No wonder millennials can't afford a mortgage

Franz Von Peppercorn

Augeo wrote: »

Rents were on the floor if you go back to 2010/2012, renters will never be better off compared to then ........

So let me answer the question you are refusing to answer.

No. Economic growth doesn’t benefit everybody, not if a lot of the growth goes to extractive rentiers.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s nice but are they doing better in the growing economy?

You started off saying that good economies benefit everybody. Then there’s the attack on the unemployed ( out of nowhere). Lots of goal post shifting. Why bring up the people who want a free house at all?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

So let me answer the question you are refusing to answer.

No. Economic growth doesn’t benefit everybody, not if a lot of the growth goes to extractive rentiers.

Well someone renting in a growing economy who gets a few quid extra due to reduced tax is benefiting as opposed to that tax not being reduced.

If they live in Dublin and use the new Luas routes they are benefiting also.

If their rent increases their expenditure on housing increases, obviously. That doesn't negate the fact they are benefitting from an improved economy. Especially if they are now employed compared to being unemployed and living with the folks before the economy grew over the last 5/7 years

Do you think one can't benefit from a growing economy just because your rent increases? That's a bizarre view.
Just because my answers don't suit you does not mean I am "refusing to answer" btw.

mariaalice

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I don’t know what exactly he believes re distribution. I think high paid workers pay enough. Corporations don’t but that’s a separate issue.

However the idea that a growth economy helps everybody is clearly false. It used to, but there’s been a disconnect between wage growth and economic growth recently. And of course renters aren’t better off compared to a few years ago.

You have hit the central point of the matter, Bar the blip of the last downturn the problem of unemployment or more correctly access to economic wealth plus access to a high standard of education has been solved for most in the western world. The big problem is it now only provided for a precarious lifestyle if you are single.

What has happened is that the status and income of a lot of professions have dropped while those in IT and specialised financial services has soared which leads to teachers, professionals, nurses ect and those in the public service getting angry and upset as they were lead to believe that the professions were the keys to comfortable middle-class lifestyle which they certainly would have been in the past.

It is perfectly acceptable to wonder how they have a masters in whatever and can't get the same house as their parents who managed to buy a house aged 23 and with a job as a carpenter and retail worker.

In the early 90s secondary teachers and most parents with any interest in their kids were peddling a speel that you'd need a degree or a trade to get any sort of decent job and that the LC alone was going to be fairly useless.

That turned out to be the case. Now a degree, trade or being a nurse etc doesn't give the key to middle class heaven, shock horror.

Now there are plenty in the PS doing clerical work (€10/hour jobs in the private sector) earning almost as much if not more than nurses and AGS etc. That's looney as well but it won't be addressed.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

mariaalice

Augeo wrote: »

In the early 90s secondary teachers and most parents with any interest in their kids were peddling a speel that you'd need a degree or a trade to get any sort of decent job and that the LC alone was going to be fairly useless.

That turned out to be the case. Now a degree, trade or being a nurse etc doesn't give the key to middle class heaven, shock horror.

But that is what is going on if we have the professions our children has back in the 1980s we were starting out we would have been very well off. The area where I lived with my first husband in the 1980s to buy today you would need to be a millionaire no exaggeration.

Markcheese

There's lots of factors..
I spend more on my phone bill monthly than I do on electricity... And that's an on going expense, there is higher car ownership and use.. More people do eat out, spend on coffee ect,..... On the flip side less is spent on fags and in pubs..
The Building cost of Houses and whats in them is significantly higher.. 70s /80s houses were thrown up very cheaply
The big difference now though is the site value..
And that seems to be being protected by government... It's a tightrope

Wanderer78

Markcheese wrote: »

There's lots of factors..
I spend more on my phone bill monthly than I do on electricity... And that's an on going expense, there is higher car ownership and use.. More people do eat out, spend on coffee ect,..... On the flip side less is spent on fags and in pubs..
The Building cost of Houses and whats in them is significantly higher.. 70s /80s houses were thrown up very cheaply
The big difference now though is the site value..
And that seems to be being protected by government... It's a tightrope

is it time for a land value tax?

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

But that is what is going on if we have the professions our children has back in the 1980s we were starting out we would have been very well off...........

No doubt, because back then not as many went to 3rd level or further education. Many left school at 16.

Now a trade or 3rd level qualification is required to land most semi decent jobs and as mentioned there is an over supply of arts, commerce, marketing, etc graduates so there's no need for high salaries to get them in the door as there's loads of them about.

Patrick2010

troyzer wrote: »

I'm a millenial. Depends on the day of course but most days I'd be getting lunch and dinner at around the €10-€15 mark. Weetabix in the morning. Job done.

