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

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote: »

There goes that personal accountability out the window again.

"someone elses fault".

what responsibility has the financial sector, and those working in it, taken over all of this?

GreeBo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what responsibility has the financial sector, and those working in it, taken over all of this?

"Its impossible to get a house, no bank will lend to me"

"The banks lent too much money to me"

Which is it today?

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote: »

"Its impossible to get a house, no bank will lend to me"

"The banks lent too much money to me"

Which is it today?

these are not the correct quotes at all, we re clearly experiencing the effects of an over supply of credit, which has been occurring over the last couple of decades, this has helped inflate asset prices, such as housing, we clearly dont have a clue what to do about this

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

Is anyone else getting massive deja vu?

I literally remember my peers saying the exact same thing to me just before the boom.

What do you mean?

GreeBo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

these are not the correct quotes at all, we re clearly experiencing the effects of an over supply of credit, which has been occurring over the last couple of decades, this has helped inflate asset prices, such as housing, we clearly dont have a clue what to do about this

On this very thread we have people complaining that the banks wont lend them money.
We have other people complaining that the banks are lending too much money.

If we could stick with the one excuse it would be useful.

Eric Cartman

GreeBo wrote: »

This is getting very tiresome.
The first rung is there waving at you but you dont want to live there.
A 3 bed for a single person is not the bloody first rung on the housing ladder!

The first rung i was reffering to were 1 bedroom apartments and banks desires not to lend against them.

Brussels Sprout

[Opens thread]
Sighs
[Closes thread]

GreeBo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The first rung i was reffering to were 1 bedroom apartments and banks desires not to lend against them.

They will lend if you can demonstrate that you are not a risk.

DubJJ

GreeBo wrote: »

On this very thread we have people complaining that the banks wont lend them money.
We have other people complaining that the banks are lending too much money.

If we could stick with the one excuse it would be useful.

Neither of these statements are without merit as they are both referring to different periods of time.
Personally I believe that the restrictions that are in place at the moment are necessary to stop the prices inflating even higher, but the bigger issue is the credit that was available 10+ years ago which allowed prices to go of the rails in the first place.

GreeBo

DubJJ wrote: »

Neither of these statements are without merit as they are both referring to different periods of time.
Personally I believe that the restrictions that are in place at the moment are necessary to stop the prices inflating even higher, but the bigger issue is the credit that was available 10+ years ago which allowed prices to go of the rails in the first place.

Except the posters are both referring to right now.

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what responsibility has the financial sector, and those working in it, taken over all of this?

A loan is a commercial transaction pure and simple. If you take a loan out for €250k and for example buy a house with it. You are lucky and the house increases in value to lets say €400k. Should the bank be entitled to a share of that increase in value.

The answer is no. The bank loaned you the money based on the agreed criteria that you would make payment for the amount you borrowed, nothing more or nothing less.

If you want the bank to take some of the loss/gain on the property value then they will not doubt increase interest rates to account for the additional risk.

Why do people not realize a mortgage like any other loan is a commercial transaction.

Eric Cartman

DubJJ wrote: »

Neither of these statements are without merit as they are both referring to different periods of time.
Personally I believe that the restrictions that are in place at the moment are necessary to stop the prices inflating even higher, but the bigger issue is the credit that was available 10+ years ago which allowed prices to go of the rails in the first place.

+1 The issue has layers

1. Councils letting people buy council houses which constrained supply there
2. People who took far too much advantage of easy credit a decade ago who now either refuse to sell and are pressuring the government to allow them slip out of negative equity or trying to advocate for debt writedowns on their bad investment.
3. As a result of the drive to increase prices as above, land prices and construction prices are now such that building affordable housing seems like an impossible task. A lack of supply due to the recession is now driving prices up as building struggles to meet demand , exacerbated by the earlier factors in this.
4. Banks are burdened by upside down loans, strategic defaulters and those who have not paid mortgages in years. Yet the only solution to take these off the books and free up their balance sheets to lend more is to sell these debts to a company that wants them, we effectively named them 'vulture funds' and put a negative spin on their purpose. The very same people campaigning for more house building are often those that oppose these funds purchasing bad debts.

its all a cycle that needs to be changed

Sell the bad debts to funds and throw the fingers up to those who cant / wont pay their mortgages , make people capitalise their negative equity ---> banks have more money to lend to developers ---> developers can buy the land thats now in default from the funds ---> they can build more houses ---> banks have more room to issue mortgages ---> more people can get mortgages ---> eases the pressure on rentals ---> rent goes down ---> demand catches up with supply and housing gets more affordable ---> more people who bought a decade ago are in 'negative equity' with price easing ---> (return to the start of my cycle)

mariaalice

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/24-hampton-wood-road-finglas-dublin-11/4312315

Under 200k and its a two bed and nice with good transport links.

