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

Can't afford to buy or rent and no assistance available!

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Sundance_Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 364 ✭✭Sundance_Kid


    I've nothing really to add OP but fair play for coming on and being open about your quandary. I hope it works out for you.

    Maintenance does seem quite a lot, but ultimately the whole housing & rent debacle in Dublin in particular is making it so difficult for you and a lot of people out there.

    Not sure if you have explained all this to you parents as you have on here, but its a pity they cannot help out more past 30.

    Maybe send them a link to the thread ;)


  • Options
    #123
    GoneHome
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭GoneHome


    https://www.steeltechsheds.ie/products/garden-studios/ would this kind of set up suit, you could build in your parents back garden, have your own space for about €20,000 for another few years while you continue to save


  • Options
    #124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Me too, but the usual credit union practice of holding savings against loans can cost the lender more over the lifetime of the loan than any penalty.

    Not all loans are against savings, it's an option if you have savings in the credit union to opt for a lower interest rate. I've done it in the past as I'd rather not be using my savings up for a car when I can pay it back with a low interest loan and keep my savings untouched.


  • Options
    #125
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,002 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Santana Squeaking Python wrote: »
    Not all loans are against savings, it's an option if you have savings in the credit union to opt for a lower interest rate.
    In my experience, they just grab the savings - no question about lower rates. I lodged a cheque with the intention of moving the funds back to my current account electronically. They bounced my electronic transfer, telling me that I couldn't move the funds because I had a loan outstanding. Very poor practice.
    Santana Squeaking Python wrote: »
    I've done it in the past as I'd rather not be using my savings up for a car when I can pay it back with a low interest loan and keep my savings untouched.
    Lots of people do this, but it makes no financial sense. You're paying 6%-8% on your loan while earning 0%-1% on your savings. It costs you in the long run.


  • Options
    #126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    In my experience, they just grab the savings - no question about lower rates. I lodged a cheque with the intention of moving the funds back to my current account electronically. They bounced my electronic transfer, telling me that I couldn't move the funds because I had a loan outstanding. Very poor practice.

    I got a rate of 5.5% I think as I was willing to offset against saving, I had much more savings than the amount I was borrowing. If I didn't want to offset against savings I was told the rate was up around the 8 or 9%

    In my case I had more savings than the loan but lots of people borrow far more than their savings or even borrowing with no savings is possible as far as I know so they can't all be secured against savings. How do people really stick for money get credit union loans if they are expected to have savings as it's one of the fort port of calls for people who need a loan to get by..

    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Lots of people do this, but it makes no financial sense. You're paying 6%-8% on your loan while earning 0%-1% on your savings. It costs you in the long run.

    As I said I was paying close to half that in interest and was more than worth the bit of cost to keep the lump some of payments. It's a lot easier to pay a loan than to save as one is optional the other is mandatory.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭dubrov


    Santana Squeaking Python wrote: »
    In my case I had more savings than the loan

    Why would you borrow if you had the savings?
    Makes no sense to me


  • Options
    #128
    Sinister Kid
    Registered Users Posts: 7,503 ✭✭✭Sinister Kid


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    In my experience, they just grab the savings - no question about lower rates. I lodged a cheque with the intention of moving the funds back to my current account electronically. They bounced my electronic transfer, telling me that I couldn't move the funds because I had a loan outstanding. Very poor practice.

    I think a lot of the time it is down to whatever Credit Union you are in. I know different CU have different rules.
    My sister has a small amount of savings & has a car loan that is about 4 times what is in her savings. She was always under the impression that she couldn't withdraw any saving while she had the loan but recently she found out she can do as she pleases with any money put into savings after she took out the loan.


  • Options
    #129
    bleary
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭bleary


    Off topic but how do you justify paying 5.5% interest to borrow your own money?
    And to the people saying that the parents should do more. It's 4 years they have given up their own home to help him and the kids out.
    He will be 30.
    If kids can't manage to break the apron strings in this time frame then there will always be a reason not to stand on their own two feet.
    It's expensive to rent but loads of people just had to make do and haven't had the benefit of years of support.
    Maybe the parents would like one of their other 3 kids and their families over to stay for a while.
    Hell maybe they want to entertain holding swingers parties. That is up to them as adults in their own home.