I make €30k a year. That's why I can't afford a mortgage. You can buy a six pack of avocados in Lidl for €2. I don't know why old farts keep latching onto avocados as the reason why millenials have it ****. And we do have it ****.

Sound for leaving us all of that debt and making it impossible for us to ever leave the nest.

Have you explained this to your parents and have they apologized?

mariaalice

It's like a whack a mole game, whack and the problem of unemployment is solved whack and access to third level educations for everyone is solved but look over there problems like accesses to housing and other problems are popping up over all over the place.

for anyone coming back with "why dont YOU try it if it's so easy?!?!?!!" when there's the first hint of doubt about the provision of large amounts of social housing in high-demand areas, two points-

- i dont want to try it. ive tried living in areas surrounded by social housing and it was sh1t, mainly because of social housing tenants, thanks for asking

- i also dont particularly want to pay for other people to try it, either through higher taxes out of my income or in the knock-on effect to housing costs for everyone else when large tracts of premium land are set aside for a particular group

much like "free houses arent free!" can we put this nonsense retort to bed please

oceanman

Deleted User wrote: »

for anyone coming back with "why dont YOU try it if it's so easy?!?!?!!" when there's the first hint of doubt about the provision of large amounts of social housing in high-demand areas, two points-

- i dont want to try it. ive tried living in areas surrounded by social housing and it was sh1t, mainly because of social housing tenants, thanks for asking

- i also dont particularly want to pay for other people to try it, either through higher taxes out of my income or in the knock-on effect to housing costs for everyone else when large tracts of premium land are set aside for a particular group

much like "free houses arent free!" can we put this nonsense retort to bed please

so your point is " free houses are free" is that what you are trying to say?

suicide_circus

if you don't work and you have a place to live, you have free accommodation.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Unfollows

oceanman

oceanman wrote: »

so your point is " free houses are free" is that what you are trying to say?

Well more than likely they're just mentioning that a tenner/week out of the dole and the taxtake from cigarettes smoked doesn't cover the full cost

Wanderer78

suicide_circus wrote: »

if you don't work and you have a place to live, you have free accommodation.

please do explain?

suicide_circus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

please do explain?

I honestly can't make that statement any more basic

Wanderer78

suicide_circus wrote: »

I honestly can't make that statement any more basic

fair enough, disagree of course

listermint

suicide_circus wrote: »

if you don't work and you have a place to live, you have free accommodation.

!00%

To make it even more basic as you put it. Anyone not working should go on the streets.


Right ?

suicide_circus

listermint wrote: »

!00%

To make it even more basic as you put it. Anyone not working should go on the streets.


Right ?

yes that's what I said. and anyone who is hungry should eat their children.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Why is this thread even veering off to the unemployed?

Op: millenials can’t afford houses because they spend too much money on avocado on toast.
Rational people: that’s not the reason. it’s the increase in house prices.
Irrational response: WHY DO PEOPLE WANT A FREE HOUSE!

BBFAN

The new Godwin is FREE HOUSE.

Doctor Jimbob

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Why is this thread even veering off to the unemployed?

Op: millenials can’t afford houses because they spend too much money on avocado on toast.
Rational people: that’s not the reason. it’s the increase in house prices.
Irrational response: WHY DO PEOPLE WANT A FREE HOUSE!

Rule 16(b) of After Hours: Everything is the unemployed's fault.

kuntboy

Property "investment" by landlords should be banned. Fukcing middleman leech slavers living off other people's work. All their bull5hit euphemisms they use to try and justify their exploitation of the poor. Scum of the earth.

kuntboy

kuntboy wrote: »

Property "investment" by landlords should be banned.............

Who do renters rent from if that happened?

suicide_circus

Augeo wrote: »

Who do renters rent from if that happened?

the government will give them free accommodation, duh.

listermint

Augeo wrote: »

Who do renters rent from if that happened?

Social housing . low cost housing and private housing mix.


I presume.



I have yet to see any idea put forward by the many in here who have put down the government doing anything. Its almost like they are happy with the status quo where the property market runs away with itself entirely and everyone is less well off (including the economy)

Deebles McBeebles

Houses in my town have mostly been bought up by landlords for the last 5/10 years. Surely it makes sense to limit how many houses are not owner occupied in a town lest it ruin said town?

Not sure why I got a bit Shakespearean at the end there.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Social housing . low cost housing and private housing mix.............

That means that every house or home is effectively owner occupied.
So if I want to move counties for work (I have done this multiple times) I can't rent a place ? Nor can I rent out my own place?

