Rent

optogirl

Augeo wrote: »

Most definitely naive, especially as rents were on the floor during that recession thing we had recently enough, unless you were hoping the state might throw you a house.
I won't ask what your private/work pension situation is but I'm pretty sure it was never going to sustain renting private accommodation once you've finished working tbh.

Like, how many retirees do you know who rent in Ireland?

Anyway, the likes of yourself who have only recently decided they want to purchase in a time when both rents and house prices have risen and look to continue to do so, there's an element of tough luck about really IMO. Best of luck with your protests though ........... I'd sooner the tax take goes on the health service etc than bailing out folk who just decided to buy, but that's just my view.

I have never been in a position to buy. I'm still not. Rents are spiralling out of control for 'the likes of me' and the amount I pay in rent would easily cover a mortgage which is why that seems like a better option now - albeit one that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

I don't see anything in my posts to indicate that I would like the state to 'throw me a house' as you so reasonably put it.

Yes it is probably my own fault that I didn't start thinking about my housing needs in retirement when I was in my early 20s. If I'd known how much of my salary would be going towards rent in my 30s then perhaps I would have.

I don't know any retirees who rent but I do know that it is a lot more common in other countries that have stricter rent controls and longer tenancies. Renting for life would not be unusual - I guess I thought that could become true of Ireland too.

whisky_galore

There's an overwhelming whiff of smuggeratti 'I told you so'. It must be quite something to be oh-so-perfect, being born at the right time and making all the right choices.

What about people in their late teens, early 20's? What are they supposed to do?
Oh right, you don't care, not your problem.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

I have never been in a position to buy. .............

That's unsurprising as it was never part of your plan until recently.
Your plan was to rent longerm, indefinitely and into retirement. That was a p1ss poor plan.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

There's an overwhelming whiff of smuggeratti 'I told you so'. It must be quite something to be oh-so-perfect, being born at the right time and making all the right choices.

What about people in their late teens, early 20's? What are they supposed to do?
Oh right, you don't care, not your problem.

I bought a property in the boom, so there's nothing right time about me.
Folk in their early 20s should do what common sense always dictated. Get skilled or qualified to get the best job that one can and save some cash regularly so they are best placed to buy when the need arises.

Or they can plan on renting indefinitely and go to a protest here and there.

What do you reckon about folk in their 30/40s? Were they born at the right time?

optogirl

Augeo wrote: »

That's unsurprising as it was never part of your plan until recently.
Your plan was to rent longerm, indefinitely and into retirement. That was a p1ss poor plan.

It wasn't my plan - I was happy renting and not thinking about buying - I have never been in a position to think about buying. Rent was a much better option for me until recently. You seem to sneer at me for not having my housing need for life planned out and budgeted for by the time I sat the Leaving Cert.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

It wasn't my plan - I was happy renting and not thinking about buying - I have never been in a position to think about buying. Rent was a much better option for me until recently. You seem to sneer at me for not having my housing need for life planned out and budgeted for by the time I sat the Leaving Cert.

Lol.,... accountability seems lost on you. Rents fluctuate in Ireland, the recession rates were less then boom rates which were less than todays rents.
Fingers crossed all taxes are raised so you can be housed affordably in your forever home asap That's the best I can do

ChikiChiki

The divide between the middle class "have's" and the "have nots" is obvious. The haves could not give a ****e as they have a roof over their head. Middle class will end up eating each other up before they get out on the streets.

optogirl

Augeo wrote: »

Lol.,... accountability seems lost on you. Rents fluctuate in Ireland, the recession rates were less then boom rates which were less than todays rents.
Fingers crossed all taxes are raised so you can housed in your forever home asap That's the best I can do

Why so snide Augeo? Why, in a forum about RENT is it unreasonable for me to discuss my own situation with regard to rent. I am not asking for a handout. I think it is reasonable to expect to be able to buy a home when you are paying much much more monthly in rent than you would repaying a mortgage loan. I think it is reasonable to put a cap on rents in the midst of a housing crisis.

I am not, I repeat, not asking for a house to be 'given' to me. I am hoping that the government can introduce some schemes whereby a person can rent & save for a decent deposit reasonably. At the moment that is just not feasible. I think the word protest immediately raised some issue for you that led you to leaping atop your high horse and looking down on me. Hope the weather stays fine for you up there.

whisky_galore

Augeo wrote: »

I bought a property in the boom, so there's nothing right time about me.
Folk in their early 20s should do what common sense always dictated. Get skilled or qualified to get the best job that one can and save some cash regularly so they are best placed to buy when the need arises.