  • Options
    #130
    Sinister Kid
    Registered Users Posts: 7,503 ✭✭✭Sinister Kid


    bleary wrote: »
    Off topic but how do you justify paying 5.5% interest to borrow your own money?
    And to the people saying that the parents should do more. It's 4 years they have given up their own home to help him and the kids out.
    He will be 30.
    If kids can't manage to break the apron strings in this time frame then there will always be a reason not to stand on their own two feet.
    It's expensive to rent but loads of people just had to make do and haven't had the benefit of years of support.
    Maybe the parents would like one of their other 3 kids and their families over to stay for a while.
    Hell maybe they want to entertain holding swingers parties. That is up to them as adults in their own home.

    My own reasoning behind taking a loan within shares out - I will pay back the loan & I can still see my savings I have worked for.
    If I withdrew savings instead of taking the loan, as much as I would intend to re-pay the money, I probably would be less strict about it.
    If something came up, if I was going away, Christmas etc. I might miss putting the money back into savings.
    There is also the argument that I am building, my credit rating, showing consistency in repaying my loan so when it comes to getting a mortgage it will stand to me.

    Totally agree with your point on the parents, they have been more than generous.


  • Options
    #131
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dubrov wrote: »
    Why would you borrow if you had the savings?
    Makes no sense to me

    Because I wanted I keep the bulk of my savings (I did use a small amount of savings). Much nicer I see my lump sum of savings in the CU and pay back a smallish low interest loan monthly out of wages.

    It's a lot harder to resave money than pay a loan I know as I do "borrow" from myself for smaller things and I am constantly "in debt" to myself as it's to easily to skip a "payment" or put in less etc on the other hand Id never miss a loan repayment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,002 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Santana Squeaking Python wrote: »
    I got a rate of 5.5% I think as I was willing to offset against saving, I had much more savings than the amount I was borrowing. If I didn't want to offset against savings I was told the rate was up around the 8 or 9%

    In my case I had more savings than the loan but lots of people borrow far more than their savings or even borrowing with no savings is possible as far as I know so they can't all be secured against savings. How do people really stick for money get credit union loans if they are expected to have savings as it's one of the fort port of calls for people who need a loan to get by..

    As I said I was paying close to half that in interest and was more than worth the bit of cost to keep the lump some of payments.

    It's not so much a question of how high or low your loan interest rate was. The real question is the margin between your loan interest and your savings interest. If you're paying a low interest rate on your loan, you can be damn sure you're getting a low interest rate on your savings, unless your CU has some magic money tree out the back garden.

    That margin between the interest rate you pay them and the rate pay you is the cost of keeping your savings.

    And of course, the concept of 'keeping your savings' is entirely fictional. What really matters is your net balance with the CU, not what is in the one ring-fenced account you choose to look at while you pretend you don't owe them money on the other side.

    Santana Squeaking Python wrote: »
    It's a lot easier to pay a loan than to save as one is optional the other is mandatory.
    Sinister Kid wrote: »
    If I withdrew savings instead of taking the loan, as much as I would intend to re-pay the money, I probably would be less strict about it.
    If something came up, if I was going away, Christmas etc. I might miss putting the money back into savings.
    Santana Squeaking Python wrote: »
    It's a lot harder to resave money than pay a loan I know as I do "borrow" from myself for smaller things and I am constantly "in debt" to myself as it's to easily to skip a "payment" or put in less etc on the other hand Id never miss a loan repayment.

    This is the nub of the issue, and I know there is some truth in what you say. But I fear that the CU movement as a whole exploits this fear, and encourages members to borrow while keeping savings, instead of educating members about their best financial interest.


  • Options
    #133
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    dubrov wrote:
    Why would you borrow if you had the savings? Makes no sense to me


    Not in this specific case, but in the context of getting a larger loan later then there is a good record of paying back.


  • Options
    #134
    sibersha
    Registered Users Posts: 314 ✭✭sibersha


    Sell car, quit gym, no new clothes, eat beans on toast, etc.

    Seriously OP - the two main pieces of advice I'd echo are a) consider moving closer to work possibly outside of Dublin and b) try to get child maintenance reduced.


  • Options
    #135
    Electric Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 2,106 ✭✭✭Electric Sheep


    sibersha wrote: »
    Sell car, quit gym, no new clothes, eat beans on toast, etc.

    Seriously OP - the two main pieces of advice I'd echo are a) consider moving closer to work possibly outside of Dublin and b) try to get child maintenance reduced.

    Right. Screw your children over. Priority number 2.


  • Options
    #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Electric Sheep wrote: »
    Right. Screw your children over. Priority number 2.

    I don't think anyone is saying not to pay maintenance, they are saying the figure is very large for two kids especially considering he has them at weekends and does things with them during the week.

    Over 700 euro a month is crazy money to be handing over, it's simply not fair to be expected to hand so much over. 300 to 400 would be a much more reasonable number imo.

