Is it time for ireland to accept we are like most of Europe and be happy just renti

handlemaster

http://m.independent.ie/life/home-garden/homes/how-to-be-a-happy-renter-34451067.html

Ireland has long been a country obsessed with owning your own home. We have intergrated into Europe in everyway , property is just another step. In mainland Europe renting is seen as normal and even those who can afford to buy choose not to. Should we not just except we have changed as a country and move on into renting blis?

PhoenixParker

There are few major differences between renting in Ireland and renting in Europe. Particularly the prevalence of unfurnished rentals in Europe, tenancy rights in general, security of tenure, predictability of cost and the quality of housing stock available for rent. Ireland is starting to take strides in the direction of more European style renting, but until we get there more fully, for most people house ownership is going to remain by far and away the preference.

handlemaster

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There are few major differences between renting in Ireland and renting in Europe. Particularly the prevalence of unfurnished rentals in Europe, tenancy rights in general, security of tenure, predictability of cost and the quality of housing stock available for rent. Ireland is starting to take strides in the direction of more European style renting, but until we get there more fully, for most people house ownership is going to remain by far and away the preference.

Its more an attitude I think. I would say LL would love to rent without furnishings but the mind set in ireland is fixed on furnished demand.

astrofool

The laws in Ireland don't make it easy to be a tenant or a landlord without suffering from significant risk (overstaying tenants) or poor standard of living (cheap furnishings, lack of maintenance of properties). You can get lucky on either side of these, but to be a landlord, you basically have to be a law breaking tight arse to make any money, and to be a tenant, you have to hope you get a nice landlord and make do with what the rental gives you.

Eugene Norman

handlemaster wrote: »

Its more an attitude I think. I would say LL would love to rent without furnishings but the mind set in ireland is fixed on furnished demand.

LL might want to rent without furnishing but they won't want to rent with a 20 year lease.

In any case why should we change. It's an under populated country by European standards.

OneOfTheseDays

handlemaster wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/life/home-garden/homes/how-to-be-a-happy-renter-34451067.html

Ireland has long been a country obsessed with owning your own home.

A myth of the Celtic Tiger.

Personally I don't think renting should be seen as a long term solution, people should aim to own their own home imo.

As an aside home ownership is much higher in many other EU countries than some appear to think.

Graham

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

Personally I don't think renting should be seen as a long term solution, people should aim to own their own home imo.

Why?

astrofool

Graham wrote: »

Why?

I'd imagine most people see it as security into old age, an asset to sell, as well as a permanent roof over your head. The societal view would say that having an asset like that tied up in old people is inefficient and they should move into a care home, and that the renter should have saved the equivalent of the asset price during their rental years in order to live through their retirement anyway.

allibastor

Have a look at the rental houses for places outside of Ireland.

Many are houses that were bought for too much money, then the LL doesn't want to spend a penny on them so the interiors end up very poor.
Furnishing is usually poor then getting anything done is its own fun!

No control over costs or anything like that either, so you can rent the same house and in 2 years your rent can double, where as at least if you buy you know what you will pay.

Graham

allibastor wrote: »

Have a look at the rental houses for places outside of Ireland.

Many are houses that were bought for too much money, then the LL doesn't want to spend a penny on them so the interiors end up very poor.
Furnishing is usually poor then getting anything done is its own fun!

No control over costs or anything like that either, so you can rent the same house and in 2 years your rent can double, where as at least if you buy you know what you will pay.

Which markets are you referring to because that's not my experience or understanding of many other EU countries (apart from the UK).

Graham

astrofool wrote: »

I'd imagine most people see it as security into old age, an asset to sell, as well as a permanent roof over your head.

I can half understand that and I think that's where some of our problems lie.

astrofool wrote: »

The societal view would say that having an asset like that tied up in old people is inefficient and they should move into a care home

I don't think a care home necessarily but incentivising a move to a property of a size and type that's appropriate would probably be a good thing.

Graces7

astrofool wrote: »

I'd imagine most people see it as security into old age, an asset to sell, as well as a permanent roof over your head. The societal view would say that having an asset like that tied up in old people is inefficient and they should move into a care home, and that the renter should have saved the equivalent of the asset price during their rental years in order to live through their retirement anyway.

I was about to ask WHY too! I relinquished home ownership several years ago as I entered old age as the cost or maintenance and the problems getting repairs etc done was too much on a pension. I was never able because of long term illness to save etc and came into home ownership through a legacy. Societal view my eye! :rolleyes:;) We are free individuals. Thankfully... Now looking at the rental situation is worrying. My current landlord makes loud noises on the rare occasions i see him re selling this house or moving into it but so far it i just noise. I do an Ireland wide sweep sometimes to see where I could live on RA and it is not a good time. But then I need only one...

Bob24

Graham wrote: »

Which markets are you referring to because that's not my experience or understanding of many other EU countries (apart from the UK).

