Increase in population renting... ticking time bomb?

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Evidence is growing though............

Evidence is also growing that as with previous generations we'll face challenges etc but those that get up and strive to make something of their life, get somewhere, pay their way and their taxes generally end up in a decent enough situation.

Those that like things to happen for them and get handed things might no doubt find that there is less trickling down to them compared to decades ago, I'd see that as tough sh1t tbh

Back in the 90s folk were told at school that a leaving cert alone was not overly useful anymore and a trade, further or 3rd level education was the way to go. Two decades on that's still the case, moreso the case even.

The days of getting a low skilled job that pays well are gone unless you land into a pharmaceutical gig........even the likes of Musgraves are chopping T&Cs for their staff.

hinault

The rate of home ownership in Ireland has been on a downward trend from 2003-2016

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/home-ownership-rate

I suspect that even within that data the number of owner occupied home has been downward too.

Owning a property, but not dwelling in that property is another feature.

M.Cribben

professore wrote: »

Houses will be affordable in a generation as the population collapses. This is the biggest threat facing most of the world economies in the coming decades, population collapse

What population collapse?
The CSO are projecting population growth (in the Republic) to 6.7 million over the next 35 years.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/population-could-grow-to-6-7m-by-2051-says-cso-1.3537977

4068ac1elhodqr

professore wrote: »

UBI will just mean prices will rise to take all the UBI, especially rent. This is already happening as rent allowance puts a floor on rents.

Any discussion I've seen puts UBI at a lower rate than our social welfare payments, which are scrapped. It's paid for by removing all the admin and costs around social welfare (which wouldn't work here as the public servants can't be fired) coupled with extra taxes on earned income.

Having said all that I think it's a good idea, to incentivise work. Biggest problem is whether there will be enough work to go round.

Houses will be affordable in a generation as the population collapses...

Yes UBI isn't a perfect model and does have some risks such as hyper-inflation, but as always there is always wide range of financial instruments to reduce or manage this impact.

Mnay business owners in the US praise Trump for removing red-tape. If you remove the hassle and fear that folks on welfare currently have, of doing an 'odd days work here and there' the effects on national productivity will be immense. Pre-UBI can also be dressed up as 'Universal Credit'.

Ireland has postive birth rate, there is no population decline (+1m 2040). Not to mention the 700,000 currently queued up in Libya for entry to Europe.

Automation & the 4thIR isn't just AI, nor is it just 'robot's. It's very wide ranging, encompassing multiple technologies and processes. All that will matter is the effect on profit & loss accounts of corporations, sentiment counts for nothing.

At the end of the day people will be replaced, financial insecurity will arise, thus the need for more, better and cheaper rental housing. But this housing will also need to 'managed'.

In London when fancy new apartments are built, many can remain empty for years, as overseas investors snap them up, sit on them and wait for their 5/10yr ROI%.

tom1ie

The original question at the start of this thread was about how people, when they are older, can afford to pay rent from their pensions as there’s a good chance they won’t own a house.
My opinion is you can’t depend on pensions as they depend on financial markets and trustees. I’m not saying there’s no point in a pension, but I am saying it might not be wise to 100% depend on it.
Therefore your left with having to own property. But to own a property in Dublin, if you are on 40k a year for example, you wil have to take on a large debt, in the form of a mortgage, which as we all know makes the banks rich due to compound interest.
So the only plausible route is affordable housing (different from social housing). As I’ve outlined previously
Nama give councils free land
Government v.a.t drops to zero on affordable housing projects
Building materials are bought in bulk from manufacturers.
This could be done relatively quickly if there was political will.

Houses would be built for a lot cheaper and sold for non profit to working people who would have to take out smaller mortgages, that they could pay off earlier, thus allowing them to invest for their debt free future.
Banks still make money of these smaller mortgages, albeit less money.
Problem is how do you get through to our greedy politicians and rudderless civil servants?

antoinolachtnai

You can’t buy building materials at a discount like that. What you gain on the purchase price you will lose on storage, distribution and shrinkage. It is a dream to think there is significant saving there.

The problem with giving free sites is that the local authority suffers a big balance sheet loss. It doesn’t have the funds to replenish its land bank. Taxpayers lose and private holders get a big gain.

Zero rating these houses for VAT is the same, it is really just the same as writing a cheque for 20 grand to the house purchaser.

Subsidizing housing in this way could also reduce the amount of private housing being built because they didn’t get free land and zero Vat. This could mean that you’d have no net increase in building activity.

A lot of the cost of a house is finance, which really represents uncertainty about the future of the housing market.

That said it does make sense to release council land with the intention of driving down land prices.

It does make sense for the government to provide greater certainty for developers (local authority, AHB or private) to reduce finance costs.

It makes sense to introduce measures to increase the capacity of the construction sector.

tom1ie

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You can’t buy building materials at a discount like that. What you gain on the purchase price you will lose on storage, distribution and shrinkage. It is a dream to think there is significant saving there.