    I wonder how of that is actually going to the kids rather than funding the non-working lifestyle chosen by the kids mother (either directly or indirectly by the fact she doesn't have to spend her dole money and child benefit on the kids as the op is paying for everything).

    Discrimination against fathers is rife and backedup by the courts regularly with their crazy and biased judgements.


  • Options
    #137
    messy tessy
    Registered Users Posts: 889 ✭✭✭messy tessy


    Santana Squeaking Python wrote: »
    I wonder how of that is actually going to the kids rather than funding the non-working lifestyle chosen by the kids mother (either directly or indirectly by the fact she doesn't have to spend her dole money and child benefit on the kids as the op is paying for everything)

    Nothing like wild assumptions based on little evidence provided here


  • Options
    #138
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,990 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Electric Sheep wrote: »
    Right. Screw your children over. Priority number 2.
    Unless you are clothing your child in solid gold and silk, feeding them caviar and D&G nappies you are overpaying by a factor of at least 1.5-2 in that maintenance amount.

    It's going to the mother, not the child. And that's not the OP's responsibility.
    It was probably based on the assessment of means when he was living at home. He needed a better solicitor;)


  • Options
    #139
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    messy tessy wrote: »
    Nothing like wild assumptions based on little evidence provided here

    It not so wild an assumption when you have the op paying over 700 euro in maintainence, that's far more than it costs to fund having two kids alone never kid the fact that the ops contribution is supposed to be half the cost of looking after them while the mother contributes the other half. In other words at that rate of maintenance the kids are in theory costing over 1400 euro per month which is absolutely outlandish, probably 4 times the actual cost.

    Remember maintenance is supposed to be solely for the kids not to "support" an ex.

    His contribution should be halved, possibly even more than halved.


  • Options
    #140
    PhoenixParker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    Santana Squeaking Python wrote: »
    It not so wild an assumption when you have the op paying over 700 euro in maintainence, that's far more than it costs to fund having two kids alone never kid the fact that the ops contribution is supposed to be half the cost of looking after them while the mother contributes the other half. In other words at that rate of maintenance the kids are in theory costing over 1400 euro per month which is absolutely outlandish, probably 4 times the actual cost.

    Remember maintenance is supposed to be solely for the kids not to "support" an ex.

    Crèche runs about €900pcm per child in Dublin.
    That may not be the ops situation but saying €1400pcm is outlandish shows your ignorance of the costs of children.


  • Options
    #141
    neonsofa
    Registered Users Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    PhoenixParker wrote: »
    Crèche runs about €900pcm per child in Dublin.
    That may not be the ops situation but saying €1400pcm is outlandish shows your ignorance of the costs of children.

    Was just gonna say, I spend 600 per month off the bat for childcare costs alone and thats one child who only needs after school care.

    A high maintenance payment, which it seems to be in this case, doesn't necessarily equate to the mother rolling in cash and living the high life.

    That's not to say you shouldn't look into it op,just agreeing with the above post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    mirrorwall14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,751 ✭✭✭mirrorwall14


    I don't think the OP gave ages of the children. Honestly if they are in childcare or afterschool care he could well be under paying in terms of support. If they are older then yes its possibly a little high


  • Options
    #143
    jlm29
    Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭jlm29


    The op said he didn’t know if the kids mum was working, which is a bit unusual, and means noone knows if there’s childcare costs involved. He did, however, say that he felt the money was needed.
    Someone said earlier that the maintenance cost was 1.5-2 times too much- that’s a big assumption. Even aside from childcare, extra-curricular activities are expensive. Football boots, swimming lessons, gymnastics etc etc etc. They cost a bloody bomb! And They eat so much!!


  • Options
    #144
    Evd-Burner
    Registered Users Posts: 1,456 ✭✭✭Evd-Burner


    So the €710 isn't all paid directly as maintenance each month, most of it is but the rest is made up of other payments throughout the year such as 50% back to school, 50% extra curricular, 50% medical/dental, extra maintenance at Christmas and then clothes that I have to buy for the kids while they are on my access.


  • Options
    #145
    BrokenArrows
    Registered Users Posts: 7,498 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    Evd-Burner wrote: »
    So the €710 isn't all paid directly as maintenance each month, most of it is but the rest is made up of other payments throughout the year such as 50% back to school, 50% extra curricular, 50% medical/dental, extra maintenance at Christmas and then clothes that I have to buy for the kids while they are on my access.

    Surely clothes should be purchased using the maintenance money paid to your ex?


Advertisement