messing up people's lives.
 
Last edited:
There are some decent minds available in all quarters (whether they're employed decently, well, not all) so with a will and benign outlook, such reforms of the law are eminently feasible.
Just in case there are any dissenters maintaing these things can't be properly set up ... shurley not!
 
Your 6th point is an important amendment, Bar.

Landlords should have to have a valid reason for terminating a lease. They shouldn't be allowed throw tenants out simply because they think someone else might pay more. On the other hand, six months is a very long notice period if a tenant is not keeping up with payments, wrecking the place, being a nuisance to neighbours, etc.

Points 2,3,4 and 5 are common sense.

Regarding the first point, what to do with the thousands of repossessed homes? Offer them for rent to other people who have had their homes taken back?
 
F*cking feckless?
To quote:
"A nine-bedroom former Convent of Mercy on 2.31 acres of zoned land in Borris-in-Ossory, Co Laois, is guiding at €200,000 and has become a prime location thanks to planning approval for a €460 million Las Vegas-style leisure facility in Two-Mile-Borris."

I wonder what an LV-style leisure facility would be. Nothing to do with cards & chips, of course.

It's all that LV-style sunshine, no doubt.
 
Borris in Ossory is a fair bit from Two Mile Borris. I find it hard to believe that BIO has become a prime location because a seedy gambling den might* be set up 50km down the road.

* Might, because who the fuck is going to fund this white elephant?
 
Well, it might just be puff ... and it's a quote to remind some of the demise of Convents - even of Mercy. Happy memories? Ha ha.
 
Bar the Bull said:
I might be persuaded to pay some of my income on a tax to fund debt forgiveness. The following would be my conditions:

1. Reposession of all homes that people cannot afford. Your debt is forgotten about, but you can't live in the home that you can't pay for.
2. 25 year limit on all new mortgage terms.
3. Mortgages in future limited to 3 x first income, 1 x second income.
4. All new mortgages must be stressed at 4% over prevailing rates. No more than 35% of after tax income should be paid in mortgage repayments after
5. National property price database, giving full transparency over property transactions
6. Reform of tenancy laws, requiring landlords to give 6 months' notice to any tenants who are in the property for a period of time. Rent increases should be limited to the CPI index. Minimum tenancy provided by landlord should be 2 years (tenants can get out after 1 year). Tenants should have right of first refusal on sale.

Ideally there should be some type of means assessment to stop people buggering off on holidays, smoking, buying expensive perfume or drinking for a few years after the debt that they have accrued is paid off by my taxes. But that is probably an invasion of privacy or whatever.
Click to expand...

Love it.
 
It happens that there was a private Member's motion introduced by Labour senators Aideen Hayden and Marie Moloney in the Seanad last week, supported by the Government in spite of opposition from the Department of Finance, calling on the government to consider setting up schemes to assist distressed homeowners similar to those already existing in Scotland.

The gist of it is to allow mortgage holders to reduce their equity in their properties, and reduce their repayments accordingly. In some cases that equity might even be reduced to zero, and tenants would pay rent on their properties instead of mortgage repayments. The procedure could go into reverse if and when a household's financial circumstances improve.

I think this approach is preferable to Bar's proposal 1, which would oblige people to leave their existing homes before assistance would become available to them.

Here are some extracts from Senator Hayden's speech:

I am urging the Government to consider a scheme whereby the State would purchase equity stakes in the homes of distressed owners who are unable to afford their current mortgage repayments and who have insufficient equity in their family homes to enable them to trade down. The homeowners would remain in their houses and pay affordable mortgages based on their incomes to their local authorities or to a housing agency designated by the State, based on a reduced equity stake in their homes. Such a scheme should facilitate homeowners to increase their stakes in their homes and increase their mortgage payments over time as their financial circumstances improve. This debt-to-shared-equity scheme could be based on the provisions of the incremental purchase scheme and on the principles set out in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. The incremental purchase scheme, designed to assist eligible households in stepping upwards to home ownership, could be adapted to enable current homeowners to step downwards and purchase back the remaining equity as their circumstances improve...

A further scheme should be established, subject to certain criteria such as the value, size and location of dwellings, whereby the State may purchase homes of distressed owners who are in negative equity and unable to afford current mortgage repayments at a significant discount from the financial institutions concerned. Let us not forget that it was the financial institutions that were complicit in giving loans of unrealistic value to the homeowners of today. The homeowners would in time be able to repurchase their houses based on existing affordable housing or tenant purchase schemes.

Similar mortgage-to-rent and mortgage-to-shared-equity schemes have been established by the Scottish Government in response to the plight of distressed homeowners there... The homeowners’ support fund supports these schemes and is designed to help owners who are experiencing difficulties paying any loans secured on their family homes. Applications to the fund are on a first-come, first-served basis... It is not a blank cheque... Moreover, these measures would be cost-effective, bearing in mind the cost of rehousing families who eventually lose their homes as a consequence of foreclosure. This scheme would prevent eventual repossession, alleviate human misery and bring confidence to the housing market...

For those who argue against any interference with the housing market, it is important to bear in mind that the threat of mortgage failure affects the whole property market, the banking system and the wider economy. The current practice of relying on a moratorium on repossessions only perpetuates a zombie housing market. We must allow a line to be drawn so that our people and our economy can move on.
Click to expand...


And here's a bit Sheikh will like:
It is important to remember that first-time buyers who purchased at or close to the housing market peak are most likely to experience negative equity and mortgage arrears. Very often, these are households with young families. It is easy for those who bought their homes many years ago to be critical and talk of bad decisions and moral hazard. The fact is that the cost of an average family home exceeded ten times the average industrial wage in 2007. More fortunate Irish householders bought at a time when that ratio was three to four times their salaries, with many benefits that householders no longer enjoy, such as the first-time buyer’s grant — which at one time represented almost a quarter of the value of a family home — and generous mortgage interest relief on the balance. We must be under no illusions: it is the young people of Ireland who bought in the last decade who are paying the price for this disaster. We must be careful to avoid the intergenerational strife that will ensue if we do not help them to keep their homes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top