Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should the working man be able to afford a house?

Options
  • 21-06-2013 12:13pm
    #1
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,411 ✭✭✭✭


    This thread has been split from another thread, as the responses to D3PO's post were taking it off-topic.

    Please don't hi-jack threads on people. :)

    Moderator


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    yoloc wrote: »
    houses where people are living in dream land looking still ridiculous.

    I have seen quite a few lovely turn key houses sell for 40-70k in the west and even some sell for under the 40k needing some work. To me, this is what houses should be selling at so the working man can afford them .


    Who says the working man should be able to afford a house ? Not trying to start an argument but houses should not be affordable to everybody, that is a fundamental social dynamic in every country.

    Its the mentality that everybody took during the boom thinking they had to and should be able to buy that has been a key reason were in the crap as bad as we are. Some people earn enough to buy others don't and shouldn't be able to afford to.

    That's basic economics unfortunately and why every developed country has a functioning rental market.


  • Options
    #3
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    D3PO wrote: »
    Who says the working man should be able to afford a house ? Not trying to start an argument but houses should not be affordable to everybody, that is a fundamental social dynamic in every country.

    Its the mentality that everybody took during the boom thinking they had to and should be able to buy that has been a key reason were in the crap as bad as we are. Some people earn enough to buy others don't and shouldn't be able to afford to.

    I think the shift happened when Thatcher launched the mass sell off of social housing. Telling the nation home ownership is a right and destroying the nation's social housing stock.

    Prior to that in the UK and here, the State had a responsibility towards those who could not buy. Look at Dublins housing stock and see how much social housing stock we used to have, and then see how little of it was built in the bubble when we moved to the Rent Allowance model instead where we shifted the responsibility towards private landlords.


  • Options
    #4
    yoloc
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭yoloc


    D3PO wrote: »
    Who says the working man should be able to afford a house ? Not trying to start an argument but houses should not be affordable to everybody, that is a fundamental social dynamic in every country.

    Its the mentality that everybody took during the boom thinking they had to and should be able to buy that has been a key reason were in the crap as bad as we are. Some people earn enough to buy others don't and shouldn't be able to afford to.

    That's basic economics unfortunately and why every developed country has a functioning rental market.



    Your not serious are you. IMO every working person in this country deserves to own a house. I would even go as far as to say that the government should provide everyone with a roof over their head for free just like colonel gaddafi did in lybia just before it fell but thats a whole different thread all together


  • Options
    #5
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    yoloc wrote: »
    Your not serious are you. IMO every working person in this country deserves to own a house. I would even go as far as to say that the government should provide everyone with a roof over their head for free just like colonel gaddafi did in lybia just before it fell but thats a whole different thread all together

    Worked out great for Gaddafi, it has to be said.


  • Options
    #6
    yoloc
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭yoloc


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    Worked out great for Gaddafi, it has to be said.

    Gaddafi would still be in power if it werent for him wanting to get away from the petro dollar and go back to their own gold standard, and the fact he was sitting on all that oil. Its a crying shame what happened to that fella


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,379 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    yoloc wrote: »
    I would even go as far as to say that the government should provide everyone with a roof over their head for free just like colonel gaddafi did in lybia just before it fell but thats a whole different thread all together

    Should everyone get the same size/type of house?


  • Options
    #8
    yoloc
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭yoloc


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Should everyone get the same size/type of house?

    No, you can then buy what you want if you can afford it but a basic house should be awarded to everyone once they hit a certin age or even when they get married


  • Options
    #9
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,379 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    To be honest I think that would deincentivise people from bothering with an education or finding work. As is, the social housing 'entitlement' causes alot of bad feeling. Why study for an extra 4 years and work your arse off for a few extra square feet?
    The government has no place in a marketplace. Everytime they dabble in the propertyn market something goes disasterously wrong.


  • Options
    #10
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    To be honest I think that would deincentivise people from bothering with an education or finding work. As is, the social housing 'entitlement' causes alot of bad feeling. Why study for an extra 4 years and work your arse off for a few extra square feet?
    The government has no place in a marketplace. Everytime they dabble in the propertyn market something goes disasterously wrong.