The problem with giving free sites is that the local authority suffers a big balance sheet loss. It doesn’t have the funds to replenish its land bank. Taxpayers lose and private holders get a big gain.

Zero rating these houses for VAT is the same, it is really just the same as writing a cheque for 20 grand to the house purchaser.

Subsidizing housing in this way could also reduce the amount of private housing being built because they didn’t get free land and zero Vat. This could mean that you’d have no net increase in building activity.

A lot of the cost of a house is finance, which really represents uncertainty about the future of the housing market.

That said it does make sense to release council land with the intention of driving down land prices.

It does make sense for the government to provide greater certainty for developers (local authority, AHB or private) to reduce finance costs.

It makes sense to introduce measures to increase the capacity of the construction sector.

Material can quite easily be stored in containers for example on sites where 1000 houses are being built, concrete blocks, insulation, plasterboard, roof slates, rebar, piping, etc does not shrink. There is very little distribution costs as they are stored on site. There are the same distribution costs a builders suppliers would pay to stock the shop.

How does the local authority suffer a big balance sheet loss if they’ve been given the land for free from Nama or other state companies?

Zero rating v.a.t means the council who are getting the houses built will not have to pay the government v.a.t which the government will have accounted for. This v.a.t reduction is passed onto the house buyer.

Topgear on Dave

tom1ie wrote: »

Material can quite easily be stored in containers for example on sites where 1000 houses are being built, concrete blocks, insulation, plasterboard, roof slates, rebar, piping, etc does not shrink.

If you know building sites you will know they don't shrink they *disappear* :pac::pac: (stolen)

tom1ie wrote: »

How does the local authority suffer a big balance sheet loss if they’ve been given the land for free from Nama or other state companies?

Zero rating v.a.t means the council who are getting the houses built will not have to pay the government v.a.t which the government will have accounted for. This v.a.t reduction is passed onto the house buyer.

Nothing is free in this world.

tom1ie

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

If you know building sites you will know they don't shrink they *disappear* :pac::pac: (stolen)



Nothing is free in this world.

It is free from Nama to the council. It’s all state owned. The state have a problem with housing. They also have large amounts of land available that they don’t need to charge themselves for.

Topgear on Dave

tom1ie wrote: »

It is free from Nama to the council. It’s all state owned. The state have a problem with housing. They also have large amounts of land available that they don’t need to charge themselves for.

Its all state owned land. Im just saying its not "free".

It has a value.

Houses could be built on the land (I'm not for a minute saying that this is wrong at all)

Or

The land could be sold and the proceeds put into lets say a hospital, roads, education etc

tom1ie

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Its all state owned land. Im just saying its not "free".

It has a value.

Houses could be built on the land (I'm not for a minute saying that this is wrong at all)

Or

The land could be sold and the proceeds put into lets say a hospital, roads, education etc

But the major problem is housing. This thread is about how people will afford to have a roof over their heads when they are older. I am presenting a soloution with affordable hosing. The reason it’s affordable is because of my previous points.
We can argue about building a hospital or whatever on the land, but if you want to build housing and sell it at affordable levels, then free land that the state already owns is a good start.
Or do you disagree?

Topgear on Dave

tom1ie wrote: »

But the major problem is housing. This thread is about how people will afford to have a roof over their heads when they are older. I am presenting a soloution with affordable hosing. The reason it’s affordable is because of my previous points.
We can argue about building a hospital or whatever on the land, but if you want to build housing and sell it at affordable levels, then free land that the state already owns is a good start.
Or do you disagree?

Yes I agree that housing is a major problem. But not the ONLY major problem.
And not a problem for quite a large section of voters.

But I disagree with you saying that the land is "free".

tom1ie

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Yes I agree that housing is a major problem. But not the ONLY major problem.
And not a problem for quite a large section of voters.

But I disagree with you saying that the land is "free".

Ok in the context of Nama giving land for 1000 houses to, for example, south Dublin county council, for nothing, what would you call that in monetary terms?

tom1ie

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Yes I agree that housing is a major problem. But not the ONLY major problem.
And not a problem for quite a large section of voters.

But I disagree with you saying that the land is "free".

Also your missing the point. You say not a problem for quite a large section of voters, but these voters probably have mortgages. If they have mortgages they have debt. If they bought in the last couple of years in Dublin, the mortgage probably won’t be less than 350000.
This is a sizable amount of debt that is at the the mercy of European interest rates.

Arcade_Tryer

The rental crisis is a mess entirely of people's own choosing, mostly middle class Dublin property owners. Vehement opposition to high rise developments and other building plans exists in various parts of Dublin city which perpetuates the acceleration of increased rents and urban sprawl. C'est la vie.

tom1ie

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

The rental crisis is a mess entirely of people's own choosing, mostly middle class Dublin property owners. Vehement opposition to high rise developments and other building plans exists in various parts of Dublin city which perpetuates the acceleration of increased rents and urban sprawl. C'est la vie.

Really? So people who pay crazy rents choose to do this?

Arcade_Tryer

tom1ie wrote: »

Really? So people who pay crazy rents choose to do this?

