New RTE property show tonight

mad m

Lex Luthor wrote:

Youy know if you buy a new house, you don't have to pay SD if your a FTB....

:rolleyes:

Even if its over 125sq meter?

dochasach

kearnsr wrote:

If you rent you have nothing to show for at the end of the day.

In a normal housing market, mortgage debters (a.k.a. "eventual buyers") usually come out ahead of renters, eventually. But as you've probably noticed, we aren't in a normal housing market. Unless you are certain that you will be able to keep your job and live in the house you purchased for the entire loan term and that the value will steadily rise over that time, there is absolutely no guarantee that a buyer will have more "to show" than the renter. He could get stuck in a negative equity situation where he owes more than the house is worth. In this case, the renter is clearly ahead.

According to daft.ie, mortgage payments on a typical house are 2.5 times more expensive than rent on the same property. If the renter blows the extra money on booze then you're right, the buyer comes out ahead. But what's to keep him from investing the extra in an ordinary 5% savings account? But wait, houses have had double digit price increases for the past few years. Yes, and this is why I think estate agents should be required to place a warning on every property ad, in a similar font to the cigarette warnings:

WARNING: If you sell before the end of the term, the amount you owe may exceed the market value of the property. You will be required vacate the house AND pay the differential.

When you buy stock, you get a warning that "Past performance does not guarantee future results." and when you buy short options you get the chilling warning that "your losses may be unlimited." Why don't we see this kind of warning on property?

I'll have to admit that I was a "rent=dead money" believer until I ran through some numbers and figured out that it just doesn't work when house markets go as ape Sh1t3 insane as this one has. This person explains it much better than I can: http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=173020&postcount=223

kearnsr wrote:

I would rather live at home and save to buy my own place (which I am doing now) than rent a place.

Not everyone has that option. It also seems strange and a bit unfair that income tax on adults who live with their parents is at the same rate as those who are out on their own, having to fend for themselves.

MrSinn

I hate this programme,its just more of the crap that comes from the "housing and property obsessed media in ireland"
If they stopped talking and writing about it for 5 mins then this whole pain in the hole issue might not be at the forefront of every irish persons life,what a sad state most of us in this country live in
Tonight on that crap show was this big twat that was looking at bog standard cardboard 3 up 2 down house,when asked what he thought of the living room he said he thought their was too much going on in it:D :mad:
Someday,maybe,RTE will make an original programme

dochasach

FillSpectre wrote:

Your two statemnets don't match you basically don't think each to their own. It appears you find it acceptable for an individual to be greedy when it is their home but people investing in property should be punished for doing so.

No, I just think that if a single mother is being accused of greed and hedonism because she would like an extra bedroom, we should also pay some attention to the punter who has several extra entire houses he doesn't need.

And investors shouldn't be punished, but they also shouldn't expect to live freely off the celtic tiger windfall just because they were lucky enough to financially able to buy property prior to 1999.

FillSpectre wrote:

I find that slightly offensive. THose girls certainly don't represent 80% of Dublin population their age. I also think you can buy a nice place for €350k in a nice area. I don't know where you live but I'll take it you don't live in Dublin or have only have knowledge of a very small part of it becasue what you said is not my city.

Don't mean to offend, It's just an opinion. I can't be the only one who has encountered so many with such an enormous sense of entitlement. From 1000 euro communions, to new cars, live at home until they can convince the parents to buy them a home, chat on the mobile all day at school and work, sneer at customers when asked to do their job, drink heavily at least 4 times a week, buy the latest fashions and top brand labels, don't ever buy anything used.

But I'd like to think you're right.

Interesting comment about what 350k gets, there do seem to be more decent properties in that price range than I remember seeing a few months ago. That's still well above what I'd pay. I'll emmigrate before gambling 10X average salary on a very average house.

It's weird that RTE has so many property show clones, especially when RTE is tax subsidised. How much RTE revenue comes from mortgage and real estate ads?

dochasach

aniascor wrote:

I would hate to see this happen - you can't control rising property taxes, and can end up losing the very house you have worked your whole life to pay for when you retire, or become ill, and suddenly can't afford property taxes. Your primary residence should never be subject to this! (BTW - I have no problem with property taxes for investment or second properties.)
And what should the property taxes be based on? The original price you paid for your house? Or what it is worth now in an inflated market?

Good points, good questions. I was thinking about this after I wrote it. The existing system is only sustainable if the government salts away the stamp duty windfall for a rainy day. But of course they wont. Annual property taxes can provide more of a dependable income, but you're correct that they can (and have) forced retirees to remortgage homes just to pay taxes. That's not fair either. So I like your idea of an annual property tax on 2nd and other investment properties.

aniascor wrote:

I really like this idea! - it is so obvious looking around Dublin that half of the new properties have never been lived in - I live in Smithfield, and half of the apartments in the block that Fresh supermarket is in haven't even been furnished yet, not to mind rented out. And those apartments have been ready for about 9 months.

