Increase in population renting... ticking time bomb?

i might revert to the thrust of the point made in the OP by asking whether or not home ownership as pension pot isnt an aspect of irish unquestionable custom and practice that we need to destroy utterly.

seeing as the health of our entire banking/finance sector (and in fact our entire economy tbh) is already linked dependent to a ludicrous extent on the swelling of the housing market, why hasnt there been more moves/progress in taking out the "rainy day/retirement" element that practically begs for a continuation of the speculative function?

splitting retirement investment into its own well-established stream would benefit everyone except those alredy up to their necks in property debt and those up to their necks in the construction money

unfortunately thats well over half the country. oh well, carry on.

Sleeper12

Augeo wrote:

I'd say the modern society accommodates these issues very well compared to 20, 30, 40 years ago etc etc. Still work to do no doubt.

I'm 50 and when I was a child they had a an idea about dyslexia but not autism. You just had to learn to do things differently in your own way. I often wonder wou I have left school at 14 if diagnosed & had help in school.

Anyway that's for some other thread

beauf

What are the alternatives to property for investment and pension planning.

the_syco

Staplor wrote: »

Like an old people ghetto?

Yes. A ghetto where old people go to die. Death ghetto?

Sometimes called a hospice.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

What are the alternatives to property for investment and pension planning.

A diversified portfolio of stocks. S&P500 , FTSE100 index funds or ETFs or similar.

Investing on a monthly basis for decades and you should do well. Look at how those funds reacted after 9 11 & 2008..... relatively quick recovery.

The risk with property is that you buy at a single point in time usually with borrowed money, as an investment property is ludicrous is many ways.

Wanderer78

Augeo wrote:

A diversified portfolio of stocks. S&P500 , FTSE100 index funds or ETFs or similar.

Maybe the use of sovereign wealth funds could also be used to truly benefit all in society in the purchase of such stocks and shares?

ted1

It’s a fairly simple simple solution. The OAP. Could just stop paying rent. By the time they are evicted they’ll be dead.

Cupatae

Wanderer78 wrote: »

'unearned income', an interesting term, and this is a lot more complicated than 'the wealthy'

its not really, its quiet simple, some people cant afford houses, there for dont get one, you have people there with lots of properties and are making a mint off em and rightly so!

What do people think is gonna happen? if you cant pay the rent ur out, its tough **** really... or should we go hard luck and give them free houses?

Sleeper12

Cupatae wrote:

What do people think is gonna happen? if you cant pay the rent ur out, its tough **** really... or should we go hard luck and give them free houses?

There wasn't any problems with the old council housing. People paid rent for 30 or 40 years, then they had the option to buy the house at a greatly reduced price. This worked very well. Problem is that the councils stopped building.

No one should get a free house but I have no problem with social housing. It worked for decades & it can work again.

The council house thing got families buying their own homes that never would have had a chance otherwise. Housing estates built in the 50s & 60s changed people's lives and they didn't get it for free.

Everyone deserves a leg up imo. That's not to say a free house for life. Leg up but asked to pay a reasonable amount towards it

Cupatae

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There wasn't any problems with the old council housing. People paid rent for 30 or 40 years, then they had the option to buy the house at a greatly reduced price. This worked very well. Problem is that the councils stopped building.

No one should get a free house but I have no problem with social housing. It worked for decades & it can work again.

The council house thing got families buying their own homes that never would have had a chance otherwise. Housing estates built in the 50s & 60s changed people's lives and they didn't get it for free.

Everyone deserves a leg up imo. That's not to say a free house for life. Leg up but asked to pay a reasonable amount towards it

Can we give everyone a social house then at a reduced cost? sur thats a handy way out of it if we can..

Sleeper12

Cupatae wrote:

Can we give everyone a social house then at a reduced cost? sur thats a handy way out of it if we can..

Not everyone needs one but this system has worked for decades. Council gets paid back & they invest the money in more property.

What exactly do you have against it? Remembering that we pay HAP & the likes anyway. We spent millions per month putting people in emergency accommodation

Mrs OBumble

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not everyone needs one but this system has worked for decades. Council gets paid back & they invest the money in more property.

