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

lainey_d_123

Ush1 wrote: »

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!

I literally explained it.

Ush1

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I literally explained it.

You really haven't and not to be personal but you sound bitter and veering into Marxist conspiracy theory at this stage.

You're saying restrict buy to lets when we have a huge demand for rental properties??

lainey_d_123

Ush1 wrote: »

You really haven't and not to be personal but you sound bitter and veering into Marxist conspiracy theory at this stage.

You're saying restrict buy to lets when we have a huge demand for rental properties??

Yes, I did. It's bizarre that you think the only way to have rental properties available is to have an unregulated private market where the rents can go sky high. There are plenty of places around the world with rent control/rent caps, government-owned or government subsidised housing associations, cooperatives, etc. Not everywhere treats housing as a commodity.

GreeBo

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 that wouldn't be fair, as I said earlier, if that were true then everyone living in the so called un-desirable locations would be current generation, which is clearly not the case.

In any case, our Dublin population continues to grow without any ability to discover new land within the city boundaries, demand is only going to go one way until and unless people in Dublin accept either not living in Dublin or move to long term rental like the rest of Europe. This will mean high rise apartments and not having your 3-bed semi in a leafy suburb.

Cant have it both ways Im afraid.

Ush1

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, I did. It's bizarre that you think the only way to have rental properties available is to have an unregulated private market where the rents can go sky high. There are plenty of places around the world with rent control/rent caps, government-owned or government subsidised housing associations, cooperatives, etc. Not everywhere treats housing as a commodity.

It's not unregulated, if it was we wouldn't spend so much money on the RTB. Many of the things you listed we actually have and guess what, property is still too expensive for many people in the areas they want.

As for landlords, of course it's a commodity, why would else would you buy to let if only to make money?

GreeBo

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

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?

You continually link unrelated topics as if to prove some point. What on earth does rich people being rich have to do with you not being able to afford a relatively expensive house on a relatively poor income?

Unless these wealthy people are buying up property so they can sit and look at it, they are not removing property from the market, they are renting it or selling it on. There is no connection here.

I've shown you on multiple occasions where you can get an affordable home in Dublin, you just dont want to live there. Now thats the Royal families fault.

Yurt2

Ush1 wrote: »

You really haven't and not to be personal but you sound bitter and veering into Marxist conspiracy theory at this stage.

You're saying restrict buy to lets when we have a huge demand for rental properties??

You can mock but there is some merit to what she says. Buy to lets generally don't add to housing stock, and buy to let landlords are leveraging the current properties they own to outbid first time buyers and put properties out of reach.

The Marxist claptrap is giving me a headache. Are the French and Swiss die hard Marxists?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/may/23/buy-to-let-landlords-disaster-economy

GreeBo

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.

Indeed and relatively rich people bought these houses in relatively nicer areas than the relatively poor people did. Nothing has changed other than you want poorer people (specifically yourself) to be able to buy a house in areas nicer i.e. more expensive than you can afford.

This was and never will be the case other than social housing in new developments, but there are no new large new developments in Dublin city as there are no empty spaces to build them in.

Your best chance is to hope we build high rise apartments and that you get one on social housing or HAP or rent, but you dont want to hear or accept any of this harsh reality.

GreeBo

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, I did. It's bizarre that you think the only way to have rental properties available is to have an unregulated private market where the rents can go sky high. There are plenty of places around the world with rent control/rent caps, government-owned or government subsidised housing associations, cooperatives, etc. Not everywhere treats housing as a commodity.

What sort of areas do you think these subsidized houses are in, if you had to compare with Dublin?
You seem to think that you'd be living in the Rathmines of Paris, rather than the Clonsilla.

Ush1

Yurt! wrote: »

You can mock but there is some merit to what she says. Buy to lets generally don't add to housing stock, and buy to let landlords are leveraging the current properties they own to outbid first time buyers and put properties out of reach.

The Marxist claptrap is giving me a headache. Are the French and Swiss die hard Marxists?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/may/23/buy-to-let-landlords-disaster-economy

How do they not add to housing stock? They rent out the house, someone lives there. First time buyers get incentives that buy to lets or previous owners don't get. HTB can't be used for buy to lets etc...

That is an article about the UK from 2014 and has very little relevance to Ireland. The trend here is landlords selling(as they probably should) as either they don't want the hassle or have covered their initial investment. A landlord buying at boomey prices is a brave man indeed.

Yurt2

Ush1 wrote: »

How do they not add to housing stock? They rent out the house, someone lives there. First time buyers get incentives that buy to lets or previous owners don't get. HTB can't be used for buy to lets etc...

That is an article about the UK from 2014 and has very little relevance to Ireland. The trend here is landlords selling(as they probably should) as either they don't want the hassle or have covered their initial investment. A landlord buying at boomey prices is a brave man indeed.

Isn't it obvious? For the most part they're hoovering up existing stock and putting it back on the market at a higher rental yield. They're not investing in new built REITs which I have no particular objection to.