Yes I've seen similar. Take a look at night sometime and you'll see how many properties are supposedly "earning" their owners value by just sitting there empty and dark. I wonder if that many individual investors have chosen to let property sit empty or if there is some sort of cartel in operation, trying to keep supply down whilst also taking advantage of the last year of builder tax breaks. Since we have absolutely no transparency or accountability in the property industry, it wouldn't surprise me. If they can't prove owner or renter occupancy for at least 50% out of the two years following planning approval, apply a high windfall profits tax on the assessed appreciation over that period, payable immediately.

Just say no to ponzi schemes!

dochasach

Lex Luthor wrote:

so I get penalized for buying a house before the boom? Is that what you're saying?

It's not a penalty, its paying a fair share. Those who bought before the boom have more than enough advantages over the post 1999 peasant class. Unless they don't intend to use any of the roads, rails or other infrastructure paid for by the boom, they should have to pay their share, and the tiny stamp duty paid before the boom is not enough to pay for a lifetime of government services.

So if any of the elite out there that you are referring to get a property tax pushed on them, do you think the government will refund them the SD they paid..???

Youy know if you buy a new house, you don't have to pay SD if your a FTB....

:rolleyes:

Elite might not have been the right word, maybe "owning class?" Ireland is developing an enormous wealth disparity based more on luck, prior wealth, market timing and the age of the investor than it is on earned income and hard work.

Of course you would want to take paid SD into consideration when calculating annual property taxes, and I like a previous posters idea of making annual taxes only apply for secondary and investment homes. The only thing I'm certain of is that the government has become dependent on the stamp duty collected during a property boom, and nowhere on earth was there ever a property boom of this magnitude which lasted more than a few years.

dochasach

kearnsr wrote:

If you rent you have nothing to show for at the end of the day.

In a normal housing market, mortgage debters (a.k.a. "eventual buyers") usually come out of renters, eventually. But as you've probably noticed, we aren't in a normal housing market. But unless you are certain that you will be able to keep your job and live in the house you purchased for the entire loan term and that the value will steadily rise over that time, there is absolutely no guarantee that a buyer will have more "to show" than the renter.

According to daft.ie, mortgage payments on a typical house are 2.5 times more expensive than rent on the same property. Now if the renter blows the extra money on booze you're right, the buyer comes out ahead. But what's to keep him from investing the extra in an ordinary 5% savings account? But wait, houses have had double digit price increases for the past few years. Yes, and this is why I think estate agents should be required to place a warning on every property ad, in a similar font to the cigarette warnings:

WARNING: If you decide to sell before the end of the term, the amount you owe may exceed the market value of the property. You will be required vacate the house AND pay the differential.

When you buy stock, you get a warning that "Past performance does not guarantee future results." and when you buy short options you get the chilling warning that "your losses may be unlimited." Why don't we see this kind of warning on property?

I'll have to admit that I was a "rent=dead money" believer until I ran through some numbers and figured out that it just doesn't work when house markets go as ape Sh1t3 insane as this one has. This person explains it much better than I can: http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=173020&postcount=223

Actually, his numbers are a bit conservative since they were based back when interest rates were 3.5%. Try running the 400000 amortization total outlay vs (rent + investment return) with the interest rate at 4.5% and your buying outlay will be something like 750000. Try again with the rate at <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/04/business/ecb.php&quot;&gt;5%&lt;/a&gt; and the buyer's outlay for 25 years in a 400000 house is 770000 (not including maintainence costs and stamp duty.)

kearnsr wrote:

I would rather live at home and save to buy my own place (which I am doing now) than rent a place.

Not everyone has that option. It also seems strange and a bit unfair that income tax on adults who live with their parents is at the same rate as those who are out on their own, having to fend for themselves.

Lex Luthor

dochasach wrote:

It's not a penalty, its paying a fair share. Those who bought before the boom have more than enough advantages over the post 1999 peasant class.

and what about all those people like our parents who bought in the 70's when interest rates were high and they scraped every penny to pay the bills.....would you expect them now to pay a property tax just when they have probably just about finished paying off their mortgage even though they are sitiing on a nice nest egg that you will probably inheret?

There are people my age out there that have yet to buy a house so to penalize some of us that took a risk when we were young is ridiculous.

I could barely afford to pay my mortgage 10yrs ago when I bought. Also had to borrow the £2k deposit. Its the same now only things have gone up but so have salaries.

FillSpectre

dochasach wrote:

No, I just think that if a single mother is being accused of greed and hedonism because she would like an extra bedroom, we should also pay some attention to the punter who has several extra entire houses he doesn't need.