]

Paid back?

Do you have any idea of the level of rent arrears which council tenants clock up? Any how it's almost impossible to evict them, because they gave nowhere else to go.

antoinolachtnai

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not everyone needs one but this system has worked for decades. Council gets paid back & they invest the money in more property.

What exactly do you have against it? Remembering that we pay HAP & the likes anyway. We spent millions per month putting people in emergency accommodation

It hasn't worked out. Part of the reason we don't have enough social housing is that the local authorities have sold their stock.

It would be great if the council was getting full price for the houses. But they aren't. The whole thing turns into wealth transfer, from the taxpayer (through the local authority) to a small group of private individuals.

Look at the sums. HAP is a pretty cheap way of providing accommodation especially when you take into account the tax take.

The Student

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not everyone needs one but this system has worked for decades. Council gets paid back & they invest the money in more property.

What exactly do you have against it? Remembering that we pay HAP & the likes anyway. We spent millions per month putting people in emergency accommodation

That's the point, the system does not work. The Council has not reinvested the money, nor have the tenants taking some responsibility for themselves. When a council gives a property to a tenant be it council owned or privately rented through HAP the property is supposed to meet current building regs.

Why? if a property is habitable surely that is the most important point. I have said this before, we have this bizarre idea that everybody feels they are entitled to a home, I agree that we have a responsibility to house people but not where they dictate they want to live.

What really irritates me is the "forever home" mantra. If the state is housing you at a subsidized rate that you must accept the fact that it is not your "forever home" if you want your "forever home" then buy it.

What people fail to understand is that the State is getting back over half the rent they pay each month without any of the hassles of maintenance, failure to pay rent, anti social behavior etc.

Sleeper12

The Student wrote: »

That's the point, the system does not work. The Council has not reinvested the money, nor have the tenants taking some responsibility for themselves. When a council gives a property to a tenant be it council owned or privately rented through HAP the property is supposed to meet current building regs.

Why? if a property is habitable surely that is the most important point. I have said this before, we have this bizarre idea that everybody feels they are entitled to a home, I agree that we have a responsibility to house people but not where they dictate they want to live.

What really irritates me is the "forever home" mantra. If the state is housing you at a subsidized rate that you must accept the fact that it is not your "forever home" if you want your "forever home" then buy it.

What people fail to understand is that the State is getting back over half the rent they pay each month without any of the hassles of maintenance, failure to pay rent, anti social behavior etc.

The system worked perfectly for decades


St Annes housing estate in Raheny was built in the 50s. Council built it as as rent to buy scheme. First in the country I think. The 501 houses built gave 501 familys a chance of owning their own home. That has to work out at 3000 to 5000 people housed in this estate. I lived & still live within a mile of this estate. My own family were private home but I went to school with kids from St Annes & I know a lot of them. Here's the important part of the story, almost all of the 3000 to 5000 people that the estate housed & rared from 1950s to 1990s went on to buy their own homes in private estates. This scheme gave whole families a chance to better themselves & it worked. Remember the councils never lost money on these estates. In fact there would be a small proffit after 30 or 40 years



This is what we need to get back to. It's proven to work. This type of setup failed around the time we got rid of the rates. Can't say if rates had anything to do with it but around that time the councils just stopped building.


HAP, rent allowance etc have failed

delboythedub

People living in private rentals will end up in real trouble as they will need 750,000 in a private pension just to pay their rent (2000) alone and that's before the switch on a light bulb or buy food. I dont know what is going to happen if the state don't dig them out. Mind boggles.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The_Conductor wrote: »

GNP is probably a better measure in the case of Greece and Ireland- and coincidentally- its roughly US$260 for Ireland and US$300 billion for Greece (in 2016 terms). Ireland has a population of 4.7m, Greece has a population of 10.4m. Ireland has a national debt of over 200billion and is expected to peak at 260billion by 2022- Greece has a national debt which is expected to peak at 404billion, also by 2022.