Or they can plan on renting indefinitely and go to a protest here and there.

What do you reckon about folk in their 30/40s? Were they born at the right time?

Good for you.
Not everyone has the resources to buy, like you can.

For some reason in Ireland renting is thought of as something only students, separated people and starving artists do. You're looked upon as a 'failure' if you don't have your own bricks and mortar, unlike across on the Continent where people spend their whole lives and raise families in rented accom for reasonable rents and conditions compared to here.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

.............. I am not asking for a handout.......................I am hoping that the government can introduce some schemes whereby a person can rent & save for a decent deposit reasonably..................

That's called a handout. This is the closed they've come to it. many feel this has actually made house prices higher thus exacerbating the problem you face

https://www.revenue.ie/en/property/help-to-buy-incentive/index.aspx

rossmores

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

LL: I’m selling the house/apartment, you have 90 days to vacate.
Tenant: Ok
Landlord: *rents out apartment at a higher rent above the 4% allowed*

Aside from that, these vulture funds are buying off the plans and setting the rent.

I’m at a loss as to how your property is yielding less in 2018 than it did in 2013.

Was renting at a loss in 2013

optogirl

Augeo wrote: »

That's called a handout. This is the closed they've come to it. many feel this has actually made house prices higher thus exacerbating the problem you face

https://www.revenue.ie/en/property/help-to-buy-incentive/index.aspx

I agree with you on that one. Measures brought in by the government are inadequate and only drive rents/house prices higher.

You seem absolutely gleeful about that.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

.......

You seem absolutely gleeful about that.

Not at all. Interfering with the market is rarely for the greater good. You are asking for a scheme as it suits you, there has been schemes of that ilk recently and they've contributed to house prices rising which is exactly what you don't want.

I'm not gleeful at all.

What you are protesting for (presumably) might well end up not suiting you. BTW, what you want is a handout, pure and simple.
If I was you I'd wait for the market to swing to suit you, it always does

xckjoo

Augeo wrote: »

I bought a property in the boom, so there's nothing right time about me.
Folk in their early 20s should do what common sense always dictated. Get skilled or qualified to get the best job that one can and save some cash regularly so they are best placed to buy when the need arises.

Or they can plan on renting indefinitely and go to a protest here and there.

What do you reckon about folk in their 30/40s? Were they born at the right time?

Everyone should just become the 1% and then there wouldn't be an issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fH9E4TfZLM

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Everyone should just become the 1% and then there wouldn't be an issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fH9E4TfZLM

1% me hole.
I live in a small enough town not where I'm from and I commute to work in Dublin (I'm not a Dub either)

I'm very much of the you get out what you put in mindset.

dotsman

Guys,

the reason there is a property can be perfectly summed up by this thread. The overwhelming majority of posts/ideas are missing the point. It is very simply a case of demand being far greater than supply. This property crisis is 30 years old, and for those 30 years, all successive governments have done is tweaked taxes/subsidies etc and all that has done is move the problem from one area to another with no solution. Yet, that is what most people are arguing that this is what the government should continue to do (tax credits/rent control etc). P.S. Tax credits would only see rent prices jump dramatically (as renters would be able to afford even higher rent), and rent control is ineffective left-wing nonsense that makes no sense.

There is one and only one solution. And that is the only solution that everybody should be discussing. And that is that we have to build up. We have no proper property strategy/planning. We keep tacking housing estates and industrial estates on to the outskirts of cities, which is not only ineffective, but, in many ways exacerbates the problem.

Can't be bothered writing the post again, but this is from the last month's thread on this topic:

dotsman wrote: »

This is a 30-year-old housing crisis.

Back in the late 80's/early 90's Ireland began to modernise rapidly. While much is documented about the massive social changes and improvement in standard of living, a huge change was never planned for, nor is it even being planned for today - the massive increase in urban population and modern living/work patterns.

Dublin was not suitable in 1990, and for it to double in population since then with very little change to the make-up of the city is the reason it is the disaster it is today where people pay several hundred thousand for a poorly built shoe-box that's over an hour's commute from their place of work.