Actually you miss the point she doesn't need a house let alone a 3 bed one.The demand for such 3 bed housese by those who want them for their family structure. A 3 bed house is for an old average family the people who bought such houses didn't have extra rooms and bought for their need and budget. People are now pushing their budgets to buy things they don't need.
Your two statements contradict each other based on what you think is right and not about fairness or strokes for folkes.

dochasach wrote:

And investors shouldn't be punished, but they also shouldn't expect to live freely off the celtic tiger windfall just because they were lucky enough to financially able to buy property prior to 1999.

Explain how investors are ridding free on the celtic tiger? Landlords do pay taxes and provide a needed service. In fact one you use inorder to save money. Investors weren't just lucky they saw a trend and did something about it. What about all the landlords proving services for periods longer than 7 years ago say 20?

dochasach wrote:

Don't mean to offend, It's just an opinion.

Your opinion is offensive and based on inacurrate information. How long have you lived in Dublin and how many different parts of it? You sound like you have isolated contact if that is the opinion you have come up with.

dochasach wrote:

Interesting comment about what 350k gets, there do seem to be more decent properties in that price range than I remember seeing a few months ago. That's still well above what I'd pay. I'll emmigrate before gambling 10X average salary on a very average house.

You said it couldn't be done? Have you any experience of ever owning or buying a property. It appears you protest too much about how prices are. A lot of posting to make sure your point is heard. I posted up a thread already about prices and my friends property is up about 80% in 2.5 years. So for the great crash to happen and effect him the market would have to crash about 60% before he would lose money. Now you are of the Waitandsee tribe that wants a crash so you were proved right and hope to buy a house at rock bottom prices. The point is even in the UK the people who did that didn't make out like bandits as they spent too long waiting. How long are you renting now? What is the value of the property you might have been able to buy then? how much is it worth now? and what % would the whole market need to crash so that you could afford it now? Don'et foreget that is just to get back to the point a few years ago and you aged and paid rent the whole time.
I don't sign up for the rent is dead money line as it is a service like any other. People don't see car deprciation as dead money which I think is more true

dochasach wrote:

It's weird that RTE has so many property show clones, especially when RTE is tax subsidised. How much RTE revenue comes from mortgage and real estate ads?

I don't think it is that strange RTE do property shows as so do Channel 4 and BBC along with the decoration shows which are often also about how to add value. You can hold off on the conspiracy theory big businnes control all view too. I only know teenagers to talk about conspiracies so much.

dochasach

FillSpectre wrote:

Actually you miss the point she doesn't need a house let alone a 3 bed one...

And he (of the wealth class) doesn't need an extra empty house.

FillSpectre wrote:

Explain how investors are ridding free on the celtic tiger? Landlords do pay taxes and provide a needed service...

I have no problem with landlords, but what of those who sit on empty property? There is a trend starting of keeping property empty and not bothering with renters because bare brick appreciation is expected to cover outlay.

FillSpectre wrote:

Investors weren't just lucky they saw a trend and did something about it.

And those who were 12 years old in 1999, were they foolish to not take their communion money and buy an apartment? I see a trend too.

FilleSpectre wrote:

What about all the landlords proving services for periods longer than 7 years ago say 20?

They will be O.K. If property prices fall, if rents continue to fall, they can still rent at a profit. No problem.

Your opinion is offensive and based on inacurrate information. How long have you lived in Dublin and how many different parts of it? You sound like you have isolated contact if that is the opinion you have come up with.

I hope you're right.

You said it couldn't be done? Have you any experience of ever owning or buying a property.

I don't remember saying "It couldn't be done." If so, the correct phrase should have been, "It shouldn't be done." And yes, I owned for about 10 years abroad, sold within 18 months of a peak and got out.

It appears you protest too much about how prices are. A lot of posting to make sure your point is heard.

My protests aren't so much about the price of property, the ratio of property prices to income and property prices to rent is the highest in the world and it's higher than it has ever been here. It's just not sustainable. I'm one of the 3% of people in Ireland who don't believe the "property will always rise" hype. I hope I'm not overwhelming the other 97% with my opinion. Why is it so controversial to say "property values might not go up?" Why is it so controversial to say, "Interest rates might go up?"

I posted up a thread already about prices and my friends property is up about 80% in 2.5 years. So for the great crash to happen and effect him the market would have to crash about 60% before he would lose money.

Real estate crashes don't happen like that. He'd just notice that he can't sell it. So he'll drop the price. And it won't sell. He'll paint it and try to rent it out for a few months. And it won't rent and it won't sell. His house is only up 80% on paper until he has a buyer willing to pay who has signed the contract. And if he looks carefully at his amortization schedule, he'll find that he probably has very little equity.

Now you are of the Waitandsee tribe that wants a crash so you were proved right and hope to buy a house at rock bottom prices.

No I don't wish for a crash. If I believed property could rise forever in relation to wages and rents, I'd also buy as much property as possible at the current inflated prices. But it won't. I don't think buying on the way down is necessarily a good idea either so don't worry about me "bargain hunting" when property is only 20% overvalued.