I'm not weeping for landlords getting out of the market - there are a lot of them who shouldn't be in the game. I can think of a few in my college and post-college days who should have been reported to Revenue. That's not all of them, but there are plenty of cowboys out there as you should well know.

lainey_d_123

GreeBo wrote: »

Indeed and relatively rich people bought these houses in relatively nicer areas than the relatively poor people did. Nothing has changed other than you want poorer people (specifically yourself) to be able to buy a house in areas nicer i.e. more expensive than you can afford.

This was and never will be the case other than social housing in new developments, but there are no new large new developments in Dublin city as there are no empty spaces to build them in.

Your best chance is to hope we build high rise apartments and that you get one on social housing or HAP or rent, but you dont want to hear or accept any of this harsh reality.

I'd be perfectly happy in a high rise building. One of the main reasons there's so little housing stock in Dublin is that developers can't get planning permission to build upwards. And still you insist that none of the current issues have anything to do with government policy.

lainey_d_123

GreeBo wrote: »

What sort of areas do you think these subsidized houses are in, if you had to compare with Dublin?
You seem to think that you'd be living in the Rathmines of Paris, rather than the Clonsilla.

I hate to break this to you, but there are subsidised and/or affordable houses in just about every part of some cities. A friend of mine has a nice apartment in Berlin in a perfectly nice area with rent control. Do you think the banlieues of Paris are full of mid level software developers, accountants and teachers?

Yurt2

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I hate to break this to you, but there are subsidised and/or affordable houses in just about every part of some cities. A friend of mine has a nice apartment in Berlin in a perfectly nice area with rent control. Do you think the banlieues of Paris are full of mid level software developers, accountants and teachers?

<MOD SNIP>

StupidLikeAFox

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.

Ireland has lots of housing associations who take people off the housing list

Amirani

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I'd be perfectly happy in a high rise building. One of the main reasons there's so little housing stock in Dublin is that developers can't get planning permission to build upwards. And still you insist that none of the current issues have anything to do with government policy.

Government removed height limits on developments. Planning permission is decided on by county councils, not central Government.

GreeBo

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I'd be perfectly happy in a high rise building. One of the main reasons there's so little housing stock in Dublin is that developers can't get planning permission to build upwards. And still you insist that none of the current issues have anything to do with government policy.

There are multi storey apartment blocks in Stepaside and Ticknock, would you live out there?

Somehow I suspect you will graciously accept a new apartment overlooking the liffey.

Specifically *where* do you think developers could be or should be building these high rise apartment blocks?

lainey_d_123

Amirani wrote: »

Government removed height limits on developments. Planning permission is decided on by county councils, not central Government.

And county councils are....government.

lainey_d_123

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Ireland has lots of housing associations who take people off the housing list

Sure they do, if you don't work at all and have children. I think you'll find it isn't a real option for most working, childless professionals.

wildlifeboy

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I'm sorry but that just reads like excuses. You know that to qualify for a mortgage you need savings and probably from both applicants, there is no way around it, 100% mortgages are not sustainable, try your local authority get some ideas from them about a starter home, you may also qualify for the Help to Buy scheme.

i got a hundred percent mortgage and i have never missed a payement.

lainey_d_123

GreeBo wrote: »

There are multi storey apartment blocks in Stepaside and Ticknock, would you live out there?

Somehow I suspect you will graciously accept a new apartment overlooking the liffey.

Specifically *where* do you think developers could be or should be building these high rise apartment blocks?

Yes, I would. I'd be happy to live anywhere commutable to work, provided the area was safe for me.

StupidLikeAFox

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Sure they do, if you don't work at all and have children. I think you'll find it isn't a real option for most working, childless professionals.

I don't know where you got that from but that couldn't be further from the truth. The only stipulation is that you are on the housing list, after that you can apply for vacancies. They have 1/2 bed places and generally prefer people who are stable and able to pay their way

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I hate to break this to you, but there are subsidised and/or affordable houses in just about every part of some cities. A friend of mine has a nice apartment in Berlin in a perfectly nice area with rent control. Do you think the banlieues of Paris are full of mid level software developers, accountants and teachers?

Ever walk around Grand Canal area? You might have noticed Sherriff Street, that's an example of subsidised housing in Dublin city

lainey_d_123

Augeo wrote: »

Ever walk around Grand Canal area? You might have noticed Sherriff Street, that's an example of subsidised housing in Dublin city

Right, and how many childless professionals do you think get accepted there? If you think working people would rather spend 50% of their takehome pay on renting a room in a flatshare with strangers than live in their own apartment in Sherriff Street, you're very wrong.

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Right, and how many childless professionals do you think get accepted there? .........

Well I know if you aren't on the housing list you have zero chance.
You won't be classed as a professional tbh, not everyone with a 3rd level qualification is a professional

doolox

I spent some time there in the early 90's.
It was there I learnt the real truth about Irelands place in the world and the effects that full employment and jobs for everyone would have on the future Ireland.

Because we had high unemployment and large scale emigration in the 80's and 90's houses were dog cheap and could be afforded by those lucky enough to have a secure full time job in a government or large corporate firm.

