How can someone in their 30s afford a house - PLEASE READ MOD WARNING IN OP

GreeBo

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Here you go again with the childish hyperbole. If every supermarket in the country suddenly decided to raise their prices 500% just because they could, even though it would result in people starving, then yes, I'd be against that.

If every supermarket raised the price of beef beyond what you could afford you'd still complain that you are entitled to eat beef , rather than just buy pork instead.

Very, very few people are being denied a house, and those that are are getting HAP etc from the government and are on housing lists.
You are unable to buy where you want to live because you cant afford it and are hiding this behind a wail of "basic human rights".

Ush1

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Of course it's bloody luck. Not every single one of us in this country is able bodied, healthy and intelligent, let alone have parents who raised us well. But look how you just take that all for granted.

I'm well aware of how lucky I am compared to someone born in Iraq, especially a woman. Which is why I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm doing better in life than poor Iraqi women and claim it's because I worked hard. I consider it luck that I was born in a first world country, had access to education and freedom of choice regarding marrying or not.

Pity that some people who have all that and then much more through luck can't recognise it.

At what point does the luck stop and hard work/ingenuity start?

Do you think if all the money in the world was divided up and shared equally, everyone would be equal forever more or would some enterprising people start accumulating the money again?

Ush1

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I love how you take everything to extremes. I didn't say there should be no landlords. I said there should not be people letting out 30+ properties and making enormous profits from a basic human need, housing. There should be rental caps to prevent rents going up to ridiculous levels so that people on even good incomes can't afford to live alone in a studio flat. Funny how it works in plenty of countries, but you think it's ridiculous.

This isn't going to solve your issue. The vast majority of landlords in Ireland own less than 3 properties I believe.

Amirani

Idbatterim wrote: »

I am talking about the total disregard for proper planning. Farcical investments in transport systems that could house hundreds of thousands near by, who could walk to them. The kind of bat **** crazy off the wall ****, that they tend to do on the continent, totally mental stuff, like proper planning, sustainable development etc... Really quite fascinating stuff!

Not sure how much you keep up to date with public transport proposals; every single proposal put forward is appealed against and protested against by unions, NIMBYs and others. The 2 largest public transport proposals to improve accessibility in the city at the moment, Metrolink and Bus Connects, are currently under huge pressure from the bus drivers union, local politicians and residents. People complaining that some of their garden may be CPO'd, there'll be more buses on their road, they'll have level crossings removed so they'll have to drive a bit longer.

There's been over €5 billion dedicated to these 2 projects alone, but they're continuously delayed because of the above. What exactly do you think we should do about this?

Idbatterim

Amirani wrote: »

Not sure how much you keep up to date with public transport proposals; every single proposal put forward is appealed against and protested against by unions, NIMBYs and others. The 2 largest public transport proposals to improve accessibility in the city at the moment, Metrolink and Bus Connects, are currently under huge pressure from the bus drivers union, local politicians and residents. People complaining that some of their garden may be CPO'd, there'll be more buses on their road, they'll have level crossings removed so they'll have to drive a bit longer.

There's been over €5 billion dedicated to these 2 projects alone, but they're continuously delayed because of the above. What exactly do you think we should do about this?

I think the government should actually lead! Do it, end of! It is that simple... They said during the recession they took "hard decisions" LOL! yeah by annihilating the capital budget for example! I wonder what the new childrens hospital would have been built for at the height of the recession :rolleyes: Yeah they might lose a few votes, they'd probably gain a lot more, if they showed some balls! As for the cpo'ing of the front gardens, unless they are losing the ability to actually park in their front gardens, I frankly have no sympathy and couldnt give a toss...

what do you think they should do about it? this country is crippled by paralysis, the masses screwed to protect a handful, you agree with it?

I am very up to date with the proposals, the idiots in the NTA dont even take out public adverts to counter the nonsense on the multi billion dublin metro scheme (that is critical) I simply hope that with all the development, that it forces the issue when things come to a total standstill. Because if a tbm isnt in the ground and contracts signed, come the next recession, theyll probably try to shelve it and suggest a segregated bike and footpath from the city centre to swords via the airport as it will be cheaper and more "sustainable"!

amcalester

Ush1 wrote: »

At what point does the luck stop and hard work/ingenuity start?