Since 1990, Ireland has not just grown from a population of 3.5 million to 4.8 million (an extra 1.3 million people), there are a huge number of other factors:

• Modern work life tends to be city-based. As jobs (especially high-paying jobs) become more and more skilled and specialised, the more they need to be city-based to ensure a larger pool of potential employees. For example, a Software Company looking to hire 200 people is not going to set up in some town. While there may be 200 unemployed people in the town, there is no chance in hell that there will be 200 highly trained/experienced software developers/testers/managers etc. In the modern era, the purpose of a city is a place for potential employee and potential employer to come together. As a result, internal migration has resulted in a larger proportion of the population moving to our cities
• It's not just an extra 1.3 million people, the average household size has decreased. With the changes to social and financial circumstances, people are having less children, elderly relatives are more likely to live independently (and not with their adult children), parents no longer necessarily live together. As a result, a lot more houses are needed per 1,000 people than in 1990.
• Not only has Dublin been horribly unplanned, but it has become the focus of much of the growth. Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford still remain provincial towns compared to a modern city. Had there been even a little strategic thinking, these cities would be twice their current size and with far superior infrastructure. Instead, they are just mini-Dublins.
• Dual-income households are now the norm. Up to the 80's, the average family was only a single (probably low) income. Dual income households could often enjoy a very good standard of living. But, as it became the norm over the past 30 years, the bulk of that doubling of household income has gone towards bidding (be it rent or purchase) for the extremely limited number of suitable housing, resulting in rent/prices rocketing.
• In the absence of strategic urban planning, Dublin has simply sprawled. The more we tack housing estates on to the edge of Dublin, the worse the problem becomes. Cities are supposed to go up, not out. The more the sprawl, the more people need to travel to get to work, but without the density, there is no ability to support decent public transport. Hence Dublin relies pretty much on cars and ****ty bus service. Had Dublin been planned, the city center would hold at least 100,000 people more than it does today and the non-center city an additional 250,000. Not only does this result in more people being walking/cycling distance from their place of work, but it also justifies proper public transport due to the density. Imagine if Dublin had 3 underground train lines and 5 luas lines, all very fast, frequent and reliable, all interconnected, and the majority of the population living/working close to a stop. Car and buses would only be for the few people who live outside the city or have a non-standard route.

How long will their be a housing crisis? I predict at least another generation. it takes many years/decades to see the results of strategic planning. Given that we haven't even started yet, don't expect the situation to resolve itself any time soon.

Does that mean there won't be crashes etc? Of course. House prices don't reflect reality. As demand for the suitable housing drives up prices, people spend a greater percentage of their income on trying to get "somewhere livable". Likewise, the national mantra becomes "house prices/rent increases", and thus both buyer and seller (landlord and renter) settle for higher prices for accommodation that is not in short supply. There is no viable reason why house prices have been increasing in rural areas over the past 30 years. In many cases, the population has been decreasing (or growing an extremely slow pace). It is simply buyers/renters willing to pay large amounts, because they assume that they have to when it is not necessary (they are probably the only one bidding!). This keeps going until the bubble bursts. But once the bubble does burst, it starts over again (as we go back to "well, there is still a critical shortage of ideal housing!").

It's not just higher prices that are a result of the lack of strategic planning, its:

• people living in unsuitable/small housing
• people spending a huge proportion of their working day "commuting". Anything more than half an hour's commute should be viewed as the exception, not the norm. In dublin, commutes in excess of an hour have become "acceptable".
• a massive over-reliance on cars/oil. A modern city should see the majority of people take mass transport/walk/cycle to work/schools/shops/bars.
• a massive problem with anti-social behaviour. Much of the most desirable land (city centre) is in the hands of the non-working population who live in 2-story houses right bang where large office/apartment complex should be. This is no place to raise children - there is no hope for th vast majority of children raised in these circumstances. As a result, much of Dublin city center problem-areas are multi-generational.
• the introduction of "commercial parks" on the outskirts of the city. There really is nothing worse. Industrial parks make sens for factories that require huge horizontal space and large trucking both incoming and outgoing. Retail Parks makes sense for the large DIY/Furniture stores etc (along with the trucking required). But commercial offices are people-centric. The main focus points of where to place an office are:
  • somewhere where the vast majority of the city can easily commute to (if you place your office in an unsuitable location like city west, blanch or sandyford, you do not have a pool of 2 million potential employees, you have a tiny fraction of that who can easily commute to your stupid location.
  • excellent transport options that can handle the peak traffic hours (industrial/retail will be spread out throughout the day)
  • somewhere with a large selection of restaurants, bars, shops etc to support the human function of office work. The amount of people who work in these places who commute to the gray estates, work, go to the one nearby coffee shop, and commute home again in the evening. Compare that to their colleagues who work in city center offices who will often go out for lunch with colleagues, pints on a Friday evening, pop out to the shops/bank etc at lunch time or immediately after work.

dotsman

dotsman wrote: »

........... Yet, that is what most people are arguing that this is what the government should continue to do (tax credits/rent control etc).............