    And the private sector is does everything so much better?


  • Options
    #11
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,379 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    I would say generally? Yes. Always? No but that is not the point I was making. The point was about whether everyone should be entitled to a free house or home ownership. I don't think we can hope to resolve the pros and cons of the market economy on this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I would say generally? Yes. Always? No but that is not the point I was making. The point was about whether everyone should be entitled to a free house or home ownership. I don't think we can hope to resolve the pros and cons of the market economy on this thread.

    You said the state shouldn't get involved in property. But I'd utterly disagree as the private sector could not be trusted to effectively supply social housing which will always be necessary to some extent.


  • Options
    #13
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    yoloc wrote: »
    I would even go as far as to say that the government should provide everyone with a roof over their head for free just like colonel gaddafi did in lybia just before it fell but thats a whole different thread all together
    You'll find that most oil-rich countries have policies to house certain groups of people.

    When someone says "working people" how much do they mean? Should someone on the lower end be given a free house, but someone on the higher end expected to buy the house next door for full cost?


  • Options
    #14
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    To be honest I think that would deincentivise people from bothering with an education or finding work. As is, the social housing 'entitlement' causes alot of bad feeling. Why study for an extra 4 years and work your arse off for a few extra square feet?
    The government has no place in a marketplace. Everytime they dabble in the propertyn market something goes disasterously wrong.

    I don't think that's true. From the foundation of the State to the 70s, huge parts of our cities and towns were developed by the Government for social housing. Crumlin and Tallaght for example. People who could not afford to buy and had a housing need were housed. Mostly working families. It was the middle class and aspiring middle class that bought.
    This wasn't a loss maker for the Government.

    This changed here during the bubble, where responsibility for social housing was passed to the private sector, both by compelling developers to build social and affordable housing, and through the shift to rent allowance where recipients were caught in a poverty trap with no incentive to work.

    The provision of social housing does not provide a disincentive to work, rent allowance does. I know there is a shift away from this now, with long term rentals such as RAS where the tenant can work, but still the State is enriching the LL, rather than being LL themselves.


  • Options
    #15
    EricPraline
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭EricPraline


    yoloc wrote: »
    No, you can then buy what you want if you can afford it but a basic house should be awarded to everyone once they hit a certin age or even when they get married
    Putting aside all the financial impracticalities of your idea and the massive disincentives described by posters above, I'd be curious to know what your definition of a "basic house" is? Would a 1 bed apartment be too "basic", or would it have to be a 3 bed? Would a house in a ghost estate in a remote rural location be acceptable or would it have to be beside jobs, amenities and one's family? Would everybody entitled to a 3 bed semi-d in Dundrum? And if the majority of people want to live in the same areas, leading to insufficient housing stock, who would decide who gets to live where? Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for extra housing in those areas? I'm sure some bankrupt developers would love to help out with such a scheme :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #16
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    I was thinking about this today, doesn't the rent allowance system create less 'ghettos' that the social housing? We all know estates that were built as social housing that quickly descended into ghettos in the late 80's and early 90's.

    I think in that way rent allowance is a better system, allowing better (albeit far from perfect) integration of various income levels and avoiding the stigma of an address of a social housing estate.


  • Options
    #17
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,379 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    But I'd utterly disagree as the private sector could not be trusted to effectively supply social housing which will always be necessary to some extent.

    The private sector does not provide social housing. They provide housing. The dept of welfare can then decide who is of greatest need and provide rent relief etc.
    StillWaters wrote: »
    I don't think that's true. From the foundation of the State to the 70s, huge parts of our cities and towns were developed by the Government for social housing. Crumlin and Tallaght for example. People who could not afford to buy and had a housing need were housed. Mostly working families. It was the middle class and aspiring middle class that bought.

