Anyone regret buying property?

OMD

quozl wrote: »

Note, I try to write precisely what I mean. Please take my point to be what I said, not what you read it to be.

Well you did say this also
"I think it's indisputable that there are large differences (183 % germany, 275% switzerland) between Irish home-ownership rates and plenty of our continental neighbours."

Which is inaccurate and was written to make the difference seem much greater.

quozl

I'll have to disagree, I think mine is a fair statement.

based on oceanclubs link which has more info than the ones my trawls found

we are
183% of germany
157% of netherlands
151% of Denmark
138% of Austria
135% of France - this is still over a third difference.

And that's ignoring the biggest differential between us and switzerland, of between 190 to 250% depending on whose linked figures you use.

That is 'plenty of our continental neighbours'.

I think you're reading into what I'm saying, not reading what I'm saying.

OMD

quozl wrote: »

I'll have to disagree, I think mine is a fair statement.

based on oceanclubs link which has more info than the ones my trawls found

we are
183% of germany
157% of netherlands
151% of Denmark
138% of Austria
135% of France - this is still over a third difference.

And that's ignoring the biggest differential between us and switzerland, of between 190 to 250% depending on whose linked figures you use.

That is 'plenty of our continental neighbours'.

I think you're reading into what I'm saying, not reading what I'm saying.

The difference is the amount between two figures. So the difference between 6 and 4 is 2. It is not 150%.

If you were to inaccurately ascribe a percentage to it then it would be 50%. Try reducing all your figures by 100% and you get much more accurate but less dramatic figures. I wasn't going to mention it before but seeing as you made the point about how precisely you write I thought I would bring it up. Perhaps I should read into what you are saying rather than actually read what you are saying

quozl

When comparing two percentages it is better to show one as a multiple of the other rather than just subtract them.

I made it clear by saying

we are 183% of

The first 100% of that is the base value we are comparing too, and we are that 100% plus another 83% to put it in terms you'd prefer.

Also note

this is still over a third difference.

how I put the weakest of my figures in the alternate form also for those who prefer it.

And thanks for the help, but handily enough I have a maths degree so I have no problem comparing percentages

Oh, if the difference thing was a poor attempt to appeal to argumentum ad grammar then check out the english language definition of differential - 'a difference or the amount of difference'. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/differential . In this case it is a synonym for difference.

Noffles

What a depressing read, I've a place I bought 5 years ago, it wasn't hugely expensive, it was a "buy it as seen" as the builder was doing no further work on the estate so we got it cheaper than we could of.
Who knows what it's worth now... and what it'll be worth eventually.... Very depressing.

OMD

quozl wrote: »

When comparing two percentages it is better to show one as a multiple of the other rather than just subtract them.

To say the difference is 183% is not to express it as a multiple.

quozl wrote: »

I made it clear by saying The first 100% of that is the base value we are comparing too, and we are that 100% plus another 83% to put it in terms you'd prefer.

Yes that is more accurate but it is not what you said.

quozl wrote: »

And thanks for the help, but handily enough I have a maths degree so I have no problem comparing percentages

I hope you are joking.

quozl wrote: »

Oh, if the difference thing was a poor attempt to appeal to argument ad spelling then check out the english language definition of differential - 'a difference or the amount of difference'. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/differential . In this case it is a synonym for difference.

It wasn't about spelling. It was about the use of the word difference when you didn't actually mean difference.

fontanalis

OMD wrote: »

To say the difference is 183% is not to express it as a multiple.



Yes that is more accurate but it is not what you said.





I hope you are joking.



It wasn't about spelling. It was about the use of the word difference when you didn't actually mean difference.

Just the same as saying it's 1.83 times something.

quozl

OMD wrote: »

To say the difference is 183% is not to express it as a multiple.

I even quoted it for you to try and help you. I'll quote it again.

183% of

.
183% of something is a multiple. Specifically it is the thing x 183 /100. I could also have said 1.83 but that would be confusing to some people.

I think you know you are wrong and are attempting to change the argument. You are creating a ridiculous, and incorrect, straw-man in an attempt to ignore the fact that there are large differences between us and plenty of our continental neighbours in terms of home ownership as I stated. I totally accept that some of our neighbours are not dissimilar from us in this regard - that was never my claim.

I'm happy with my position, I'll leave it at that, you are welcome to the last post in this discussion.

OMD

quozl wrote: »

I even quoted it for you to try and help you. I'll quote it again. .
.

What you said, and the part I quoted as inaccurate was.
"I think it's indisputable that there are large differences (183 % germany, 275% switzerland) between Irish home-ownership rates and plenty of our continental neighbours."
This is wrong. Simple as that.

In a different part you said "183% of" but that was not the part I quoted. To constantly quote something else was pretty pointless. You were the one to make a point of how precisely you post.

OMD

fontanalis wrote: »

Just the same as saying it's 1.83 times something.

No it is not. To say something is 183% of something else can be described as a multiple. To say "The difference is 183%" is not to express a multiple

astrofool

It's 83% more than, or 183% of.

ANYWAY, some people need to just step back from boards.ie and stop dragging a thread off topic.

At least what I said was correct

fontanalis

OMD wrote: »

No it is not. To say something is 183% of something else can be described as a multiple. To say "The difference is 183%" is not to express a multiple

Now I'm 184% confused, or is it 184% more confused

OMD

astrofool wrote: »

It's 83% more than, or 183% of.

ANYWAY, some people need to just step back from boards.ie and stop dragging a thread off topic.

At least what I said was correct

Yeah sorry about all that. It was just Quozl's comments to Iguana seemed very condescending, saying how precisely he wrote and basically he didn't make mistakes while in the same breath almost, he mixes up the terms percentiles and percentages. I just had to point out he wasn't that precise.