Indeed, lunacy.
Quite selfish too, IMO.

na1

optogirl wrote: »

More social & affordable housing.

Who is gonna pay for this?

xckjoo

dotsman wrote: »

Guys,

the reason there is a property can be perfectly summed up by this thread. The overwhelming majority of posts/ideas are missing the point. It is very simply a case of demand being far greater than supply. This property crisis is 30 years old, and for those 30 years, all successive governments have done is tweaked taxes/subsidies etc and all that has done is move the problem from one area to another with no solution. Yet, that is what most people are arguing that this is what the government should continue to do (tax credits/rent control etc). P.S. Tax credits would only see rent prices jump dramatically (as renters would be able to afford even higher rent), and rent control is ineffective left-wing nonsense that makes no sense.

There is one and only one solution. And that is the only solution that everybody should be discussing. And that is that we have to build up. We have no proper property strategy/planning. We keep tacking housing estates and industrial estates on to the outskirts of cities, which is not only ineffective, but, in many ways exacerbates the problem.

Can't be bothered writing the post again, but this is from the last month's thread on this topic:

Other countries have built upwards though and they still have issues so I disagree that it's the solution. Maybe part of the solution, but not the "one and only solution". You're right about tax credits just being passed on. We've seen it time and again in many different industries. Instead of just tax credits, there needs to be a ultimate prioritization of Buy-To-Live-In owner, followed by the Long-Term renter. Not sure exactly what form that would take though.

na1

optogirl wrote: »

I don't see anything in my posts to indicate that I would like the state to 'throw me a house' as you so reasonably put it.
.

The words you said about taxation mean:
"Lets high earners share some of their income to help me buy a house."

xckjoo

na1 wrote: »

Who is gonna pay for this?

You realise we're already spending boat loads of tax on emergency accommodation, etc.? I don't care if they give every single person in Ireland a house if lowers costs overall and improves general standard of living.

optogirl

na1 wrote: »

The words you said about taxation mean:
"Lets high earners share some of their income to help me buy a house."

yes in the same way that my taxes help people to get surgery, improved roads, social services, education, etc. I don't think it's selfish of people to use those services.

whisky_galore

na1 wrote: »

Who is gonna pay for this?

The eternal cry of "Why do I have to pay for X because I never use X?"

X = insert social housing, bicycle lanes, child allowances, some road in Donegal, etc.

na1

optogirl wrote: »

yes in the same way that my taxes help people to get surgery, improved roads, social services, education, etc. I don't think it's selfish of people to use those services.

If you pay enough taxes to help HSE, social services, education, etc. I'd have no problem saving for deposit and buying a house, aren't you?

optogirl

na1 wrote: »

If you pay enough taxes to help HSE, social services, education, etc. I'd have no problem saving for deposit and buying a house, aren't you?

na1

whisky_galore wrote: »

The eternal cry of "Why do I have to pay for X because I never use X?"

The eternal cry of: "I already pay enough taxes to build the best transport system, best education, best health service in the world."
Its not my problem that those taxes are still not enough.

optogirl

na1 wrote: »

The eternal cry of: "I already pay enough taxes to build the best transport system, best education, best health service in the world."
Its not my problem that those taxes are still not enough.

You're not making any sense

na1

optogirl wrote: »

Unless you're on 50k+ you pay almost nothing in taxes.
If you're on 60k+ you'd have no problem getting mortgage.

whisky_galore

na1 wrote: »

The eternal cry of: "I already pay enough taxes to build the best transport system, best education, best health service in the world."
Its not my problem that those taxes are still not enough.

Lol, you could be firing money down the bottomless pit that is the HSE and it still wouldn't do any good. If the system is broken it doesn't matter how much money you throw at it.

optogirl

na1 wrote: »

Unless you're on 50k+ you pay almost nothing in taxes.
If you're on 60k+ you'd have no problem getting mortgage.

but who is complaining about already paying enough tax? Not me.

frozenfrozen

A place went up yesterday, me and someone are ready to move in, called straight away, all our ducks in a line and they want to do a viewing on monday after it has been up for the weekend. WHY? We are offering you the asking price, two full time employed in the area non smoking no pets etc, ready to hand over the deposit today. Why do you need to leave it up longer? So someone else can come along and offer over the asking price in bribes or whatever else?

na1

optogirl wrote: »

You're not making any sense

This group of taxpayers (who earn over €100,000) pays around 45 per cent of all income tax and USC
1.2 million people who earn less than €30,000 now pay just under 3 per cent of total income tax and USC.

some 920,700 people will be exempt from paying income tax in 2017.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/quarter-of-all-income-goes-to-140-000-who-earn-over-100-000-1.2803467

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/why-one-in-three-earners-pays-no-income-tax-1.2841652

na1

optogirl wrote: »

but who is complaining about already paying enough tax? Not me.

