Boomer Wealth

The J Stands for Jay

beauf wrote: »

So what we saying is those standards are uninhabitable despite the fact many grew up in them no problem. Maybe its not so much of a crisis then.

I am saying that the value of those properties will not rise as they are much less desirable than the alternatives available on the market.

The J Stands for Jay

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I don't have a 'mentality'.

I set the price at 200K and had a quick scan of what came up. My point was that that's how high you have to go to have a realistic choice of one-bed properties to choose from, and most of those are nowhere near the city centre.

My point is that contrary to what was said, there are hardly any flats priced at 150K, and those that do exist are in some of the worst areas of the city.

Why is it so hard to grasp?

Dublin 6 is full of 1 bed hovels. It's a good example to use. People here are going on like it's Ailsbury Road.

The J Stands for Jay

atticu wrote: »

So, yes, Netflix, Broadband, a new phone, takeaway food, etc. are expensive.

No they aren't.

HerrKuehn

I think for a lot of people the disaffection is coming from being unable to achieve a standard of living that their parents have. I would say particularly for those who come from quite comfortable middle class backgrounds, nowadays the salary needed to buy a similar house would be very high. So, it seems to them an impossibility to achieve. I have some sympathy with this point of view. It isn't my situation though, I grew up in a fairly rough council estate, the only one of my friends to go to college. So, it wasn't too difficult to exceed the level my parents were at.

I think if you are waiting for someone else to do something to change the situation, you will always be disappointed. The best thing is to keep costs low, live in a shared house rather than an apartment. Try to save consistently over a long period of time and build up some savings.

GreeBo

Harry lyme wrote: »

My story.

After my father got his redundancy (a redundancy he wanted) from his job in the early 2000's they instead of doing the sensible thing of using the money to clear our mortgage (which only an idiot wouldn't do) they remortgaged our house and bought a house in a neighbouring village and rented it out.They somehow managed to sell this house in around 2007 and then despite having a warning already ( by just barely being able to sell the house) they once again refused to pay off the mortgage and then bought an investment property in Spain.Of course this investment tanked as it was almost certainly a scam and it means that despite living in the house since 1997 the full value of the initial mortgage still has to be repaid .

This means I have to pay the mortgage or my parents are homeless and therefore I am stuck living with my parents until they are dead and their sheer idiocy and selfishness has ruined my life and caused my enourmous amount of stress and hopelessness. What exacerbates this is we live in a very rural area and I'm very shy individual so whatever chance I had to grow as a person is not helped by being stuck in a very rural area with little scope for social interaction compared to being in a urban area. What they have done to me is a disgrace (the fact the banks allowed them to so is incredible) and the fact that they even asked me to pay the mortgage now is incredibly selfish and really makes me very angry.

Just thought I'd share this as an example of the boomer generation getting carried away during the Celtic Tiger and expecting the next generation to pick up the pieces for them.

Why you would blame the banks here is beyond me.

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote:

Why you would blame the banks here is beyond me.

Behind every bad borrower, is a bad lender!

HerrKuehn

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Behind every bad borrower, is a bad lender!

I suppose we can be thankful the lenders tightened up their lending rules then.

Wanderer78

HerrKuehn wrote:

I suppose we can be thankful the lenders tightened up their lending rules then.

Didn't they come from the central banks themselves?

McGaggs

McGaggs wrote: »

Hmm, https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/valuation-date-and-the-value-of-certain-benefits/free-use-of-property-and-interest-free-loans.aspx

At today’s deposit interest rates you would be borrowing up around 1m euro before the tax due exceeded the 3k per person per annum small gifts exemption.
If the loan was from both parents that doubles to 6k.

Wanderer78

HerrKuehn wrote:

I suppose we can be thankful the lenders tightened up their lending rules then.

If the central banks tightened the rules, the lenders didn't actually self regulate

HerrKuehn

Wanderer78 wrote: »

If the central banks tightened the rules, the lenders didn't actually self regulate

No, the central bank brought in the much needed salary and deposit rules. The banks during the bubble were terrible at judging risk. They have gotten a bit better now though, for example refusing loans to people who were on the covid payment.

Harry lyme

GreeBo wrote: »

Why you would blame the banks here is beyond me.

Because there is no way on hell what they did was responsible lending.

Obviously my parents are the ones to blame but lenders are supposed to be prudent and do checks to see if the people taking out the loan could actually repay it (Which of course my parents couldn't) as if they can't it's not exactly good for the bank .

Wanderer78

HerrKuehn wrote: »

No, the central bank brought in the much needed salary and deposit rules. The banks during the bubble were terrible at judging risk. They have gotten a bit better now though, for example refusing loans to people who were on the covid payment.

i think it was a bit more than this, theyre in the business of selling credit, and they done this as much as possible, to anyone with a pulse, by the looks of it

HerrKuehn

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i think it was a bit more than this, theyre in the business of selling credit, and they done this as much as possible, to anyone with a pulse, by the looks of it

Well it wasn't a very effective long term strategy for them was it? They were lending to anyone at the time. That's why we need to have strict lending rules, to prevent them from doing it again. Of course FF at the time didn't want to bring in rules as it would have been unpopular and they don't do unpopular. Many people at the time felt that houses would only ever go up in price. It is difficult to actually understand the mania if you were not old enough at the time.