The point is even in the UK the people who did that didn't make out like bandits as they spent too long waiting. How long are you renting now? What is the value of the property you might have been able to buy then?

If I'd known I'd be here maybe buying might have been an O.K. investment, but I'm here on the whim of Ireland's ever-chaning immigration law and to be honest, I still would have been much better off renting and investing the differential in oil. Hindsight is great but past performance does not guarantee future results.

People don't see car deprciation as dead money which I think is more true

Very true.

I don't think it is that strange RTE do property shows as so do Channel 4 and BBC along with the decoration shows which are often also about how to add value. You can hold off on the conspiracy theory big businnes control all view too. I only know teenagers to talk about conspiracies so much.

Hey it was just a joke. No I don't really confuse RTE's lack of "reality show" imagination with conspiracies, they're just catering to the 97% who believe the property hype. But if I were them, I'd try to get a few quid in ad revenue from the property companies and mortgage banks.

dochasach

Lex Luthor wrote:

and what about all those people like our parents who bought in the 70's when interest rates were high and they scraped every penny to pay the bills.....would you expect them now to pay a property tax just when they have probably just about finished paying off their mortgage even though they are sitiing on a nice nest egg that you will probably inheret?

Retirees in a lot of other countries do just that, but if you want to phase annual property tax in slowly, start with 2nd homes and investment property which isn't being rented out. BTW, not all of us can count on an inherited nest egg property.

There are people my age out there that have yet to buy a house so to penalize some of us that took a risk when we were young is ridiculous.

It's not a penalty it's a tax. People your age who took a risk and invested in a non housing related business have to pay a tax on their profits too.

I could barely afford to pay my mortgage 10yrs ago when I bought. Also had to borrow the £2k deposit. Its the same now only things have gone up but so have salaries.

It's not the same now, the ratio between property prices and salary is the highest it has ever been and I think it's ahead of most of the world (with the possible exception of South Africa.) And the ratio of house prices to rent yield is rapidly approaching ridiculous: http://www.davydirect.ie/other/pubarticles/econcr20060329.pdf

zappb

speaking of salarys - what is the average salary in Dublin? 30'000€? More?

godtabh

zappb wrote:

speaking of salarys - what is the average salary in Dublin? 30'000€? More?

I think the average industrial wage is €27,000.

Fine Gael website regarding house prices

(Note: Just an example of average insutrial wage & buying a house. Not my poltical view point!)

FillSpectre

dochasach wrote:

And he (of the wealth class) doesn't need an extra empty house.

I have not seen these magical empty places you are talking about. If people have money to buy what they want that is their option horses for courses. If people are buying things they can't afford and don't need I see that as a bigger problem and something driving the type of development in the country.

dochasach wrote:

I have no problem with landlords, but what of those who sit on empty property?

I don't know of any and certainly don't think they are having a massive effect what limited view makes you believe this? A few empty appartments that have recently been completed not having people in them

dochasach wrote:

And those who were 12 years old in 1999, were they foolish to not take their communion money and buy an apartment? I see a trend too.

Maybe they should realise they don't get to buy a 3 bed house they don't need on one salary. THey should realise that unlike their parents they are unlikely to buy just one property in their lif and stay there like the generation before. Change happens get over it. Ireland does have the highest home ownsership in the world the next is Italy wich has a decreasing population for years. I can go look fo the link but I couldn't be bothered considering you just throw figures about

dochasach wrote:

I hope you're right.

So avoid the question again. How long have you lived here to give such magic insight? So far you have made wild generalisations and statemnets that have no support in any of my life.

dochasach wrote:

I don't remember saying "It couldn't be done." If so, the correct phrase should have been, "It shouldn't be done." And yes, I owned for about 10 years abroad, sold within 18 months of a peak and got out.

So your knowledge of housing is not even of this country. Ans unlike oil shares you need a plce to live and it is acost you have no matter what.

dochasach wrote:

My protests aren't so much about the price of property, the ratio of property prices to income and property prices to rent is the highest in the world and it's higher than it has ever been here. It's just not sustainable. I'm one of the 3% of people in Ireland who don't believe the "property will always rise" hype. I hope I'm not overwhelming the other 97% with my opinion. Why is it so controversial to say "property values might not go up?" Why is it so controversial to say, "Interest rates might go up?"

Then protest about that instead of saying bring in a a property tax on people who pay additional taxes on the property on purcahse and tax on income. You may think it is not sustainable but you aren't giving any reasons and this thread is about a TV show that is the topic. It is not controversial to say rate will go up and prices will go down . You are just making yourself out to be somebody going against the trend. You aren't and you aren't discussing the correct topic or even discuss the one made up by you.

dochasach wrote:

No I don't wish for a crash. If I believed property could rise forever in relation to wages and rents, I'd also buy as much property as possible at the current inflated prices. But it won't. I don't think buying on the way down is necessarily a good idea either so don't worry about me "bargain hunting" when property is only 20% overvalued.