Do you think if all the money in the world was divided up and shared equally, everyone would be equal forever more or would some enterprising people start accumulating the money again?

Its obviously nonsense to say it's down to luck, completely removes any personal responsibility.

Less than 5 years ago I was less than £30K in London and having a great time, but I knew I wanted to move back to Ireland and eventually buy my own place. So I

• went back to college and upskilled, this cost me what I thought was going to be my deposit
• houseshared in some less than salubrious areas
• got a job and worked my backside off for 3 years and was rewarded with 2 promotions and a near 50% increase in salary
• made a budget and stuck to it, nothing crazy. I still went out, just cut back on things
• was realistic about where I could afford to live

So, here I am sitting in my kitchen of the house I bought last year enjoying my luck.

Idbatterim

I totally say fair play to the poster above me, the issue I have, is with how the vested interests make it far harder than it needs to be, for young people. This is even past the point of debate. The mini warren buffets in their fifities and sixties (an inheritance or two down) love hoovering something with very limited supply (something that is a basic human need) then sit back as the young peasants compete with each other spending a large percentage of their salary on the kip they live in...

GreeBo

Idbatterim wrote: »

I totally say fair play to the poster above me, the issue I have, is with how the vested interests make it far harder than it needs to be, for young people. This is even past the point of debate. The mini warren buffets in their fifities and sixties (an inheritance or two down) love hoovering something with very limited supply (something that is a basic human need) then sit back as the young peasants compete with each other spending a large percentage of their salary on the kip they live in...

"Vested interests"?
So you want everyone else to stop making a profit so that you can get on and start making a profit. Its ridiculous.

How many properties in Ireland are owned by these warren buffets and how many are just owned by regular joe and mary soaps who bought what they could afford and trade up if and when they can.

jim-mcdee

At the end of the day, its like anything else. Buying a house is a big deal and is difficult for everyone. No one bought a house without scraficing for years before to get a deposit. Those you hear complaining will not accept these sacrifices and instead complain that the world is against them - the man is screwing them over. How about doing what EVERYONE else does. Work hard, study, save. If your not prepared for this, STFU.

pwurple

Oh here we go. Can't bate a bit of landlord bashing in this forum. We LOVE that here.


It's comical.
-Hey mr, I want your service, but I think you should not make any money off it at all, even though it costs you time, capital, effort and risk.
-Why is that?
-Basic human need.
-You mean like food?
-No Totally different of course, milk bread, brunch and coffee providers are totes amazeballs, housing providers are the devil. Everyone knows that.

lainey_d_123

GreeBo wrote: »

So you want 30 landlords instead of 1 landlord with 30 properties?

What difference does it make to you how many properties your landlord has?

Why do you care if your landlord is making enormous properties?
Rents are going up to the levels that people can and are willing to pay. If they weren't then rents would drop.

Tbh all I'm hearing is sour grapes again.

Because it results in a situation where the top few percent get richer and richer, making more and more money out of basic human needs (shelter). Very few people can afford to buy more than one property to use as a buy to let, so if there were more restrictions, there would be more low to mid priced properties available for people to buy or rent and live in. It's not that hard to grasp.

Ush1

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Because it results in a situation where the top few percent get richer and richer, making more and more money out of basic human needs (shelter). Very few people can afford to buy more than one property to use as a buy to let, so if there were more restrictions, there would be more low to mid priced properties available for people to buy or rent and live in. It's not that hard to grasp.

GreeBo

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Because it results in a situation where the top few percent get richer and richer, making more and more money out of basic human needs (shelter). Very few people can afford to buy more than one property to use as a buy to let, so if there were more restrictions, there would be more low to mid priced properties available for people to buy or rent and live in. It's not that hard to grasp.

What difference does it make who owns the house you are renting in? What difference does it make how many properties they own? There isn't some secret cabal of landlords setting rent prices, the market sets them.