Not my experience either ...

As a matter of fact a some countries will offer tax incentives to investors buying new property under the condition that it will be used as a rental property and they accept some level of rent control to give long term certainty to the tenants. So you can rent a brand new property at a decent price and with long term certainty in terms of not being evicted (at least as long as you pay the rent and don't cause issues) and having a fairly stable rent. Of course in a way the tax incentive is a disguised government subsidy to the landlord so that they accept these rules, but if it brings better/cheaper accommodation to renters it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Graces7

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

Personally I don't think renting should be seen as a long term solution, people should aim to own their own home imo.

As an aside home ownership is much higher in many other EU countries than some appear to think.

How? On low incomes etc not feasible.. for many of us long term rental is all there is. But then I am English and we have a totally different attitude.

Bongalongherb

astrofool wrote: »

I'd imagine most people see it as security into old age, an asset to sell, as well as a permanent roof over your head. The societal view would say that having an asset like that tied up in old people is inefficient and they should move into a care home, and that the renter should have saved the equivalent of the asset price during their rental years in order to live through their retirement anyway.

Who cares what the societal view is on this as they are just a bunch of strangers. If a person purchased their own home whether old or not it is no ones business as to what the owner does with their house. It is a good asset and a stable roof over the persons head and is not inefficient in any way.

Why would an elderly person want to move into a care-home when they have their own home ? it is none of any-ones business when it comes to home ownership regarding any age. Renting is dead money. It is quite efficient that you can leave your home to your family when you are gone.

allibastor

Graham wrote: »

Which markets are you referring to because that's not my experience or understanding of many other EU countries (apart from the UK).

Sorry, re-read my own message. I meant many house IN Ireland are places which would be poor, but many from places like Norway, Sweden where high rental exists the houses are better quality.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Why?

Because owning your home is something to be proud of, a place you can have the way you want it, decorated the way you want it, the security of knowing it cannot be taken off you and of course something to pass onto your kids and a place they will always know as home.

Renting is fine for a few years, though personally I cant bring myself to pay the rent for a full apartment/house even though I could afford it as I see it as a massive waste of money so despite hating it I houseshare and will continue doing it until I buy.

But in the long term how anyone is happy to hand over so much money in rent for years and years when the same or almost definitely less money would have them living in their own home that after x number of years they will own outright and that monthly repayment will then be their money to keep every month while the renter keeps paying, then things get even worse when they retire and are still paying a rent while the home owner doesn't need to worry about finding the cash to pay for rent and will have more disposable income to spend on themselves.

On top of that with monthly mortgage repayments almost always cheaper and often significantly cheaper than rent of equivalent properties owning actually gives more opportunity to save money or have more money to spend on yourself than renting.

Graces7 wrote: »

How? On low incomes etc not feasible.. for many of us long term rental is all there is. But then I am English and we have a totally different attitude.

Most people can actually afford to buy if they want it badly enough and live where they can afford to buy. A lot of people on low incomes tend to be given their own houses for almost nothing too, something that grinds the gears of a lot of hard working people.

Graham

Bob24 wrote: »

As a matter of fact a some countries will offer tax incentives to investors buying new property under the condition that it will be used as a rental property and they accept some level of rent control to give long term certainty to the tenants. So you can rent a brand new property at a decent price and with long term certainty in terms of not being evicted (at least as long as you pay the rent and don't cause issues) and having a fairly stable rent. Of course in a way the tax incentive is a disguised government subsidy to the landlord so that they accept these rules, but if it brings better/cheaper accommodation to renters it is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'd certainly be in favour of tax incentives to encourage longer-term thinking and increased development in the rental market.

It would be even better if this could be done in such a way to encourage a professional class of landlord. Something like a 'rental property fund' which would buy/develop and manage the rental properties while offering investors a relatively secure long-term financial return.

borderlinemeath

handlemaster wrote: »

Its more an attitude I think. I would say LL would love to rent without furnishings but the mind set in ireland is fixed on furnished demand.

It's not just the tenant mindset. The RSA states that the rental must have a fitted kitchen, appliances etc. Which is nothing like rentals in Europe where you rent an empty shell, some without even a light fitting. I'm sure there's plenty of families that would love the security of a longer tenancy and fit their own kitchen and fixtures. The "one size fits all" model doesn't suit every type of renter and this needs to be changed before the mindset ever does.

McGrath5

Renting in Ireland is still a wild west situation.

I feel much more secure and have not regretted the day I bought my own home.

astrofool

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Who cares what the societal view is on this as they are just a bunch of strangers. If a person purchased their own home whether old or not it is no ones business as to what the owner does with their house. It is a good asset and a stable roof over the persons head and is not inefficient in any way.

Why would an elderly person want to move into a care-home when they have their own home ? it is none of any-ones business when it comes to home ownership regarding any age. Renting is dead money. It is quite efficient that you can leave your home to your family when you are gone.

