Mortgages for the regular public

Susandublin

Seem to be a simple solution here. Many may not agree but if people in jobs are not able to get homes in Dublin and people with no jobs are being given homes in Dublin, would a potential solution not to allow social housing etc to be outside Dublin. The stock in Dublin would be available for the workers, demand would fall and so too would prices. No reason why we would house our homeless in Dublin, have other facilities in other counties. Also, move a few years ago was potentially decent where many public vector organisations we're going to base themseld outside Dunlin - again, this would assist the supply. Market forces will find a balance but intervention has occurred by governments over the years - this can continue but need to be improved slightly. Just a thought!

witchgirl26

eeguy wrote: »

You can just walk away.

As opposed to spending all your money on rent and not being able to save for a deposit?

True, but the rent is usually less and it offsets the cost of the property, so you need a smaller deposit and mortgage.

You are usually locked into the house for 5 years before you have the option to sell privately.
In the meantime the government has built more housing for the next generation of buy to owners.

But you will be spending your money on rent. This is my point. A lot of lenders do not see money spent on rent in a rent-to-buy scheme as actually offsetting the cost of the property. Therefore they want you to have the % deposit of the current market value of that property.

And the walking away thing - again what happens to the money you've spent in rent? You now have no savings, because that was your deposit, and you have to find somewhere else to live.

So the solution is locking people into living somewhere for a number of years when that might not be the best for them? What happens if someone is in one of these schemes, buys the house/apartment/whatever and is locked in for 5 years. Then gets a job that's better paid, would provide a better standard of living for them and their family but it's the other side of the country. They can't sell the place they're in because they're locked in and they end up having to rent somewhere nearer to their new job. Kinda like what a lot of people are facing now who bought 1 or 2 bed apartments 10 years ago, got stuck because of the crash and have families now so are renting out the apartment and renting a house themselves.

Really failing to see how that puts people in a better position.

I'll say it again - there is a reason rent-to-buy schemes are not in place. Realistically the only winner is usually the developer/seller.

witchgirl26

Susandublin wrote: »

Seem to be a simple solution here. Many may not agree but if people in jobs are not able to get homes in Dublin and people with no jobs are being given homes in Dublin, would a potential solution not to allow social housing etc to be outside Dublin. The stock in Dublin would be available for the workers, demand would fall and so too would prices. No reason why we would house our homeless in Dublin, have other facilities in other counties. Also, move a few years ago was potentially decent where many public vector organisations we're going to base themseld outside Dunlin - again, this would assist the supply. Market forces will find a balance but intervention has occurred by governments over the years - this can continue but need to be improved slightly. Just a thought!

I think part of the problem of moving those looking for social housing in Dublin out of Dublin is that some do have support structures with family in Dublin and what happens if you move them far away. For example the girl who was on the Late Late the other week. Her aunt and family help her with her child when needed and provide the vital human connection that she needs. If you move her to Longford or anywhere else, how is she meant to get that?


I do agree that the idea to move some of the public sector jobs was a really good one in theory but my friend was working in a government agency at the time and the execution of it was terrible. You were basically told where you were moving to. Seems great to move the jobs out of Dublin but what about couples where 1 person has a government agency job that's moving to Port Laois but the other still has their private sector job in Dublin? It was reasons like that that the scheme fell apart. It was badly thought through in terms of execution etc.

OldNotWIse

Geuze wrote: »

Please note that the average wages in industry are 44,167 in 2014.

Please see CSO here:

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2014/

2015 data is 864.09 pw in fourth quarter.

So 45,088 in 2015

Thanks! I got your pm telling me this also :P I stand corrected.

sbsquarepants

Pheonix10 wrote: »

When did anyone say anything about a fancy house?! I completely disagree. Your friend is highly skilled and has made the commitments to education in order reap the benefits at the other side in terms of a very high paying job. Sure if college doesn't allow you to earn more money then we would all just skip school at 13 and go to work earning minimum wage.