WHo said anything about the prices going up forever? You are making up arguements to argue with yourself. THe Waitandsee tribe are too cauious to do anything. Your throw away figures are really quite poor for making your point. You most likely call it a bubble yet can't say where the bubble started but claimed it was bubble last year and about to pop and the same the year before. YOu suggest you sold at the peak is laughable, as the prices keep rising the peak has not been reached here

dochasach wrote:

Hey it was just a joke. No I don't really confuse RTE's lack of "reality show" imagination with conspiracies, they're just catering to the 97% who believe the property hype. But if I were them, I'd try to get a few quid in ad revenue from the property companies and mortgage banks.

Please explain your percentage figure. It appears to be completely made up.

zappb

let's not get personal guys - no need to derail a good thread by trolling each other.

Thanks for that Fine Gael article Kearnsr - it's amazing the article is 3 years old at this stage - and house prices have had double digit growth in those 3 years. I'm sure the average industrial wage has gone up from 27'000€ as well - say to perhaps 31,000, but the average house price has gone up by a whopping 100,000k!!! In 3 mesely years.

I'm going to do a few searches on the Japanese Crash - see what went wrong there - maybe it will lead to some clues as to how we are doing.It seems to be a global bubble though - house prices are rising all over the world.

dochasach

FillSpectre wrote:

I have not seen these magical empty places you are talking about. If people have money to buy what they want that is their option horses for courses. If people are buying things they can't afford and don't need I see that as a bigger problem and something driving the type of development in the country.

Are you sure you live in Ireland?

...Maybe they should realise they don't get to buy a 3 bed house they don't need on one salary. THey should realise that unlike their parents they are unlikely to buy just one property in their lif and stay there like the generation before. Change happens get over it.

Allowing for change is exactly why the R word ("Rent") should be an option to consider for any adult who wants to get out of his/her parents home.

So your knowledge of housing is not even of this country.

Supply and demand, manias, panics and ponzi schemes work the same everywhere.

Ans unlike oil shares you need a plce to live and it is acost you have no matter what.

Why did I know you were going to say that. Yes, but if oil rose faster than houses over that period (which it did), the profit made on oil would buy you a better house than you could've otherwise. And since you were renting in the interim, you've lived in a house that was 2.5X better than the "owner" during that period too. But arguing about hindsight with oil is as silly as using hindsight to argue that everyone should have bought a house 15 years ago. Why didn't you buy one 20 years ago?

...Your throw away figures are really quite poor for making your point.

I could dig up pages of figures, I actually convinced someone just as skeptical as you a few months back, but as you said, this is a thread about RTE's program and my initial point is that rather than taking some of my (and other's) recommendations to alleviate the problem, the government and media seem to be doing everything to keep the hype going.

I'm glad we agree that it won't go on forever. Take a look at the price vs income ratio in this AIB report:
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10005503.shtml

You most likely call it a bubble yet can't say where the bubble started but claimed it was bubble last year and about to pop and the same the year before.

You must be confusing me with someone else, I wasn't posting here 2 years back. BTW, just because it hasn't popped doesn't mean it's a bubble.

YOu suggest you sold at the peak is laughable, as the prices keep rising the peak has not been reached here

As I said, the property was overseas and if you check out the news, there are many parts of the world where property prices have peaked and are falling. Parts of the U.S. Austrailia, Netherlands, the U.K.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/03/news/economy/realestateguide_fortune/
And the human side of the meltdown hinted at by the fortune article:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/04/shoot-messenger.html
Japan is finally nearing the bottom after 15 years of property deflation, despite central bank rates near 0%.

Please explain your percentage figure. It appears to be completely made up.

O.K.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10005489.shtml
Notably fewer consumers expect house prices to fall or stagnate: Only 3 per cent of consumers expect prices falling in the next year. 14 per cent see price falling in the next five years

Nermal

dochasach wrote:

Actually, his numbers are a bit conservative since they were based back when interest rates were 3.5%. Try running the 400000 amortization total outlay vs (rent + investment return) with the interest rate at 4.5% and your buying outlay will be something like 750000. Try again with the rate at <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/04/business/ecb.php&quot;&gt;5%&lt;/a&gt; and the buyer's outlay for 25 years in a 400000 house is 770000 (not including maintainence costs and stamp duty.)

his calculations do not take into consideration inflation, running at roughly 3% in this country. This reduces the real interest rate paid on the loan (making it cheaper) and the interest rate paid on the renter's investment (making it worth less). Try it again, only this time use the real interest rate, 1-1.5%, and tell me who wins.

dochasach

Nermal wrote:

his calculations do not take into consideration inflation, running at roughly 3% in this country. This reduces the real interest rate paid on the loan (making it cheaper) and the interest rate paid on the renter's investment (making it worth less). Try it again, only this time use the real interest rate, 1-1.5%, and tell me who wins.