    And where the government built these estates see the majority of the social problems in Dublin today. They also have lower than average representation at Universities.
    StillWaters wrote: »
    This changed here during the bubble, where responsibility for social housing was passed to the private sector, both by compelling developers to build social and affordable housing, and through the shift to rent allowance where recipients were caught in a poverty trap with no incentive to work.
    Yes and before the ink was even dry on that law the govt made a deal with a developer that he needn't provide social housing in D4 but could give a parcel of land in a less desireable area as a substitute thereby invalidating the whole reason for the law
    StillWaters wrote: »
    The provision of social housing does not provide a disincentive to work, rent allowance does. I know there is a shift away from this now, with long term rentals such as RAS where the tenant can work, but still the State is enriching the LL, rather than being LL themselves.
    I never actually said it did. I was responding to the poster who claimed that everyone should get a free house.
    El_Dangeroso wrote: »
    I was thinking about this today, doesn't the rent allowance system create less 'ghettos' that the social housing?

    It does to an extent but the levels of rent allowance have been reduced so much that people are being coralled into the less desireable areas.


  • Options
    #18
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    The private sector does not provide social housing. They provide housing. The dept of welfare can then decide who is of greatest need and provide rent relief etc.

    You're contradicting yourself here. Basically you're stating the state pays the private sector money to house people. Re you comment about social housing and university. How can you be sure the two are linked? Could it not be that there's still too much cost for those in these areas trying to attend college? Why has it to do with social housing?


  • Options
    #19
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,379 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    You're contradicting yourself here.
    How so?
    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Basically you're stating the state pays the private sector money to house people.
    Yes. Through rent allowance and RAS.


  • Options
    #20
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    There is nothing wrong with the state owning property to supply to those in need of it and receiving rent (where appropriate) from the tenants. I don't believe the RAS system is very good as the state is (in some way) more at the mercy of the market and while it can set caps on the RAS scheme it can be difficult for tenants to find suitable property and a landlord to accept RAS.


  • Options
    #21
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,411 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Thread split.

    Please don't hi-jack threads on people.

    Moderator

    I think a balance needs to be struck. Everyone should have a roof over their head and food on the table. But anyone who can work, should work towards putting that roof over their head. The more you contribute, the more housing you can have.

    Lack of university education for people in social housing areas is linked to poverty and familial lack of motivation to get a higher education. They are primarily symptoms of that poverty, not causes.

    Much of the problem with housing in the 1970s-1980s was that exceptionally large housing estates were built far from employment and service, solving a housing problem, but creating other problems. There was mass displacement of under-educated, under-skilled and under-employed people that created social dysfunction as existing social structures were destroyed. Encouraging the more successful people out of those estates with housing grants removed positive role models and potential community leaders, letting those areas deteriorate rapidly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    The problem with the Rent Supplement system is that it is being abused by some which is not fair on those who work.

    For Dublin...What happened in the bubble was that an apartment\house could only be afforded by a couple, single buyers were locked out. This happened in all urban areas rich and poor. Some couples too were locked out in alot of cases and settled in commuter towns.

    Now that prices have tumbled, it seems only apartments are affordable to single buyers in areas where workers reside. In the old days, a single buyer could afford a house as well as an apartment on his\her own with a big deposit saved up. Also the size of the accommodation on offer has shrunk post bubble as new houses were built smaller than houses from the 80s for example.

    On income, a working class worker should be able to afford a house in a working class area. Likewise for a middle class worker in a middle class area. We can argue what defines working class and middle class incomes till the cows come home but your income should reflect your ability to afford a "home" in a particular area. I think most of the homes that are now generally affordable to single buyers in Dublin are apartments. And the more you earn as a single person, you can afford some houses thanks to price drops, not many though.


  • Options
    #23
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    Ireland has an unhealthy need of having to own a property. Anywhere else in Europe if you can't afford a home you rent. The government doesn't give mortgage interest relief(although the USA does) or a first time buyers grant.

    Social housing is something you should live in temporarily as you are recently unemployed and cant afford rent. It should not be something that is passed down from generation to generation like it is at the moment. The bigger problem is that state benefits are too generous. Your better off on welfare and in a council house than in a job on minimum wage paying rent


  • Options
    #24
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    hfallada wrote: »
    Ireland has an unhealthy need of having to own a property. Anywhere else in Europe if you can't afford a home you rent. The government doesn't give mortgage interest relief(although the USA does) or a first time buyers grant.