So you want to pay more taxes?
or:
you want people who already covering the 45 percent of the tax income to pay more?

optogirl

na1 wrote: »

So you want to pay more taxes?
or:
you want people who already covering the 45 percent of the tax income to pay more?

I would happily pay more tax, yes. I have said that several times now. I also think how taxes are used is bad - we need to build A LOT of houses in order to start to tackle this crisis. HAP & putting people up in hotels is not working and is short sighted in the extreme

na1

optogirl wrote: »

I would happily pay more tax, yes. I have said that several times now. I also think how taxes are used is bad - we need to build A LOT of houses in order to start to tackle this crisis. HAP & putting people up in hotels is not working and is short sighted in the extreme

Well, ok:

let's say you claim that if you pay X euro a month more will help you to buy a house.
If every taxpayer will start to pay X euro more, the revenue will get X * N (number of taxpayers).
Then the revenue will spend these money to help N taxpayers with housing, so each taxpayer will benefit by X euro a month in housing support.
So will this X euro a month be enough help for you to buy a house?

optogirl

na1 wrote: »

Well, ok:

let's say you claim that if you pay X euro a month more will help you to buy a house.
If every taxpayer will start to pay X euro more, the revenue will get X * N (number of taxpayers).
Then the revenue will spend these money to help N taxpayers with housing, so each taxpayer will benefit by X euro a month in housing support.
So will this X euro a month be enough help for you to buy a house?

Let's not say I claim anything. I'm not asking for additional money directly coming to me. I would like to see the govt wisely spend the tax yield to help the housing crisis (as well as the myriad other problems in Ireland). Build more, build quickly - assist those with proven ability to pay to get a house. To some this is a socialist lib dream factory but here I am.

xckjoo

na1 wrote: »

Well, ok:

let's say you claim that if you pay X euro a month more will help you to buy a house.
If every taxpayer will start to pay X euro more, the revenue will get X * N (number of taxpayers).
Then the revenue will spend these money to help N taxpayers with housing, so each taxpayer will benefit by X euro a month in housing support.
So will this X euro a month be enough help for you to buy a house?

Why don't you just post whatever you want to actually say instead of all these vague and leading posts? I don't think anyone is taking your bait.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

Let's not say I claim anything. I'm not asking for additional money directly coming to me. I would like to see the govt wisely spend the tax yield to help the housing crisis (as well as the myriad other problems in Ireland). Build more, build quickly - assist those with proven ability to pay to get a house. To some this is a socialist lib dream factory but here I am.

But the scheme you mentioned earlier would be just that?

optogirl wrote: »

.......... I am hoping that the government can introduce some schemes whereby a person can rent & save for a decent deposit reasonably............

The_Brood

The question is how are there large protests and street rallies for so many things, but one thing that should be fundamental and unite people - housing that is at least somewhat approaching adequate and/or affordable - gets nothing but internet murmurs. Of course the government isn't going to do anything if it's not being protested and continuously squeezed into action.

na1

optogirl wrote: »

Let's not say I claim anything. I'm not asking for additional money directly coming to me. I would like to see the govt wisely spend the tax yield to help the housing crisis (as well as the myriad other problems in Ireland). Build more, build quickly - assist those with proven ability to pay to get a house. To some this is a socialist lib dream factory but here I am.

If the extra tax money you're willing to pay is enough to help the government to buy you a house, then why its not enough in the first place?

optogirl

Augeo wrote: »

But the scheme you mentioned earlier would be just that?

I didn't mention a particular scheme. I said I am hopeful that the government could introduce schemes. Schemes that might take rates being paid in rent into account, facilitate loans using that as collateral etc etc. If you consider that a handout, then that's fair enough. We disagree. I am of the opinion that a welfare state is a good thing, much as that might lead you to scoff and sneer at me.

dotsman

xckjoo wrote: »

Other countries have built upwards though and they still have issues so I disagree that it's the solution. Maybe part of the solution, but not the "one and only solution".