Hate when people keep using entitle. I am not asking for a house for free. I am saying if you work hard through education and work you should be able to afford a place to live.

Hardly a big ask. Should be the minimum level of reward.

That is the misconception right there - college education doesn't automatically allow you to earn more money, nor should it, those days are long gone (except possibly in the public sector). Qualifications do not automatically mean ability to do a given job - I'm sure we all know many examples of highly educated idiots, or absolute geniuses suited only to academia with no practical abilities of any description.
Just because Einstein could unravel relativity doesn't mean he could run a sheet metal factory, or a clothes shop. Education is a starting point, not an end in itself. Education in and of itself - is essentially worthless, it's only what you then manage to do with it that has any financial value.

Morrisseeee wrote: »

They (AIB) refused not because of 3.5 times salary but this thing they call : net disposable income guidelines, which is an absolute joke.

I agree with you on this - I've fallen foul of it myself in the past. It's too restrictive - it basically makes it way harder to buy a house if you have kids, exactly when you need one most and are least likely to run amok and not pay your bills!
A couple of years back I was refused a mortgage that would have been less than I should have been paying on my existing one (in reality i had actually been overpaying by about 25% for the previous 5 years or so). I asked the bank manager to explain how exactly he figured out that I somehow couldn't afford to pay less than an amount I had already demonstrated an ability to pay in excess of, he told me "I know this is stupid, but my hands are tied"
I eventually got sorted after trying a couple more banks.

Mrs OBumble

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I think part of the problem of moving those looking for social housing in Dublin out of Dublin is that some do have support structures with family in Dublin and what happens if you move them far away. For example the girl who was on the Late Late the other week. Her aunt and family help her with her child when needed and provide the vital human connection that she needs. If you move her to Longford or anywhere else, how is she meant to get that?

There are human beings in Longford, too!

Seanachai

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I think part of the problem of moving those looking for social housing in Dublin out of Dublin is that some do have support structures with family in Dublin and what happens if you move them far away. For example the girl who was on the Late Late the other week. Her aunt and family help her with her child when needed and provide the vital human connection that she needs. If you move her to Longford or anywhere else, how is she meant to get that?


I do agree that the idea to move some of the public sector jobs was a really good one in theory but my friend was working in a government agency at the time and the execution of it was terrible. You were basically told where you were moving to. Seems great to move the jobs out of Dublin but what about couples where 1 person has a government agency job that's moving to Port Laois but the other still has their private sector job in Dublin? It was reasons like that that the scheme fell apart. It was badly thought through in terms of execution etc.

It seems that owning a home or owning a home in your home community is seen as a luxury now. If you don't have a well paid job then tough you should have picked a better degree or you need to move to the other side of the country if necessary. I don't think that it is healthy for society to have working class or low paid people moved around while areas are gentrified by professionals. Surely the best areas have a mixture of people?, I'm sure some would disagree though.

I watched the area in rural Co.Wexford where I'm from turn into a highly desirable location for wealthy people during the boom. It's just an unfortunate side effect of the type of capitalism we have, a house isn't just your home, it's become more like the new Range Rover or the yacht.

Eugene Norman

Geuze wrote: »

That is reasonable and as expected.

It's also a minority field.

Giblet

Lads, a salary of 100k gets you a ex-council house around Sandyford, or somewhere in tallaght and lucan and finglas, where all the other 100k earners live, miles away from their jobs.

Nothing should be done about it, that situation is grand.

Butters1979

I don't think OP understands t's the buyer who drives the house prices. The lending rules apply to everyone, if they changed it allow larger borrowing, then everyone you're competing with just get's more money, and the prices go up.
Some people say it's more difficult to compete with cash buyers, which can be true, but that's not the case most of the time.

I am regular public, I can only borrow under the same rules as you.
If you and I both want a house, and you have X money, and I have X + Y money, why do you think you should get the house?