But this (core) inflation should also be subtracted from the housing gain. You should also consider that buying a house right now is a higher risk than a savings account. It's more comparable to a stock or even an option (since you can lose more than you've put in). For risks on that level you should expect a higher return. But yes, over 25 years most of us are better off buying. I wonder how many buyers are really sure they'll be able to stay in the same house and make payments for even 10 years if necessary?

There are a number of online rent vs buy calculators, but along with the assumptions in these tools, you have to make your own guesses as to future inflation, ARM adjustments, etc and in most cases they are designed for the U.S. so you have to subtract certain taxes, add others and the max loan is 30 years, usually fixed rate...

Here's a link to a spreadsheet which is a fairly detailed calculator, click on the "Justify Buy" tab and play around:
http://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/Res/RDV?p=pdf&$sessionid$=6zOnlnEmxv6TSIlBSINU5CN&key=dpc74ypkpv&n=122667.XLS

This organization ran some numbers specific to Dublin it looks like it really doesn't make sense to be a landlord right now:

http://www.davydirect.ie/other/pubarticles/econcr20060329.pdf

iguana

dochasach wrote:

Allowing for change is exactly why the R word ("Rent") should be an option to consider for any adult who wants to get out of his/her parents home.

In my experience a couple of years paying rent has made it easier for me to ensure that the first house I bought is one large enough to suit me right through my life.

Obviously if I'd stayed at home and saved every single cent I would have spent on rent I would have been in a better position to buy. But most people living in their parents house don't do that. Everyone I know who gave that reason for continuing to live at home chose to buy a starter home when they went to buy, as even though they could afford something bigger they didn't want to take the hit to their disposable income.

Whereas my partner and I have been paying either Dublin/London rent for years and the mortgage payment on a decent family home is not that much more than the rent we're used to paying. So it seemed a bit of a no-brainer to buy a house that has the potential to last us our whole lives and we still have the same disposable income.

Obviously, if in the future we decide to return to Ireland we will have to move. But other than that I may never have to move again.

I can see why anyone would aim to buy their last house first. No hassle of moving in the future, no additional stamp-duty and solicitors fees, no house-hunting and and house selling - and relying on a sale to make the purchase possible, no fear of being gazumped or gazundered.:cool:

And we get to use this time that we are childless to work hard and pay off a chunk of the mortgage. So that when we do have children our payments are reduced and I don't have to work, or can work part-time from home. Instead of being like so many others who have children and then realise they need a bigger place and have to take on much bigger mortgage repayments.

And in the ten weeks between going sale agreed and exchanging contracts, my house has risen in value by more than we have paid in rent in the last 3 and a half years.:D

lomb

the reality is simple buying a house is nearly free, although it does lead to a negative cashflow. renting is still dead money imho even at current yields.

if interest rates are 4.5 % and real inflation/house price inflation when it settles is 3% it will cost just 1.5% per annum as a cost to use the property annually so 1.5% of say 350000 is 5 grand a year which is peanuts frankly considering average industrial is 30+ a year.

in 25 years u will owe nearly nothing and so the cost will be zero a year. houses are a great way to save money longterm as u are forced to pay the mortgage nearly...

also u cant put a price on owning your own place, studies show that home owners are much happier than renters, perhaps as they feel settled and have their lives set for life as it were.

crash or no crash prices will be 2-3 times current levels in 20 years, anyone on a fence would do well to bear that in mind.

dochasach

lomb wrote:

the reality is simple buying a house is nearly free, although it does lead to a negative cashflow. renting is still dead money imho even at current yields.

Nearly free??? :-) There's something known as opportunity costs, there's also something known as risk.

if interest rates are 4.5 % and real inflation/house price inflation when it settles is 3% it will cost just 1.5% per annum as a cost to use the property annually

And if current trends continue, a renter has use of the same property for 0.6% per annum.

crash or no crash prices will be 2-3 times current levels in 20 years, anyone on a fence would do well to bear that in mind.

If anyone tries to sell a house based on this "fact", walk away. It's just an opinion. In parts of Japan, real estate dropped 80% over the past 15 years. They had similar problems to us, a limited land island, high population density, booming economy, first significant labor immigration in hundreds of years.

And yet real estate prices fell and have not yet bottomed out, despite a central bank rate near 0%. It fell at almost exactly the same rate as it rose. The symmetry was such that a chart in the current issue of Harper's magazine was drawn to look like mount Fuji.
http://www.harpers.org/art/covers/2006-05_350x476.jpg

lomb

dochasach wrote:

Nearly free??? :-) There's something known as opportunity costs, there's also something known as risk.