Teachers Guards, Nurses and Bank officials all could get mortgages relatively easily but every one had to do two or three interviews, had to have a substantial deposit in the bank or building society to which they were applying and this money had to be on deposit for 6 months to a year. No having money in one building society and getting a loan in another bank or building society.

I recall interest rates as high as 11% during the currency crisis before the eurozone became a reality.

The capital cost of houses was lower than now because the interest element then was very high in comparison to now. The market of potential buyers was a lot smaller.

Also inflation would shorten the term in that you could expect sharply rising wages and costs to make repayments feel smaller.

All casual earners and jobless had recourse to local authority housing which is not available now to many people. Multi-generational occupancy was very common as was overcrowding. This is coming back in today's world but people are ashamed to admit it.

A guy earning 180 per week might pay a loan of 50 pw. When he started earning 300-400 pw 50 pw on a loan became small...this could happen over 10 years on a 20 year loan.

Now the mortgagees of today have terms of 30 years and low wage rises, if any, and low inflation so that their payments remain high throughout their mortgage lives.

It is a totally different game today and much more onerous than in the past for those in steady employment.

Now a working couple is needed to get a house financed. Both need to be earning supervisor's, principal's or matron's salaries in order to live within the M50 without recourse to inherited or gifted wealth. Some lucky people may inherit a house within the M50 but taxes could mean they are forced to sell and move outside the city. This is happening everyday to many of my wives and my own friends and acquaintances unless they had the foresight to get their own house early in their lives.

People in the States work two or three jobs each in order to get a house. Most of them live in rented apartments if they want city living and many have to pay large cash deposits to secure the opportunity to rent a small apartment with highly variable costs and rate increase conditions.

Many of the people there may buy "fixer uppers" and learn how to do them up and modernise and restore them. It appears that building regulations are tighter in the cities but not so in the rural areas from all the semi-derelict houses and buildings I could see in the countryside that were nonetheless occupied by people although they looked wrecked. Trailer parks were common.

Many industrious people did their own labouring and basic tasks and got tradesmen to inspect the work and sign off if and when satisfied with the standards and safety of the work completed. This kind of work arrangement was very common. In the end all building work was inspected by local authorities as a matter of course. It appears from conversations I had that some areas were stricter than other areas and this could reflect on house values if a town got a bad reputation for having lax inspections or corrupt officials. Much more common in the States than appears to be the case here.

My biggest fear in the housing market here is that Ireland has had little or no inspections or quality control like you have elsewhere. Huge emphasis was placed on relying on the banks to enforce surveying and building inspection and the city and town officials do not get involved unless complaints are made, either by neighbours or tenants etc.

Increasingly a lot of housing stock in Ireland is being purchased by cash buyers or those with very large cash deposits. The banks surveyor will only pass a house for the value of the loan secured on it. If you buy a house for, say, 300k and only have to borrow 150k, once the surveyor sees a value of 150k in the house or site purchased he will be satisfied. A buyer needs to get his own independent survey done in order to gauge the true value and quality and value in the house and protect his share of the investment. Without a proper independent survey hes is risking his 150k.

Many houses changed hands on what was called a roadside survey, the surveyor simply pulled up outside the property and made a rough guess as to the value of the property. While this can be fine for recent estate builds it is problematical for one off rural builds.

I remember many people in Ireland used to work night time, part-time jobs and extra , sometimes, off the book jobs in order to get enough money together for a deposit. Especially low earners who might find it hard to get a mortgage. This was in the days before increasing regulation and tax compliance oversight made these tactics impossible or very difficult. Even worse is the 48 hour per week rule which makes it impossible for any conscientious person to earn more money to get a house deposit together. Now you have to lie in order to get the working hours needed to save for a deposit. Even worse from the point of view of the long hours moonlighter is that most core jobs on their own are now much harder and more strictly supervised and intense so that people barely have the energy to contemplate an additional part time role.

I don't what the answer to the housing shortage is but I do foresee future increasing regulation in rental prices and basic rental quality as pressures increase. High rise and high density is a given. Increasing restrictions on one-off or rural housing for average city workers will become difficult. This is going to be the number one political issue today at the next election just as unemployment was in the 80's and peace process was in the 90's.

lainey_d_123

Augeo wrote: »

Well I know if you aren't on the housing list you have zero chance.
You won't be classed as a professional tbh, not everyone with a 3rd level qualification is a professional

I have far more than a 3rd level qualification, thanks. I am on the housing list, as I've already stated.

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I have far more than a 3rd level qualification, thanks.........

Ah, you're very privileged so

GreeBo

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, I would. I'd be happy to live anywhere commutable to work, provided the area was safe for me.

Clonsilla, Tallaght, Walkinstown arent safe for you?

Better let the tens of thousands of people who live there know, including family of mine.

You also avoided my very specific question of where you think these apartments should be built in Dublin?

Kildare is commutable to work, have you looked there?
58 properties for under 200K.

klaaaz

GreeBo wrote: »

Clonsilla, Tallaght, Walkinstown arent safe for you?

Better let the tens of thousands of people who live there know, including family of mine.

Seriously doubt there is a sub 200k house in Walkinstown!

Where is the sub 200k house in Clonsilla? 2nd time asking.