That's a fooking loony situation.

Loads and loads of the working population are transient by choice for parts of their careers. Be they apprentice accountants or builders working on large projects.

suicide_circus

listermint wrote: »

Social housing . low cost housing and private housing mix.


I presume.



I have yet to see any idea put forward to the many in here who have put down the government doing anything. Its almost like they are happy with the status quo where the property market runs away with itself entirely and everyone is less well off (including the economy)

yep, this is the answer if we want to move away from our current housing cycle. but this will require tax increases. enormous tax increases. the million or so low paid workers who currently pay no income tax will need to be brought into the tax pool. middle income families will need to be taxed a fair bit more. ditto for high earners. this will all be a difficult sell.

listermint

Augeo wrote: »

That means that every house or home is effectively owner occupied.
So if I want to move counties for work (I have done this multiple times) I can't rent a place ? Nor can I rent out my own place?

That's a fooking loony situation.

How ? Professional firms can run their own professional rentals.

We have a big lump of people who are small fry claiming to be landlords but just jumped on the own some property bandwagon that happened in the 90's/00's driven no doubt by the multitude of stupid property programs on the BBC and ITV during the same period. a large portion of our sitting government actually fit into this bracket too.

And these folks are free to just switch to AirBnB circumventing all sorts of planning laws and local business taxes with Gusto.

The system is an arse presently. And you are not offering any solutions at all. Just shouting down anything with the term 'social or affordable in it'


Genius!

fatherted1969

It's all fairly relative. I got my mortgage in 1995 earning around £60 a day. Mortgage was £189 per month. It wasn't all roses in those days either well not for me anyway

listermint

suicide_circus wrote: »

yep, this is the answer if we want to move away from our current housing cycle. but this will require tax increases. enormous tax increases. the million or so low paid workers who currently pay no income tax will need to be brought into the tax pool. middle income families will need to be taxed a fair bit more. ditto for high earners. this will all be a difficult sell.

Fine by me.

Its not a difficult sell if we stop wasting poxy money buying homes at twice their constructions costs all over the country.

We are wasting money tackling this problem , lets not even start on the emergency accommodation bills

listermint

fatherted1969 wrote: »

It's all fairly relative. I got my mortgage in 1995 earning around £60 a day. Mortgage was £189 per month. It wasn't all roses in those days either well not for me anyway

So your mortgage was 1/10th your salary then, nothing like todays costs.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Why is this thread even veering off to the unemployed?

Op: millenials can’t afford houses because they spend too much money on avocado on toast.
Rational people: that’s not the reason. it’s the increase in house prices.
Irrational response: WHY DO PEOPLE WANT A FREE HOUSE!

I heard a woman couldn't find room on the bus to carry on her free house so she left it by the side of the road because the social would give her a new one

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Social housing . low cost housing and private housing mix.


I presume..................

listermint wrote: »

How ? Professional firms can run their own professional rentals. .............

Professional firms are still landlords.
The chap suggested banning landlords.

No landlords means no properties for rent.

In the bolded piece above you didn't mention any landlords either, all of the options you detailed would be owner occupied, not for rent properties.

I'm not shouting down anyone btw

listermint wrote: »

Fine by me. .........

It might be fine by you but I doubt it'd be fine by all those who aren't paying tax currently.

kunst nugget

bluewolf wrote: »

I heard a woman couldn't find room on the bus to carry on her free house so she left it by the side of the road because the social would give her a new one

I bet it was one of those Nigerians.

suicide_circus

I said free accommodation not free house. and of course housing those who can't house themselves is the clear duty of any civilised society. but let's call it what it is - free accommodation.

listermint

Augeo wrote: »

Professional firms are still landlords.
The chap suggested banning landlords.

No landlords means no properties for rent.

In the bolded piece above you didn't mention any landlords either, all of the options you detailed would be owner occupied, not for rent properties.

I'm not shouting down anyone btw



It might be fine by you but I doubt it'd be fine by all those who aren't paying tax currently.

thems are the breaks, If we want to start balancing out the economy we need to balance out the housing. Its stifling growth right now. We are actively losing firms to Europe that may have migrated here post Brexit. We are actively losing high earning employees due to lack of housing. We are actively pushing lower earners out from where they are needed in the city.

We need to start somewhere and it has to be a multi pronged approach. There is no silver bullet and that means everything from AirBnB right back to local authority construction organised on a national level.


Its been apathy to date solely due to the fact of self interest inside government. and alot of it.