Your logic is totally flawed.
If very few people can afford to buy multiple properties, then restricting how many properties is going to have very little impact on anything.

Even if it meant that everyone could own at most 1 house, the guy who is renting 9 houses sells them and you either have 9 people who were renting now homeless, or 9 other landlords buy them and the 9 people continue to rent.
What have you achieved here other than preventing someone earning more than you deem acceptable?
We have now moved strongly into "begrudgery" territory.

The Student

pwurple wrote: »

Oh here we go. Can't bate a bit of landlord bashing in this forum. We LOVE that here.


It's comical.
-Hey mr, I want your service, but I think you should not make any money off it at all, even though it costs you time, capital, effort and risk.
-Why is that?
-Basic human need.
-You mean like food?
-No Totally different of course, milk bread, brunch and coffee providers are totes amazeballs, housing providers are the devil. Everyone knows that.

Brilliant this brought a smile to my face.

klaaaz

GreeBo wrote: »

So you are saying people who can afford to repay credit are getting credit....you think this is a bad thing or how a normally functioning economy should work?

It's a good thing that credit is only lent to those who have a good credit history. There was always mortgage lending in the crash, it was much reduced from the previous crazy levels.
Once the interest rates rise from historic low levels, credit will get more expensive. This will have a knock on affect on house prices, also some cash buyers will exit the market just like in the last crash.

GreeBo

klaaaz wrote: »

It's a good thing that credit is only lent to those who have a good credit history. There was always mortgage lending in the crash, it was much reduced from the previous crazy levels.
Once the interest rates rise from historic low levels, credit will get more expensive. This will have a knock on affect on house prices, also some cash buyers will exit the market just like in the last crash.

Sure some buyers will, but that doesnt answer the question of why you see this as a bubble thats going to burst?

Idbatterim

GreeBo wrote: »

"Vested interests"?
So you want everyone else to stop making a profit so that you can get on and start making a profit. Its ridiculous.

How many properties in Ireland are owned by these warren buffets and how many are just owned by regular joe and mary soaps who bought what they could afford and trade up if and when they can.

no I dont, I am self employed. Working on opening a second business. They arent in areas as bloody critical as housing. Yeah leave some stuff to the market. Does it matter if you cant go to the the new stella cinema in rathmines at twenty euro a pop every week? hardly. For the record, I dont think airbnb should be outlawed either, why should they be told what to do with their property, when its a government decision to have a crisis?

You may think "leave housing to the market" well many other eu countries dont...!

GreeBo

Idbatterim wrote: »

no I dont, I am self employed. Working on opening a second business. They arent in areas as bloody critical as housing. Yeah leave some stuff to the market. Does it matter if you cant go to the the new stella cinema in rathmines at twenty euro a pop every week? hardly. For the record, I dont think airbnb should be outlawed either, why should they be told what to do with their property, when its a government decision to have a crisis?

You may think "leave housing to the market" well many other eu countries dont...!

You leave housing to the market and you have contingencies in place for those who simply cant make it anyway. Thats social housing and HAP.

Problem on this thread is we have people who cannot afford particular housing and rather than buy where than can afford they want magical access to cheaper yet not social housing in these same "nice" areas.

catrionanic

I bought my first home in Dublin in 2015, aged 27. Myself and my husband were both earning less than the average wage. My husband wasn't much of a saver, but I had been saving hard since I was 22, living in shared accommodation, and being careful with what I spent my money on. Packed lunches, buying my clothes in Penneys, getting rid of my car because I could get by without it, etc.

It was only a wee small spot but was in a great area. We fixed it up and sold it on a few months ago and now live somewhere bigger with our two kids.

You can do it, it just takes time and dedication.

Yurt2

GreeBo wrote: »

You leave housing to the market and you have contingencies in place for those who simply cant make it anyway. Thats social housing and HAP.

Problem on this thread is we have people who cannot afford particular housing and rather than buy where than can afford they want magical access to cheaper yet not social housing in these same "nice" areas.