But might that not be a case of "they haven't built up enough" or they have gone about it the wrong way. If 3 million people want to live in a city that only has suitable accommodation for 2.5 million, regardless of how tall the buildings, then you are still going to have huge rent/price pressure. However, if that same city built up a bit more and was providing suitable accommodation to 3.2 million people, then rent/prices would be fine.

I'm not saying we simply build a bunch of tall apartment blocks in random places and "problem solved". I'm talking about strategic planning - designating high and medium density locations in the city that are properly serviced (transport/shops/schools/hospitals/bars etc), interconnected, with strong homeowner/landlord/tenant rights & properly enforced regulations/laws and provide more than enough units, not just for today's population, but always able to accommodate upcoming (in the near-term) population trends.

The underlying issue is the scarcity of land - you can't make more land, but you can use the land you have more effectively. And that is something we simply don't do. We have so many 2 and 3 story houses/shops (and 4 stories generally the max) right bang in the city center, it is beyond a joke.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

........Schemes that might take rates being paid in rent into account, facilitate loans using that as collateral etc etc...............

A scheme that takes rental payments as collateral ?
A rent to buy scheme is it?

Your problem seems to be you either don't have a deposit or you don't have an income sufficent to buy property that suits your needs/expectations. Schemes most likely won't sort that for you.

optogirl

Augeo wrote: »

A scheme that takes rental payments as collateral ?
A rent to buy scheme is it?

Your problem seems to be you either don't have a deposit or you don't have an income sufficent to buy property that suits your needs/expectations. Schemes most likely won't sort that for you.

correct - I am saving towards a deposit. And no, I don't have sufficient income to buy a house at current prices. Yes, a decent rent to buy scheme where the government owns the house would be lovely, thanks.

Meanwhile my rent is going up 4% year on year and friends are being evicted only for the property to be back up on Daft a couple of months later at a much higher price. It is worrying & stressful however I already know that your opinion is 'tough luck' so there's not much point in going on and on.

na1

optogirl wrote: »

Meanwhile my rent is going up 4% year on year and friends are being evicted only for the property to be back up on Daft a couple of months later at a much higher price. It is worrying & stressful however I already know that your opinion is 'tough luck' so there's not much point in going on and on.

You obviously didn't consider this situation when you were planning to rent forever?

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

.......... I already know that your opinion is 'tough luck' so there's not much point in going on and on.

Well that's in the context of you only recently deciding that you want to buy a house after previously planning being a renter for life. I imagine you've spent a decade + NOT attempting to save for a deposit as you didn't need one and your career choice may also be not conducive to buying where you want to live.

Also you stated you are in favour of a welfare state, I think welfare is for where there's a genuine need.

optogirl

na1 wrote: »

You obviously didn't consider this situation when you were planning to rent forever?

I didn't 'plan' to rent forever. I was happy renting and saw no reason that I would have to stop. I didn't foresee the rapid massive hike in rents. I certainly didn't consider all situations - I still don't because how could you possibly plan for all and every situation?

I also am glad I didn't spend my youth worrying about property booms

optogirl

Augeo wrote: »

Well that's in the context of you only recently deciding that you want to buy a house after previously planning being a renter for life. I imagine you've spent a decade + NOT attempting to save for a deposit as you didn't need one and your career choice may also be not conducive to buying where you want to live.

Also you stated you are in favour of a welfare state, I think welfare is for where there's a genuine need.

I've been consistently saving for over 10 years but yes, not at a rate that is conducive to my buying a house at this stage.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

I didn't 'plan' to rent forever. I was happy renting and saw no reason that I would have to stop. I didn't foresee the rapid massive hike in rents. I certainly didn't consider all situations - I still don't because how could you possibly plan for all and every situation?

I certainly got the impression that renting forever was indeed your plan. Once your pension and inheritance etc went to plan for you.....

optogirl wrote: »

.................

I though that I could perhaps rent forever, including in old age, with pension, savings, inheritance etc. Naive? Probably.

na1

optogirl wrote: »

I didn't 'plan' to rent forever. I was happy renting and saw no reason that I would have to stop. I didn't foresee the rapid massive hike in rents. I certainly didn't consider all situations - I still don't because how could you possibly plan for all and every situation?

I'm not blaming you, I'm just asking.
What about people who were 'wise' enough to buy the houses before the property prices collapsed? Should the government help them out of negative equity?