I'm not taking sides, only answering the "why?"

Hypothetically - Why should the state pay a pension to someone with such a large asset on their books? They could give extra to those with little assets, what good is a 5 bedroom house occupied by 2 people, when a young family could be living there?

Lux23

I would be happy to rent if I got a long lease, wouldn't bother me in slightest if I could get all my own furniture and decorate it myself.

Speedwell

Why would I want to buy a home until I am a citizen? (Which, with any luck, I will be in a couple of years.) A "long lease" in the part of the US I come from is anything over a year, and my last landlord was pushing me to take a six-month lease, which I refused to do three times. Every Part 4 tenancy in Ireland would be considered an appallingly long lease there.

Also, I told my landlord I didn't want his nasty used bedding, worn-through pans, broken bookcases, kitchen chairs that the dog chewed on, and filthy sofa. Ordered my own and told him to come pick up his stuff.

Asmooh

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There are few major differences between renting in Ireland and renting in Europe. Particularly the prevalence of unfurnished rentals in Europe, tenancy rights in general, security of tenure, predictability of cost and the quality of housing stock available for rent. Ireland is starting to take strides in the direction of more European style renting, but until we get there more fully, for most people house ownership is going to remain by far and away the preference.

Which is really bad in Ireland, and why would you rent a furnished house? I would like my own stuff.

I paid 400 euros for a 2 bedroom appartement in Holland, 2 balconies and a big basement.. and I get 120 euro back from tax and quality of the appartement is way better than anything I've seen in Ireland


If they use the same prices also...

allibastor wrote: »

Have a look at the rental houses for places outside of Ireland.

Many are houses that were bought for too much money, then the LL doesn't want to spend a penny on them so the interiors end up very poor.
Furnishing is usually poor then getting anything done is its own fun!

No control over costs or anything like that either, so you can rent the same house and in 2 years your rent can double, where as at least if you buy you know what you will pay.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woningcorporatie

Cunning Stunt

Are we not already moving more towards renting? If I look on daft I am amazed at how little rental properties there are available at the moment -theyre all gone. There used to be any amount of them.

Graham

astrofool wrote: »

I'm not taking sides, only answering the "why?"

Hypothetically - Why should the state pay a pension to someone with such a large asset on their books? They could give extra to those with little assets, what good is a 5 bedroom house occupied by 2 people, when a young family could be living there?

That's a tough balancing act. On the one hand, you don't want to punish pensioners that have worked hard all their lives, on the other hand you do want to incentivise the moving on of under-occupied family homes.

Bongalongherb

astrofool wrote: »

I'm not taking sides, only answering the "why?"

Hypothetically - Why should the state pay a pension to someone with such a large asset on their books? They could give extra to those with little assets, what good is a 5 bedroom house occupied by 2 people, when a young family could be living there?

Because it is their own home/house of which they paid hard cash for. It doesn't matter if the house has 12 or 20 bedrooms it is the owners property and is none of any one else's business. Home owners that receive the pension worked hard throughout their lives paying high taxes, so it is only fair that they receive something back from their generosity of paying them in the first place.

Folk can't even enjoy their own home nowadays without either being told to go to a care-home or just sell the home because it is too big for them. There's many a big dirty nose from society sticking in their window these days. Folk can't be just left alone to enjoy their home and security these days.

Graham

McGrath5 wrote: »

I feel much more secure and have not regretted the day I bought my own home.

There are also plenty of home-owners who rue the day they signed on the dotted line and will be digging their way out of negative equity for years to come.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

Hypothetically - Why should the state pay a pension to someone with such a large asset on their books? They could give extra to those with little assets,

The people with the assets are more likely to have paid more tax during their working lives so I would argue they are more entitled to the state pension compared to someone who has contributed less

astrofool wrote: »

what good is a 5 bedroom house occupied by 2 people, when a young family could be living there?

Plenty of good, they could have family visiting regularly or even not regularly but still need the space when they do come, they could be making use of the rooms for storage, they could have a snooker table and bar in their house who knows and who cares its their house that they bought and paid for and have most likely spend years getting into the home they want why on earth should they move from it. Let the young families find somewhere else.

They also most likely want to leave it to their own children so selling it just is not on the cards for so many reasons. As mentioned many times a home is much more than a roof and a few bedrooms, its basically part of the family.

astrofool

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

They also most likely want to leave it to their own children so selling it just is not on the cards for so many reasons. As mentioned many times a home is much more than a roof and a few bedrooms, its basically part of the family.

I'd probably be of the same belief, but playing devil's advocate, just remember, come voting time, that those on the left will want all those assets back off you into old age

There should however be tax incentives for people to downsize once they retire, whether they take up the incentive is up to them. My grandmother stayed in unsuitable accommodation until her end, but was happier being at "home", while our next door neighbour realised her house was too big to maintain for one person and downsized (and got herself a nest egg for retirement in the process).