HAP, while an appropriate a stop-gap for those in crisis, is an incredibly expensive policy that doesn't produce a brick in further housing stock. Over 3bn in transfers to the private rental market over 5 years is the (low ball) projection. Not a single brick and not a single person further along the line to stability.

The 'free market' has caused the current unaffordable climate.

Once again, you're magic solution is to do nothing.

Investing in the Right to a Home: Housing, HAPs and Hubs - Maynooth University. Google it and learn from people versed in issue instead of saying "do nothing" 20 different ways.

lainey_d_123

Ush1 wrote: »

There are plenty of countries with housing associations which allow people to rent at reasonable prices in accordance with their income and don't leave them at the mercy of a private rental market with rising, unaffordable rents. Not every country expects people who aren't wealthy to live with a bunch of strangers in a flatshare all their lives. Hope that's easy enough for you to understand.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Problem on this thread is we have people who cannot afford particular housing and rather than buy where than can afford they want magical access to cheaper yet not social housing in these same "nice" areas.

Would it be fair to say that all previous generations that had 2 people in full time employment were able to afford to buy this "particular" housing?

Its only really the current generation that have been shut out.

Graham

Mod Note

lainey_d_123, drop the snide digs in your posts. It is unnecessary and adds nothing to the discussion.

lainey_d_123

GreeBo wrote: »

What difference does it make who owns the house you are renting in? What difference does it make how many properties they own? There isn't some secret cabal of landlords setting rent prices, the market sets them.

Your logic is totally flawed.
If very few people can afford to buy multiple properties, then restricting how many properties is going to have very little impact on anything.

Even if it meant that everyone could own at most 1 house, the guy who is renting 9 houses sells them and you either have 9 people who were renting now homeless, or 9 other landlords buy them and the 9 people continue to rent.
What have you achieved here other than preventing someone earning more than you deem acceptable?
We have now moved strongly into "begrudgery" territory.

So how is it, then, that the top few percent of people have most of the wealth? How is it that huge parts of England are owned either by people connected to the royal family, or wealthy foreigners? You don't see any connection between wealthy people buying up more and more property as they get richer and richer and normal working people not being able to afford a basic home?

Pussyhands

Deleted User wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that all previous generations that had 2 people in full time employment were able to afford to buy this "particular" housing?

Its only really the current generation that have been shut out.

Society changes all the time.

I often talk to older people and they're jealous of how much opportunity we have, to go to college, travel the world etc.

lainey_d_123

Deleted User wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that all previous generations that had 2 people in full time employment were able to afford to buy this "particular" housing?

Its only really the current generation that have been shut out.

Not even two people. It was normal and common for a family to be able to afford a home on a single income.

Ush1

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

There are plenty of countries with housing associations which allow people to rent at reasonable prices in accordance with their income and don't leave them at the mercy of a private rental market with rising, unaffordable rents. Not every country expects people who aren't wealthy to live with a bunch of strangers in a flatshare all their lives. Hope that's easy enough for you to understand.

You said:

"Very few people can afford to buy more than one property to use as a buy to let, so if there were more restrictions, there would be more low to mid priced properties available for people to buy or rent and live in."

How would there be more properties to rent or live in if someone doesn't buy to let? Someone has to buy the house to let the thing!

martingriff

Deleted User wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that all previous generations that had 2 people in full time employment were able to afford to buy this "particular" housing?

Its only really the current generation that have been shut out.

No as a lot have found out they may not have 2 people in employment a mortgage that is very expensive and no way to leave due to negative equity. Just because you have bought a house/apartment does not mean you are sitting pretty

Pussyhands

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Not even two people. It was normal and common for a family to be able to afford a home on a single income.

And that's not going to change so you can either keep whinging about it or do something else.

lainey_d_123

Pussyhands wrote: »

Society changes all the time.

I often talk to older people and they're jealous of how much opportunity we have, to go to college, travel the world etc.

That's true, but what's more important, really? Having a secure home or being able to go to Tenerife on a Ryanair flight? I think that for this generation, things which used to be luxuries have become normal, and things that used to be normal have become luxuries.