And if current trends continue, a renter has use of the same property for 0.6% per annum.

yep, its free at the moment to buy any house although its cashflow negative. with prices increasing at 15% a year, and rates at 4% thats 11% a year gain so its definately not only free but a gift. the problem of course is peoples cashflow position not asset position, as u need real cash to pay a mortgage and secure a loan in the first place as well as to pay the stamp and legals.

when the dust settles the cost to use a property will be circa 1.5% , the risk is minimal frankly, if u think buying property is risky u dont even have the very minimal disposition to be a gambler.

all human endevours carry risk, the risk is proportional to the gain, buying a roof over your head has got to be the highest yielding investment u will ever make in terms of happiness. its a proven fact the owners are ALOT happier than renters. the financial gain is only a bonus.

the risk is there but its minimal at current prices for freehold semis in dublin in the outer suburbs. its probably much higher for apartments in suburbs due to oversupply in years to come as well as delapidation of common areas, and revolt over service charges and lack of parking and amenities. risk for 1.5 million+ houses in d4,d6,and parts of d14 and d18 are an unknown. not many people on boards are interested in that end any way. as regards the remainder of the country the non commuter areas of dublin are still affordable. prices are way overpriced in places that people can commute from that arent in dublin. these might be hit. overall the risk is low for quality property that people will want in 20 years. thats the bottom line. u are entitled to your opinion but i dont think its based on anything other than the japanese crash. to understand that u have to understand the japanese people. the irish are nothing like them trust me..

joejoem

dochasach wrote:

And yet real estate prices fell and have not yet bottomed out, despite a central bank rate near 0%. It fell at almost exactly the same rate as it rose. The symmetry was such that a chart in the current issue of Harper's magazine was drawn to look like mount Fuji.
http://www.harpers.org/art/covers/2006-05_350x476.jpg

Isnt 80% of the wealth in Japan owned by less than 20% of the people?

And hasnt this thread gone miles off course? Something about an RTE show?

dochasach

joejoem wrote:

Isnt 80% of the wealth in Japan owned by less than 20% of the people?

I doubt it, that sounds like U.S. statistics. Ireland now has one of the greatest wealth disparities in the world and this paper suggests that it is higher than Japan's:http://www.ucd.ie/geary/publications/2004/wealth.pdf

BTW my earlier link to the Davy study was specific to Ireland, in fact specific to some of the same Dublin neighborhoods which Lomb suggests are immune to economic fundamentals.

And hasnt this thread gone miles off course? Something about an RTE show?

The RTE show is off course in trying to convince young people that ever-increasing debts to chase a "property ladder" is the best solution to housing affordability.

Calina

FillSpectre wrote:

Maybe they should realise they don't get to buy a 3 bed house they don't need on one salary. THey should realise that unlike their parents they are unlikely to buy just one property in their lif and stay there like the generation before. Change happens get over it. Ireland does have the highest home ownsership in the world the next is Italy wich has a decreasing population for years. I can go look fo the link but I couldn't be bothered considering you just throw figures about

Uhem, one of the things which is starting to annoy me a lot in this country is the impression many people have that they feel qualified to tell other people what they need and do not need where it comes to houses.

Very quickly - the one and two bedroomed apartments that are being built here are not being built with the needs of people who might want to live in them for longer than five minutes in mind. They have no storage at all. They don't cater for people with hobbies that involving things bigger than a deck of cards. The last three apartments I looked at of the one and two bedroomed apartments had the following lacks:

wardrobes which are too small
no other storage.
no where for me to keep that water sports equipment, those musical instruments.
kitchen laid out by a four year old with marla.

Me, I'm aiming for a three bedroomed house cos somehow, I think I'll be able to live in it. You, on the other hand, are not qualified to tell me I don't need it - unfortunately I do, because anything smaller has disproportionately less storage space and in many cases is very poorly designed.

Maybe you should realise that you're in no position to tell other people what they do and do not need. High density housing in this country is a joke.

Andrew Duffy

New apartments tend to be better laid out, as well as having better soundproofing. Mine, for example, has a plumbed washroom, a large storage cupboard (we use it as a cloakroom), large built-in wardrobes in each bedroom and gas heating. It would easily accomodate a small family, but unaccompanied playing wouldn't be possible (although is it possible in a house? I suppose if the garden is gated and there is no water...).
However, at a guess I've seen about twenty older apartments that have horrendous layouts, and every one of them was stuffed with crap in every corner. So it looks like developers are finally getting the message about apartments being somewhere to live rather than rent out.

FillSpectre

Calina wrote:

Maybe you should realise that you're in no position to tell other people what they do and do not need. High density housing in this country is a joke.

HAte to break it to you but I am in th eposition to tell you what they do. You are too that is what a society is. Your desires don't get to override my rights and impact on me. There are many rules that stop people doing what they want and getting what they want.
Ultimately I am not saying you can't do anything I am saying don't complain if you can't afford something that is a luxury that the generation before didn't have.If people decide to buy a bigger place further away and drive and then petrol goes up I don't want to hear further moaning about how their cost of living is going up.
Many people resist change and Irish people will have to get used to the type of housing avilable as tehy won't have a choice. It is not surprising people are affraid and dislike it.