Ireland's debt to GDP ratio is flattered by the large number of multinationals who are theoretically HQ'ed here- if you strip them out of the equation- and remove the unfair corporation taxes that have been giving our exchequer an unexpected lifeline (particularly over the last 3 years)- the picture tells a very different story.

Ireland may have a signficantly higher GDP per head of population- than does Greece- however, its not a fair comparator- and it ignores the cost of living here- and the theoretical PPIs (as measured by Eurostat) which paint a rather depressing picture- which obviously it is not in our politicians interest's to discuss..........

Greece is a basketcase- and isn't out of the woods by any means- however, they're in good company............ We're playing ostrich, sticking our heads in the sand- because politically its toxic to try and discuss these things in the open.

You can’t really exclude corporation tax since it is hardly going to disappear. If it did disappear so would much wage taxation.

Topgear on Dave

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In fact there would be a small proffit after 30 or 40 years

Sleeper you've hit the nail on the head with this line.

For the council to build they cannot wait 30 or 40 years for a small profit because they need to put up enormous sums of money upfront.

The cost of building is ridiculous.

Lux23

I see this from the other perspective. On my road, there are five couples in their 70s living in 3/4 bedroom houses that they're just rolling them around and a scheme to get them to consider moving on to free up some of the older housing stock might be an idea. Then there are couples or single in their 40s/50s with no kids paying a mortgage on a house they don't need. There are several single people with no kids living beside my parent's house in Swords and families crying out for homes. I understand they worked hard for them, but why aren't developers and planners considering this increasing demographic more.

delboythedub

delboythedub wrote: »

People living in private rentals will end up in real trouble............

Many of them will sort themselves out over the coming decades, many more won't bother or won't be able to.

They'll all (99% ish I reckon) end up ok ish relative to their endeavours over their working lives. By ish I mean those who work hard for 40 odd years might well be not much better off than those who did SFA for 40 years
Social welfare, it's really not as bad as it's made out to be.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Cupatae wrote: »

its not really, its quiet simple, some people cant afford houses, there for dont get one, you have people there with lots of properties and are making a mint off em and rightly so!

What do people think is gonna happen? if you cant pay the rent ur out, its tough **** really... or should we go hard luck and give them free houses?

We used to build free (or cheap) houses. Anyway is a majority of people are in the rental sector then political parties will start to represent them.

PokeHerKing

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The Student wrote: »

That's the point, the system does not work. The Council has not reinvested the money, nor have the tenants taking some responsibility for themselves. When a council gives a property to a tenant be it council owned or privately rented through HAP the property is supposed to meet current building regs.

Why? if a property is habitable surely that is the most important point. I have said this before, we have this bizarre idea that everybody feels they are entitled to a home, I agree that we have a responsibility to house people but not where they dictate they want to live.

What really irritates me is the "forever home" mantra. If the state is housing you at a subsidized rate that you must accept the fact that it is not your "forever home" if you want your "forever home" then buy it.

What people fail to understand is that the State is getting back over half the rent they pay each month without any of the hassles of maintenance, failure to pay rent, anti social behavior etc.

The system worked perfectly for decades


St Annes housing estate in Raheny was built in the 50s. Council built it as as rent to buy scheme. First in the country I think. The 501 houses built gave 501 familys a chance of owning their own home. That has to work out at 3000 to 5000 people housed in this estate. I lived & still live within a mile of this estate. My own family were private home but I went to school with kids from St Annes & I know a lot of them. Here's the important part of the story, almost all of the 3000 to 5000 people that the estate housed & rared from 1950s to 1990s went on to buy their own homes in private estates. This scheme gave whole families a chance to better themselves & it worked. Remember the councils never lost money on these estates. In fact there would be a small proffit after 30 or 40 years



This is what we need to get back to. It's proven to work. This type of setup failed around the time we got rid of the rates. Can't say if rates had anything to do with it but around that time the councils just stopped building.