Wanderer78

HerrKuehn wrote: »

Well it wasn't a very effective long term strategy for them was it? They were lending to anyone at the time. That's why we need to have strict lending rules, to prevent them from doing it again. Of course FF at the time didn't want to bring in rules as it would have been unpopular and they don't do unpopular. Many people at the time felt that houses would only ever go up in price. It is difficult to actually understand the mania if you were not old enough at the time.

strongly disagree there, what were the negatives for the banks?

HerrKuehn

Wanderer78 wrote: »

strongly disagree there, what were the negatives for the banks?

The shareholders were wiped out? Anglo ceases to exist? Listen, the crash cost me a lot of money in increased taxes etc. I would have preferred the government regulated the banks properly rather than using the tax from the bubble to increase day to day spending. There was no benefit to me in any of that.

Wanderer78

HerrKuehn wrote: »

The shareholders were wiped out? Anglo ceases to exist? Listen, the crash cost me a lot of money in increased taxes etc. I would have preferred the government regulated the banks properly rather than using the tax from the bubble to increase day to day spending. There was no benefit to me in any of that.

with share ownership heavily skewed, id say, it didnt effect many folks such as yourself, well thats if you re not one of 'unlucky' few? did you have many bank shares?

ah shur, we only know that now about regulation, hindsight, but some did indeed know, and were told, the best thing to do was to.....

banks are doing just fine, imho, its average joe, such as yourself, that got fcuked, and fcuked hard, and still are!

HerrKuehn

Wanderer78 wrote: »

with share ownership heavily skewed, id say, it didnt effect many folks such as yourself, well thats if you re not one of 'unlucky' few? did you have many bank shares?

ah shur, we only know that now about regulation, hindsight, but some did indeed know, and were told, the best thing to do was to.....

banks are doing just fine, imho, its average joe, such as yourself, that got fcuked, and fcuked hard, and still are!

I didnt have any shares, no.

Wanderer78

HerrKuehn wrote: »

I didnt have any shares, no.

so you got proper fcuked, and still are

edit: its why i advocate for things such as public banks, might just give us some sort of control over our money supply

HerrKuehn

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so you got proper fcuked, and still are

edit: its why i advocate for things such as public banks, might just give us some sort of control over our money supply

I don't think that's a good idea. The bank would be under political pressure to increase lending to people who really shouldn't be getting mortgages IMO.

Wanderer78

HerrKuehn wrote: »

I don't think that's a good idea. The bank would be under political pressure to increase lending to people who really shouldn't be getting mortgages IMO.

protective measures can be implemented, in order to prevent such things, works very well for some countries such as germany and the us

Ush1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so you got proper fcuked, and still are

edit: its why i advocate for things such as public banks, might just give us some sort of control over our money supply

AIB is publicly owned.

Wanderer78

Ush1 wrote: »

AIB is publicly owned.

a public bank, is 100% owned by the state

salonfire

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we ve given our private sector financial institutions, too much control of our monetary systems, we need to move it back towards a more democratic existence, even though we still need functioning private sector institutions

Has the Central Bank been closed? Or relinquished some of its power or monetary controls on banking?

Wow, pretty sweeping claims. Maybe you could trouble with us a link or two to these claims?

Wanderer78

salonfire wrote: »

Has the Central Bank been closed? Or relinquished some of its power or monetary controls on banking?

Wow, pretty sweeping claims. Maybe you could trouble with us a link or two to these claims?

most of our money supply doesnt come from central banks, it comes from private sector banks, in the form of credit

i only have two central bank papers confirming this, i believe theres up to 5 now, but i havent searched for them yet, do you really want them, theyve been posted here many times on boards now?

salonfire

Wanderer78 wrote: »

there may not be loads, but there maybe some, but forcing communities apart, causes a break down of 'social cohesion', which causes far more serious social problems, and is in fact, far more expensive, in the long term

And building social housing together to be populated with feckless delinquents who would lie on the floor if there was work in the bed caused the most serious social problems.

Or have you not heard of Ballymun?

lainey_d_123

Ush1 wrote: »

It's a kind of extension of identity politics at this stage and critical theory.

Baring in mind there's plenty of "boomers" who haven't a pot to p*ss in.

And that's through their own personal circumstances and/or bad decisions rather than the kind of structural issues millennials face.

Wanderer78

salonfire wrote: »

And building social housing together to be populated with feckless delinquents who would lie on the floor if there was work in the bed caused the most serious social problems.

Or have you not heard of Ballymun?

maybe you should do some research into the complexities of such social issues, you almost sound prejudice

of course i have, i live in an estate not to dissimilar to it, not as bad though

Wanderer78

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

And that's through their own personal circumstances and/or bad decisions rather than the kind of structural issues millennials face.

theres sh1te in every generation unfortunately, some people can be very unlucky, we re not all born with the same opportunities in life

Former Former

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so you got proper fcuked, and still are

edit: its why i advocate for things such as public banks, might just give us some sort of control over our money supply

It wouldn't. It would make "money supply" an electoral promise. You'd have parties outdoing each other to give as many loans as possible, as cheaply as possible and you'd fuel housing rises even more.