    Social housing is something you should live in temporarily as you are recently unemployed and cant afford rent. It should not be something that is passed down from generation to generation like it is at the moment. The bigger problem is that state benefits are too generous. Your better off on welfare and in a council house than in a job on minimum wage paying rent

    Except in much of Europe they build high quality complexes with associated amenities. Something our country seriously lacks. But I take you point that "if" we had these then Irish people should reassess their absolute need for a semi-d with front and back garden.


  • Options
    #25
    OMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    I get a bit annoyed at people saying "in the old days people could afford properties, now they can't" and other similar statements about how Europe is so different.
    Ireland's home ownership is about 76%. Our highest ever was 81% in 1991. Our ownership is also pretty average on a European basis. (Germany is the different one with low ownership rates). 50 years ago, in the good old days, when everyone could afford a house, ownership was about 60%.


  • Options
    #26
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    hfallada wrote: »
    Ireland has an unhealthy need of having to own a property. Anywhere else in Europe if you can't afford a home you rent. The government doesn't give mortgage interest relief(although the USA does) or a first time buyers grant.

    Either does the Irish Government any more.


  • Options
    #27
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    D3PO wrote: »
    Who says the working man should be able to afford a house ? Not trying to start an argument but houses should not be affordable to everybody, that is a fundamental social dynamic in every country.

    Its the mentality that everybody took during the boom thinking they had to and should be able to buy that has been a key reason were in the crap as bad as we are. Some people earn enough to buy others don't and shouldn't be able to afford to.

    That's basic economics unfortunately and why every developed country has a functioning rental market.

    historically ireland had about 80% home ownership.Long before the boom.


  • Options
    #28
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    OMD wrote: »
    I get a bit annoyed at people saying "in the old days people could afford properties, now they can't" and other similar statements about how Europe is so different.
    Ireland's home ownership is about 76%. Our highest ever was 81% in 1991. Our ownership is also pretty average on a European basis. (Germany is the different one with low ownership rates). 50 years ago, in the good old days, when everyone could afford a house, ownership was about 60%.

    It depends on what you mean by "olden" days, since 1991 was about a generation ago. Also the ownership rates were pretty high even 50 years ago when we were dirt poor. Back then though there was plenty of long term social housing which people with families prefer to private rent. Private rent was always temporary.

    Also the measure of 60% is at any one time, over time people move from the rental sector to house owning to the number of people who never own a house is smaller than 40% over their lifetime ( in 1991 it was close to 0%)


  • Options
    #29
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    StillWaters wrote: »
    Either does the Irish Government any more.

    But they did. In ten years there will be probably be lobbying for it again.


  • Options
    #30
    OMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    It depends on what you mean by "olden" days, since 1991 was about a generation ago. Also the ownership rates were pretty high even 50 years ago when we were dirt poor. Back then though there was plenty of long term social housing which people with families prefer to private rent. Private rent was always temporary.

    Also the measure of 60% is at any one time, over time people move from the rental sector to house owning to the number of people who never own a house is smaller than 40% over their lifetime ( in 1991 it was close to 0%)

    But our ownership is now 76%. Our highest ever was 81%. That is a very small change. So we are essentially still at our highest ever home ownership which has persistent for a period of about 30 years. There was no glory time when everyone was buying houses irrespective of income and if there was, then we are still living through it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Should the working man be able to afford a house?
    Strictly speaking, yes.
    In mature, stable markets, renting is actually more expensive than buying (it has to be, otherwise landlords can't make a profit) so if a working man can afford to keep a roof over his head, he should in theory be able to buy that roof rather than just rent it.

    Re Ireland, I look at places like Ballyfermot and you'd be really hard-pressed to find a house for under 900-950. BallyF is a solid working class and should be affordable by a working class family. Does 900-950 post-tax euros per month strike anybody as a slightly insane amount of money for a working household to be forking out just to put a roof over their heads?


Advertisement