But you are right I shouldn't have kept going on about it. So sorry Quozl and to everyone else I bored.

Dandelion6

OMD wrote: »

USA has a similar home ownership rate to us yet is constantly used as an example of how people rent long term.

I don't know about home ownership rates but I know from my own experience, living in the USA for most of my twenties, virtually none of my friends owned their homes. The exceptions were people who had already married and started a family but even for them they were a minority. Home ownership was seen as something you'll probably do eventually but only when you've really settled down. There was absolutely none of this urge to get on the property ladder ASAP which we have in Ireland.

Sigma Force

That magical celtic tiger never hit us, we bought our first house 11 years ago and withing 18 months we were struggling. We had just had a baby and wanted a place of our own so we picked the cheapest area we could to live in miles out of the town where hubby worked and he didn't drive so he spent a couple of years where he was having to live at home and only come out to us now and then. We were literally on the bread line so we deceided to sell up but stupidly never dawned on us to rent but at that stage we couldn't afford the rents in town because wages were low and the rent was too high.

We were lucky and moved in to a house nearby that relatives had bought but it was lying empty (very cheaply too because the boom hadn't touched the village at the time). After a couple of years things picked up, he was made permanent and wages increased so we could afford to think about buying again.

Stupidly yet again never dawned on us to rent and at the time we didn't want to live in a town.

So we bought the house we were staying in cheaply and were coping ok with the mortgage as it was small but the house needed a lot of work so as things improved we thought about extending. At first we wanted to build on a nice sized extension, but soon realised it wasn't affordable and there was no point in being greedy and suprisingly the bank was pretty strict so I still to this day don't understand how many people got huge mortgages on similar wages to us.

We built a sensible extension but hate the area we live in now.
When you've small kids you don't really care you're so busy looking after them you're in a world of your own for a few years just working your butt off.

Because we were sensible the mortgage isn't too bad but it's all the added costs of owning a house which makes things difficult and we are in the middle of getting the BER and going to attempt to sell for the second time. So far it looks like we aren't in neg. eq. because we didn't go nuts with furnishings or extending too much.

We have rented twice before and never had any issues with the landlord, the second time due to a house fire we had to rent in town but no pets were allowed so we spent our time between our house and the rented one trying to get the fire damage sorted. The fire delayed things a lot which meant by the time we came to try and sell the market had started to go downhill.

The only negative thing I can see about renting is the pets issue that a lot of landlords have and also choosing a house to rent where neighbours won't mind a few dogs. It might mean we have to rent a little further out of town but financially it will be cheaper than owning our own and enable us to save money so that eventually we would have the choice of moving on, perhaps emmigrating or retiring to a small house or apartment.

There is no room to save when you have a mortgage, at least in our case, there's always some annoying bill to pay to do with the house.
Not to mention maintinence we have a huge garden which still needs tons of work, it sounds ideal but big garden means lots of money needing spending on it.

I've lived in Germany before where renting is very common, plenty of people own their own homes too but it seems that tenants have more rights there although it's so strict in places even down to what days of the week you must wash the steps or what times of the day you are allowed to hoover etc. Some of my rellies over there have rented all their lives. Pets are generally accepted over there although dogs are better controlled as well esp. in public.

After all my waffling to answer OPs query, personally I do regret not renting rather than jumping in to another mortgage. I have to confess I do have Irish house buyer syndrome and was so obsessed to the point of panic to own my own home. Which is ridiculous when you think that the bank actually owns your home and unless you are lucky you are stuck paying a mortgage for up to 30 years who knows could be dead by then.
At this rate hubby will be retiring age and still have a few years of mortgage to pay off then what..he'll be nearly ready for a nursing home so what's the point.

I think each persons situation is different, some people have bought at the right time, inherited, or just been sensible some have been lucky and some people have been unlucky and of course there are plenty of people that have also just been plain greedy during the 'boom'.

I think us Irish should not be so horrified about the prospect of renting, renting suits some people esp. if they don't plan to settle in the one area until their dying day. Security wise well many of us are one payment away from not being able to pay their mortgage.

A few years ago I'd of been devastated if someone said to me you have to sell now and live in rented but now it's not a snap decision it's a choice we (if we can sell that in itself will be a miracle) can make and to be honest it will be a great relief and a big weight off. It's certainly not the end of the world.

We do as a nation have a thing about owning our own land or property and ideally I guess most of us would but times are changing and we may find Ireland becomes more and more like the rest of Europe and renting will be more common and more popular.

AARRRRGH

Dandelion6 wrote: »

I don't know about home ownership rates but I know from my own experience, living in the USA for most of my twenties, virtually none of my friends owned their homes. The exceptions were people who had already married and started a family but even for them they were a minority. Home ownership was seen as something you'll probably do eventually but only when you've really settled down. There was absolutely none of this urge to get on the property ladder ASAP which we have in Ireland.

When I was in my 20's virtually none of my friends owned their homes either.
No matter what country I was in - even dear old Ireland.

femur61

AARRRRGH wrote: »

When I was in my 20's virtually none of my friends owned their homes either.
No matter what country I was in - even dear old Ireland.

I am in my early 40's and this was true for me as well. But I did see a shift in this the last 10 years here, a lot of young people did purchase their own homes. I was in London in the late 80's early 90's and when they wre having a boom there then, I saw the same mentality there "you need to get on the property ladder". It was the birth of the "YUPPIE" syndrome.

SamG

Hi Guineapigrescue... thank you for your insightful, heartfelt post. Your honesty is very touching and I do hope things work out for you and your family. I have a good feeling they will.