0gac3yjefb5sv7

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That is the misconception right there - college education doesn't automatically allow you to earn more money, nor should it, those days are long gone (except possibly in the public sector). Qualifications do not automatically mean ability to do a given job - I'm sure we all know many examples of highly educated idiots, or absolute geniuses suited only to academia with no practical abilities of any description.
Just because Einstein could unravel relativity doesn't mean he could run a sheet metal factory, or a clothes shop. Education is a starting point, not an end in itself. Education in and of itself - is essentially worthless, it's only what you then manage to do with it that has any financial value.



I agree with you on this - I've fallen foul of it myself in the past. It's too restrictive - it basically makes it way harder to buy a house if you have kids, exactly when you need one most and are least likely to run amok and not pay your bills!
A couple of years back I was refused a mortgage that would have been less than I should have been paying on my existing one (in reality i had actually been overpaying by about 25% for the previous 5 years or so). I asked the bank manager to explain how exactly he figured out that I somehow couldn't afford to pay less than an amount I had already demonstrated an ability to pay in excess of, he told me "I know this is stupid, but my hands are tied"
I eventually got sorted after trying a couple more banks.

If college doesn't allow you to earn more money then what would be the point of it. The whole point is you build up skills which allows you to have specialized knowledge which is in demand. If that was the case then why not just get rid of secondary schools and colleges?

Butters1979

Pheonix10 wrote: »

If college doesn't allow you to earn more money then what would be the point of it. The whole point is you build up skills which allows you to have specialized knowledge which is in demand. If that was the case then why not just get rid of secondary schools and colleges?

What you do for a living isn't necessarily just about pay. A lot of people go to college to qualify for a job they want to do. enjoying your work is a huge part of quality of life and some people would much prefer to earn less doing something they love.

Basically the pay a job gives is not just dependent on the difficulty or level of skill required to do that job. it is also based on the demand for people in that job and the amount of money people doing that job earn their employer (especially in the public sector, just look at doctors).

Then you have the whole unions/strike actions that cause weird pay results.

sbsquarepants

Pheonix10 wrote: »

If college doesn't allow you to earn more money then what would be the point of it. The whole point is you build up skills which allows you to have specialized knowledge which is in demand. If that was the case then why not just get rid of secondary schools and colleges?

Not necessarily. A lot of college course don't impart any specialised knowledge whatsoever, they impart a fairly wide knowledge base from which to build.
You can have all the qualifications in the world but if you have no cop on you likely won't do well afterwards. Takes a lot more than a business degree to make a business work.

witchgirl26

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There are human beings in Longford, too!

Lol really?! :P

No of course I get that but if you move someone who's is maybe not in the best mental state away from their support structure, it does potentially cause more problems in relation to isolation etc. It'd be the same moving someone from Longford to Dublin in a reverse scenario.

PhoenixParker

Butters1979 wrote: »

I don't think OP understands t's the buyer who drives the house prices. The lending rules apply to everyone, if they changed it allow larger borrowing, then everyone you're competing with just get's more money, and the prices go up.
Some people say it's more difficult to compete with cash buyers, which can be true, but that's not the case most of the time.

I am regular public, I can only borrow under the same rules as you.
If you and I both want a house, and you have X money, and I have X + Y money, why do you think you should get the house?

This x1000. Given a pool of houses and a larger pool of buyers, the housing market will sort itself in price to meet the maximum budgets of the upper end of the pool of buyers.

Since budget is usually related to income, that'll be the top earning buyers. If those buyers can get a mortgage of 6 times income, then that's what the houses will cost. If those buyers can get a mortgage of 3.5 times income, then that's what the houses will cost.

The mortgage rules just mean houses don't get crazy expensive, they don't prevent those on low incomes from buying one. Without the mortgage rules they still wouldn't be able to buy the house because it'd be twice the price.

The problem is the size of the pool of houses and (possibly) the expense of building new ones not the mortgage rules.

athtrasna

Sorry folks, time to call it a day on this one. Thread is a total timesink, despite several warnings it drifts off topic and breaches charter over and over

Mod