Calina

Andrew Duffy wrote:

New apartments tend to be better laid out, as well as having better soundproofing. Mine, for example, has a plumbed washroom, a large storage cupboard (we use it as a cloakroom), large built-in wardrobes in each bedroom and gas heating. It would easily accomodate a small family, but unaccompanied playing wouldn't be possible (although is it possible in a house? I suppose if the garden is gated and there is no water...).
However, at a guess I've seen about twenty older apartments that have horrendous layouts, and every one of them was stuffed with crap in every corner. So it looks like developers are finally getting the message about apartments being somewhere to live rather than rent out.

I have some doubts about that having looked at a number new apartments in recent weeks. They've noticeably had little or no storage, tiny and very poorly laid out kitchens, living rooms that don't actually have space for sofas.

Calina

FillSpectre wrote:

HAte to break it to you but I am in th eposition to tell you what they do. You are too that is what a society is. Your desires don't get to override my rights and impact on me. There are many rules that stop people doing what they want and getting what they want.
Ultimately I am not saying you can't do anything I am saying don't complain if you can't afford something that is a luxury that the generation before didn't have.If people decide to buy a bigger place further away and drive and then petrol goes up I don't want to hear further moaning about how their cost of living is going up.
Many people resist change and Irish people will have to get used to the type of housing avilable as tehy won't have a choice. It is not surprising people are affraid and dislike it.

I don't get the impression that you can differentiate where your desires start and your rights start. And your first two sentences are unreadable. I have absolutely no idea what you think you're saying.

I am not complaining that I can't afford something that is a luxury to the generation before me. The generation before me by and large wasn't being squashed into tiny one bedroomed apartments that cost more than ten times the average salary. You might say we'll get used to it but I'm of a generation that feels that things that can be changed should be changed for the better. Telling people to put up and shut up has society in this country the way it is.

I have no problem with apartment living. I have lived in apartments in several other countries besides Ireland. I have major problems when the primary driving force is high density and not usability. Many of the apartments and houses being built in Ireland today do not have usability at the core of their design. They have cramming the most accommodation units into the smallest place at their heart. You might like to put up with it and that is your right. But your right to put up with it doesn't over-ride my right to object to vast amounts of money being spent on building fundamentally unsuitable accommodation in line with short term planning objectives.

FillSpectre

Calina wrote:

I don't get the impression that you can differentiate where your desires start and your rights start. And your first two sentences are unreadable. I have absolutely no idea what you think you're saying.

You understood what I meant. My desires don't involve changing your life, I have what I have you are trying to get something you can't get. That is your desire I have mine I don't desire it. You get your desire by imposing on me quite simple.

Calina wrote:

I am not complaining that I can't afford something that is a luxury to the generation before me. The generation before me by and large wasn't being squashed into tiny one bedroomed apartments that cost more than ten times the average salary. You might say we'll get used to it but I'm of a generation that feels that things that can be changed should be changed for the better. Telling people to put up and shut up has society in this country the way it is.

You are complaining about a luxury you can't afford. People didn't buy houses on their own so and didn't get to live in their own personal space. The three bed houses had two adults and 3 kids on average. Having personal choice to live on your own is the change the freedom has given. You aren't of any different generation of the one before you are just younger now and as a result most likely don't actually know how things were before as you weren't old enough.

Calina wrote:

I have no problem with apartment living. I have lived in apartments in several other countries besides Ireland. I have major problems when the primary driving force is high density and not usability. Many of the apartments and houses being built in Ireland today do not have usability at the core of their design. They have cramming the most accommodation units into the smallest place at their heart. You might like to put up with it and that is your right. But your right to put up with it doesn't over-ride my right to object to vast amounts of money being spent on building fundamentally unsuitable accommodation in line with short term planning objectives.

So the the truth is you don't have a choice and you are complaining and want more than there is and can be afforded. Your change for the better is actually happening you just think things were better before when in fact it wasn't. Woman forced to stop working, mass unemployment, mass derilict buildings, mass emigration etc... The change and increased freedom has an effect, you don't get to change things in isolation. Don't foreget the other socail change such as being gay, single parent, cohabitationg, staying single etcc increased too so there isn't the need for 3 bed houses. You are just resistant to the true changes as you want traditional things and aren't willing to adapt.

I think you are wrong on modern design and baddly designed housing estates with a dining room and sperate lounge and seperate kitchen is an impracticle design. How many people have dinner in a dinning room everyday?

From the way you are speaking to me you seem to suggest you are some radicle who wants to fight the system and change things when in fact you area conservative who doen'st like change and want impracticle design for modern living. You have yet to mention a usability issue of modern buildings yet you complained about it a few times. If you can name a modern living city that has better design and better intergrated plans please say so that your complaininng has a purpose otherwise it is just moaning.