LirW

mariaalice wrote: »

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/24-hampton-wood-road-finglas-dublin-11/4312315

Under 200k and its a two bed and nice with good transport links.

That one is quite alright indeed. The building quality isn't superb but it's liveable, it's not an outstanding area but I viewed a house there 2 years ago and it's as normal as it can get.

The thing with all the sub 200k properties is that some are simply in areas that have a bit of a dodgy reputation (see Kilbarrack for example even though it's more expensive, sub300) but they're really nice while others are really no-go areas. Living in your posted example is grand but living in South Finglas for example is a different world, maybe some people recall the videos of joyriding and setting cars on fire from a few months ago, that's where it is, this area has real issues.

I think we can all appreciate that it's not unreasonable that people don't wanna commit to a 30 year mortgage in an area where stealing, break-ins, joyriding, shooting and random fires are part of everyday life.
Some cheap areas are massively underrated and have a bad name when they're quiet really, others are simply not safe unless you are from there and know how to handle problematic locals.

Pussyhands

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody can deny that the goalposts have been well and truly moved.
My own parents, a factory worker and a person working in retail could buy a house in Drumcondra in Dublin.
Now there is ONE awful looking 1 bed apartment for 196K.

Its that injustice of not having the same opportunities that hurts the most.

Its even worse that people can't just acknowledge how difficult it is.

In the future, I think it will become more common to see 2 couples or 2 groups of people, put their 2 strongest salaries together and use those to get a mortgage were they can all live under one roof. Thats how serious the crisis is getting.

Why are people still bringing up about the pa who bought a house by himself.

The thread is about how someone in their 30's can buy a house today, not 30 years ago.

Pussyhands

mariaalice wrote: »

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/291-brandon-road-drimnagh-dublin-12/4302739

There is a fully renovated one on at 290k

The point is, would that be beyond a single buyer on average salary.

Well duh...it's a 3 bed house. Why would a single person want or need a 3 bed for?

If single people could afford 3 beds on a 30/40k salary then a couple could afford it in a few months.

You need to accept things are priced at the max people can get for it.

Think about it, if a single person on average salary could afford a 3 bed house, then a couple on average salary could easily afford it. A couple on a good salary could probably have it paid off in 15 years.

Rightly or wrongly, people will extend themselves to what they can afford for a 30 year mortgage. From there it's down to supply and demand. Only when supply is plentiful for the people on good salaries, will prices lower to satisfy demand for those on lower salaries.

GreeBo

Pussyhands wrote: »

Well duh...it's a 3 bed house. Why would a single person want or need a 3 bed for?

If single people could afford 3 beds on a 30/40k salary then a couple could afford it in a few months.

You need to accept things are priced at the max people can get for it.

Think about it, if a single person on average salary could afford a 3 bed house, then a couple on average salary could easily afford it. A couple on a good salary could probably have it paid off in 15 years.

Rightly or wrongly, people will extend themselves to what they can afford for a 30 year mortgage. From there it's down to supply and demand. Only when supply is plentiful for the people on good salaries, will prices lower to satisfy demand for those on lower salaries.

Yep or a REIT or pension fund would swoop in and buy them all to let.

But I guess we should have laws that stop companies from making money too.

Pussyhands

Pussyhands wrote: »

Why are people still bringing up about the pa who bought a house by himself.

The thread is about how someone in their 30's can buy a house today, not 30 years ago.

So whats the solution? Move somewhere in the greater Dublin area and spend more time in the car?

Maybe an alternative solution would be to cut the working day to allow for the longer commutes?

Society starts to develop a lot of problems when people spend 12+ hours a day just going to work.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

So whats the solution? Move somewhere in the greater Dublin area and spend more time in the car?

Maybe an alternative solution would be to cut the working day to allow for the longer commutes?

Society starts to develop a lot of problems when people spend 12+ hours a day just going to work.

Suck it up until you can afford to move somewhere better/closer/bigger/whatever like people have done for time immemorial?

Whats your realistic solution?
How many people are spending more than HALF the day commuting?:rolleyes:

RedXIV

Just want to say thanks for a very entertaining and educational thread

Learned about the Help To Buy scheme which may actually speed up my chance of buying something! Thanks guys!

lainey_d_123

The Student wrote: »

What continues to amaze me with some of these posts is that times have moved on. We have a finite amount of land within the city limits to build on. The population is higher than it was in your parents time. If we don't build up we have to build out. If we do build up then people won't get the 3 bed semi.

Whether people accept it or not prices have risen since your parents time, this is as a result of build costs and the quality of the building material, labor costs, land costs etc.

People can afford to purchase with a bit of forward planning. If a person started to save €40 a week after 5 yrs they have €10k if they are a couple this then becomes €20k which is almost enough for a 10% deposit.