Most middle aged people in Dublin are property owners and are far more concerned about their house value than people who have to pay crazy rents. They and their kin also tend to object to the aforementioned high rise and other developments.

tom1ie

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Most middle aged people in Dublin are property owners and are far more concerned about their house value than people who have to pay crazy rents. They and their kin also tend to object to the aforementioned high rise and other developments.

So what if they are property owners? What has that got to do with government not building affordable housing?

Arcade_Tryer

tom1ie wrote: »

So what if they are property owners? What has that got to do with government not building affordable housing?

Firstly, they oppose social/affordable housing near in their areas.

Secondly, social/affordable would not be such an issue if the property market was allowed to function e.g. height restrictions removed. The market is much more effective at solving the housing/rental crisis than the Government, but the market is being prevented from functioning due to various vested interests and a general opposition to building up in Dublin.

tom1ie

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Firstly, they oppose social/affordable housing near in their areas.

Secondly, social/affordable would not be such an issue if the property market was allowed to function e.g. height restrictions removed. The market is much more effective at solving the housing/rental crisis than the Government, but the market is being prevented from functioning due to various vested interests and a general opposition to building up in Dublin.

Ok. Fast track the affordable housing.
People won’t object to AFFORDABLE housing as it’s not SOCIAL housing. Your getting mixed up.
People take out mortgages from banks to get affordable housing that I’m suggesting.
They are NOT on council waiting list. This is like private developments with the profiteering builder replaced by a not for profit council.

Please read my previous posts!

Graces7

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Firstly, they oppose social/affordable housing near in their areas.

Secondly, social/affordable would not be such an issue if the property market was allowed to function e.g. height restrictions removed. The market is much more effective at solving the housing/rental crisis than the Government, but the market is being prevented from functioning due to various vested interests and a general opposition to building up in Dublin.

What they call NIMBYism.. As happened when modular housing was mooted...

I grew up in war torn UK in the immediate post war years. Cities and towns bombed out... Homelessness that makes Ireland look ..Many thousands suddenly homeless and traumatised . They rose to the situation. Acres of prefabs, ie small modular houses. New build; we moved into a new house in 1946.. War ended in 1945. Mortgages were made easy.
Many fended for themselves; one girl at school lived in an old railway carriage on a disused line,

If this is an emergency it needs to be treated as such. And objections overridden

tom1ie

Graces7 wrote: »

What they call NIMBYism.. As happened when modular housing was mooted...

I grew up in war torn UK in the immediate post war years. Cities and towns bombed out... Homelessness that makes Ireland look ..Many thousands suddenly homeless and traumatised . They rose to the situation. Acres of prefabs, ie small modular houses. New build; we moved into a new house in 1946.. War ended in 1945. Mortgages were made easy.
Many fended for themselves; one girl at school lived in an old railway carriage on a disused line,

If this is an emergency it needs to be treated as such. And objections overridden

I share your thoughts, it really is an emergency, not just for the homeless, but for the ordinary workers who get trapped in the mortgage debt wheel that they can barely afford.

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

............ the ordinary workers who get trapped in the mortgage debt wheel that they can barely afford.

I can assure you there's no one looking out for them.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

I can assure you there's no one looking out for them.

You say “them”. I take it that means your not in that bracket? There has to be a way to start looking after this large majority section of society. The established political parties have turned there back on us.

antoinolachtnai

tom1ie wrote: »

You say “them”. I take it that means your not in that bracket? There has to be a way to start looking after this large majority section of society. The established political parties have turned there back on us.

By and large people who own something are in a better position than people in the private rented sector. Anyone who got a mortgage in the last few years is almost certainly paying less per month on a mortgage than they would be paying in rent for the same property.

People on low incomes depending on private rented accommodation are the people getting the worst deal. The squeeze from the whole market is coming down on them.

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

You say “them”. I take it that means your not in that bracket? There has to be a way to start looking after this large majority section of society. The established political parties have turned there back on us.

Depends on what the bracket is.
I don't buy property that I can barely afford.

tom1ie

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

By and large people who own something are in a better position than people in the private rented sector. Anyone who got a mortgage in the last few years is almost certainly paying less per month on a mortgage than they would be paying in rent for the same property.

People on low incomes depending on private rented accommodation are the people getting the worst deal. The squeeze from the whole market is coming down on them.

Totally agree, but if you build affordable housing, and sell it on not for profit, that means people paying crazy rent can now afford to repay an acceptable mortgage. This has a knock on effect of lowering massive rents due to the demand for rental properties lowering considerably.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

Depends on what the bracket is.
I don't buy property that I can barely afford.

Neither do I but the problem is lots of people do and don’t really have any other option.

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

Neither do I but the problem is lots of people do and don’t really have any other option.

And as I said u can assure you there's no one looking out for them. If anything the loony left see them as middle class and fair game to tax more to provide funding for others to be housed.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

And as I said u can assure you there's no one looking out for them. If anything the loony left see them as middle class and fair game to tax more to provide funding for others to be housed.

So we’ve identified the problem which is political so what do we do about it?