HAP, rent allowance etc have failed

I agree with half of your post. Rates are definitely a big part of the problem. People paying the council 50e a week to live in Dublin city centre is bonkers.
I do not agree with selling the house onto social welfare recipients. The governments housing stock has diminished for two reason, not building and selling existing stock.
Bring back proper rates where people still need to work to pay the council a reduced rent and use this money to build new stock. Build different types of social housing and move people out of family homes into smaller social housing when they're older. They die there and the cycle is full circle.
DO NOT sell them this property at a reduced rate. That is complete nonsense and you would really have to ask yourself what idiot ever thought it was a good idea!

Topgear on Dave

PokeHerKing wrote: »

DO NOT sell them this property at a reduced rate. That is complete nonsense and you would really have to ask yourself what idiot ever thought it was a good idea!

The tenants.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

We used to build free (or cheap) houses. Anyway is a majority of people are in the rental sector then political parties will start to represent them.

You'll be waiting a while for that to be the case.
Many folk renting move on to purchase.

The Student

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The system worked perfectly for decades


St Annes housing estate in Raheny was built in the 50s. Council built it as as rent to buy scheme. First in the country I think. The 501 houses built gave 501 familys a chance of owning their own home. That has to work out at 3000 to 5000 people housed in this estate. I lived & still live within a mile of this estate. My own family were private home but I went to school with kids from St Annes & I know a lot of them. Here's the important part of the story, almost all of the 3000 to 5000 people that the estate housed & rared from 1950s to 1990s went on to buy their own homes in private estates. This scheme gave whole families a chance to better themselves & it worked. Remember the councils never lost money on these estates. In fact there would be a small proffit after 30 or 40 years

This is what we need to get back to. It's proven to work. This type of setup failed around the time we got rid of the rates. Can't say if rates had anything to do with it but around that time the councils just stopped building.


HAP, rent allowance etc have failed

People don't want to take responsibility for themselves. Yes the State should help those who need it. I would not be sure the council did not lose money on the estates. The maintenance costs etc, non payment of rents etc.

Council rents are set at differential rates yet we have council tenants in arrears. So how can we say that this type of set up worked? As the rents are set at affordable levels there should be no arrears (or only a small portion).

Ireland has changed since the 50's and 60's we have become more of an entitlement culture were we all seem to want want want without being willing to actually work for things.

Dr_Kolossus

So the state should build houses, rent them at reduced rates then sell them at a loss?

People who say this worked in the past are crazy. It worked out for the minority of the people lucky enough to be part if the scheme i agree, but screwed over the majority who missed out.

Its like a parent who has 4 kids and 400k. All kids grow up and need a home, but for some reason have no money andi jobs. Parent says here you go 1st kid, have all 400 to yourself, buy a house. Other three you need to fend for yourself, try to find jobs while you are homeless, and struggling. Instead of spreading out the money on rentals until all 4 get a chance to find their feet.
Not very fair?

Sleeper12

Dr_Kolossus wrote:

So the state should build houses, rent them at reduced rates then sell them at a loss?

This never happened in the past. They always made a profit.

Why do you now suggest that they should make a loss? Terrible idea imo. Stick to the old plan and make a profit

Franz Von Peppercorn

Augeo wrote: »

You'll be waiting a while for that to be the case.
Many folk renting move on to purchase.

You’re not following this thread. It’s getting harder to buy and some renters are stuck for life. Also they buy later. This is a large constituency for political votes.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This never happened in the past. They always made a profit.

Why do you now suggest that they should make a loss? Terrible idea imo. Stick to the old plan and make a profit

They shouldn’t be sold though as it reduces the further income the councils can earn.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The Student wrote: »

People don't want to take responsibility for themselves. Yes the State should help those who need it. I would not be sure the council did not lose money on the estates. The maintenance costs etc, non payment of rents etc.

Council rents are set at differential rates yet we have council tenants in arrears. So how can we say that this type of set up worked? As the rents are set at affordable levels there should be no arrears (or only a small portion).

Ireland has changed since the 50's and 60's we have become more of an entitlement culture were we all seem to want want want without being willing to actually work for things.

And yet there were more council houses back then. How does that work with the supposed entitlement culture.