I can't see any political party bring low paid workers into the income tax net. It's unpalatable by the left, totally so.

fatherted1969

listermint wrote: »

fatherted1969 wrote: »

It's all fairly relative. I got my mortgage in 1995 earning around £60 a day. Mortgage was £189 per month. It wasn't all roses in those days either well not for me anyway

So your mortgage was 1/10th your salary then, nothing like todays costs.

My mistake, didn't realise a 1/10th of £1200 gross pay was £189. Car insurance in the 90s was far higher in terms of wages than it is now. First car insurance was £1500 on £3 per hour wages for me. Inflation was through the roof too for a long time in the late 80s early 90s. It wasn't easy for a lot of people in those days

listermint

fatherted1969 wrote: »

My mistake, didn't realise a 1/10th of £1200 gross pay was £189. Car insurance in the 90s was far higher in terms of wages than it is now. First car insurance was £1500 on £3 per hour wages for me. Inflation was through the roof too for a long time in the late 80s early 90s. It wasn't easy for a lot of people in those days

Oh im sorry sir, it was 15% of your wages to pay your mortgage. Today it makes up 30-40-50% of wages and more in some cases.

Also car insurance today is around that price for many many many people.

Sure Taxi Drivers insurance is 9000 Euro+


So tell me again whats 'all relative' Its pretty trite to say you had the same experience in 1995 when property quite simply was vastly more affordable. Especially on an average wage.

facehugger99

I graduated from college in 1997 and it was extremely difficult in the first couple of years to buy avocados.

Deebles McBeebles

facehugger99 wrote: »

I graduated from college in 1997 and it was extremely difficult in the first couple of years to buy avocados.

I think I remember you from that Trocaire ad.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Oh im sorry sir, it was 15% of your wages to pay your mortgage. Today it makes up 30-40-50% of wages and more in some cases............

Mortgage payments are 30/40/50% of people's gross wages?
I doubt that's true but the CB rules have tightened up to ensure that shouldn't happen going forward.

Someone on €50k who borrows €175k would pay back about €750/month over 30 years.

That's 18% of gross wages on the mortgage, to get that to the 30/40/50% you mention .........well ....... I'm puzzled tbh.

listermint wrote: »

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

Also car insurance today is around that price for many many many people.

Sure Taxi Drivers insurance is 9000 Euro+.........

But you wont' find many many many many people on 3 quid/hour.

suicide_circus

Augeo wrote: »

I can't see any political party bring low paid workers into the income tax net. It's unpalatable by the left, totally so.

which makes no sense. why would the left want people to not contribute taxes? Unless they're not real left at all

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

which makes no sense. why would the left want people to not contribute taxes? Unless they're not real left at all

"Sinn Féin wants a fair tax system, one in which all people and businesses pay their fair share. We want to scrap the Family Home Tax and Water Charges. We want to remove those on the minimum wage from the USC net. We also want to increase the overall tax take in a fair and progressive manner."

Well SinnFein want to remove those on the minimum wage from the USC net. Sinn Fein would be fairly left ?

suicide_circus

Augeo wrote: »

"Sinn Féin wants a fair tax system, one in which all people and businesses pay their fair share. We want to scrap the Family Home Tax and Water Charges. We want to remove those on the minimum wage from the USC net. We also want to increase the overall tax take in a fair and progressive manner."

Well SinnFein want to remove those on the minimum wage from the USC net. Sinn Fein would be fairly left ?

that's not left wing economics.

Wildly Boaring

I do not envy those who need to live in Dublin.

Whether they be millenials, gen x, gen y or whomever.

I'm 36. I've actively avoided working in Dublin since graduating.

Worked in Munster and Ulster and even longford/offally. Then few years in Midlands UK.

Down in Munster these days.

My rent has never been more than 10% of net pay.

My now wife was a bit worse off for first year or two out of college. Maybe rent at 20% net.

We saved like hell. I did nixers weekends. We both took harder jobs. I had to turn down couple nice cushy numbers.

Our first house was bought for cash. It wasn't mad money. It's in Munster but commutable to cork city or even limerick if stuck.

Its nice but small.

My point I suppose is I hate paying rent. So much so that I'd work in the feckin arctic circle to avoid it.

My advice to millennials or the generation after....
If I were graduating today I would get outta Dublin or cork fast. Apply for jobs where rent is low. Get up the ladder in a smaller firm down the country or out of the country. Save save save save.

Buy when you can. Buying today in Dublin is like buying in 05 06 07. Supply is ridiculously constrained and wlli improve. Brexit will have an effect on our economy. Interest rates will rise a bit. House prices may not fall drastically but wages will catch up a bit, yours must - raises bonuses etc.

Living and working in a city may seem like the only/best option. But there's more options out there