I don't accept that a person can't save an average of €40 a week. Granted at the start of a person's working life €40 may be a lot but after 5 yrs working €60 a week should be possible thereby averaging out the €40 per week fig.

More patronising nonsense. I don't know any single person who expects a 3-bed semi. The problem is that it's even almost impossible to buy a one-bed flat on an average wage. It would take over a decade to save enough for even a 10% deposit on the very cheapest property available right now in a bad area, according to your own calculations, and that's assuming the prices don't go up.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Suck it up until you can afford to move somewhere better/closer/bigger/whatever like people have done for time immemorial?

Whats your realistic solution?
How many people are spending more than HALF the day commuting?:rolleyes:

Well 8 hours is a typical working day. Its actually 9 for me when you factor in lunch.
Then potentially 3 hours commuting in total.

And the greater Dublin area is filling up quickly. What about the next generations? Move to Mayo and work in Dublin?

lainey_d_123

Deleted User wrote: »

So whats the solution? Move somewhere in the greater Dublin area and spend more time in the car?

Maybe an alternative solution would be to cut the working day to allow for the longer commutes?

Society starts to develop a lot of problems when people spend 12+ hours a day just going to work.

It's insane how many people just accept that 'that's the way it is'. Accept that they were born to spend their lives commuting two hours each way five days a week and then sit in their tiny village in the middle of nowhere all weekend eating beans on toast on their own just so they can pay the mortgage on their shoddily built house, which they bought so they could go to work in Dublin every day. Do none of these people ever question any of this?

Yurt2

Remember kids: everyone who wants to see government intervention and regulations around property is a communist.

Cyrus

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's insane how many people just accept that 'that's the way it is'. Accept that they were born to spend their lives commuting two hours each way five days a week and then sit in their tiny village in the middle of nowhere all weekend eating beans on toast on their own just so they can pay the mortgage on their shoddily built house, which they bought so they could go to work in Dublin every day. Do none of these people ever question any of this?

whats your answer? Moan about it on boards?

Wanderer78

Yurt! wrote:

Remember kids: everyone who wants to see government intervention and regulations around property is a communist.

Regulatory democracy is bad for us, 'the market knows best'!

Kidkinobe

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's insane how many people just accept that 'that's the way it is'. Accept that they were born to spend their lives commuting two hours each way five days a week and then sit in their tiny village in the middle of nowhere all weekend eating beans on toast on their own just so they can pay the mortgage on their shoddily built house, which they bought so they could go to work in Dublin every day. Do none of these people ever question any of this?

They do it to educate their kids, put a roof over their heads and food on the table...they do it for 15/18 years and then cut back a bit, get a job closer to home with a lower income but enough to live and with a huge chunk off their mortgage..its a sacrifice people make to have a family. Come 60, they are still fit and healthy and mortgage free and entering their retirement years in a good position. People do the same thing in many other cities worldwide, its just a relatively new concept to Ireland which will take another 20 years to become the norm just like its the norm in London or New Your or Frankfurt etc.

alane20

For me a separated father of 3 no mortgage with ex, my best option and the course I'm pursuing is buying a small serviced site, for 35k and eventually put a log cabin on it, cabin will be about another 40k,

The planning system still isn't fully understanding of log cabins but planning for them is slowly becoming more frequent,

For my needs and budget it seems to be the best option,

Yurt2

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Regulatory democracy is bad for us, 'the market knows best'!

Particularly when the notional value of your asset is increasing - then the market is infallible, like a stone tablet containing the word of God. Any changes to the condition of the market is perceived to be dangerous, the rest of society be damned.

I'm not being hyperbolic here, we've seen it on this thread. When people think they're on the right side of the market, they'll defend it's contradictions with religious zeal.

The Student

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

More patronising nonsense. I don't know any single person who expects a 3-bed semi. The problem is that it's even almost impossible to buy a one-bed flat on an average wage. It would take over a decade to save enough for even a 10% deposit on the very cheapest property available right now in a bad area, according to your own calculations, and that's assuming the prices don't go up.

Please read my post, I did not say a single person should be aspiring to a three bed semi. If they can afford one then work away.

If a single person is on €35k with a take home of €29k and takes home just under €600 per week. If they can't save an average of €40 from that then they should not take out a mortgage even a small mortgage even on a one bed apartment.

It appears to me that people want the cost of property to go down, they want the costs associated with the building the property to go down, but yet they don't want wages to go down, nor do they want income taxes to go down as they need these taxes to subsidize the building of these properties.

You can't have it everyway unless you can get every aspect of the raw materials to drop and expect labour to take a hit on their wages.

You can't argue with the basic laws of economics of supply and demand. We have a chronic undersupply of skilled labour for the building sector. Do you expect those limited resources to say " I am going to reduce my labour costs" to help society.

I don't you would find anyone to do that.