Is it fair to blame the Banks & Government if you cant get mortgage approval?

JizzBeans

shivermetimber wrote: »

My folks did literally everything on that list bar 4 and 5 (number 3 was the US but same thing different generation) and they still managed to buy a house in a location of their choosing easily in their late 30's, with 2 kids, and on one civil servant wage.

On the flip side, I only did 2 (education...why is that a bad thing?), 6 (who said holidays have to be expensive?) and 8 (moved out because that's what an adult does right?), worked consistently since, pumped money into rent, saved what I can on mediocre wages and still can't afford to buy a 1 bed apartment within a 50km radius of Dublin.

Such a nonsense troll post.

Does it have to be Dublin?

shivermetimber

JizzBeans wrote: »

Does it have to be Dublin?

It was used as an example considering that's where my parents bought a 3 bedroom house. According to them they had the pick of locations and choices both sides of the city.

JizzBeans

Purely rent?? Nothing to do with the points I listed out?

KaneToad

gmisk wrote: »

I agree with you entirely.

But it isn't going to happen with the public sector. It will be a blend for some (like the one I am in).

I don't see why they don't give it a try. They thought it was a good idea when doing Charlie McCreevy's decentralisation plan - but they chickened out and only made a half assed effort.

Now they have the tech, the environmental incentive, the real world proof that it can be done, the housing crisis... the new world view of the population (?)

What more could they need to commit to a revolutionary policy that would drastically improve the lives of many.

JizzBeans

shivermetimber wrote: »

It was used as an example consider that is where my parents bought a 3 bedroom house. According to them they had the pick of locations and choices.

But by your own admission, home ownership wasn't a priority in your 20's right? How long have you been saving for a mortgage deposit specifically, do you mind me asking?

JizzBeans

JizzBeans wrote: »

Does it have to be Dublin?

Could you buy in Dublin yourself, or did you spend your 20s galavanting?

mohawk

Starting salaries in many industries have not kept up with the cost of living. I heard a radio interview recently and they said that relatively speaking salaries in the 90’s and 00’s were better then they are now. Combine that with high rents, price of houses compared to median salary and it’s no surprise that younger people are struggling to buy houses.

They may as well enjoy a few avocado toasts. Life is short.

gmisk

KaneToad wrote: »

I don't see why they don't give it a try. They thought it was a good idea when doing Charlie McCreevy's decentralisation plan - but they chickened out and only made a half assed effort.

Now they have the tech, the environmental incentive, the real world proof that it can be done, the housing crisis... the new world view of the population (?)

What more could they need to commit to a revolutionary policy that would drastically improve the lives of many.

Like I said I agree.
But I don't see it happening.

Typical older generation mentality.
'Back in my day you could buy a house for a few thousand pounds and weren't in debt for nearly the rest of your life. Now look at the younger generation. Just because they have to spend close to a grand a month on rent and try and run a car is no excuse'

This country is full of bitter bastards..

shivermetimber

JizzBeans wrote: »

But by your own admission, home ownership wasn't a priority in your 20's right? How long have you been saving for a mortgage deposit specifically, do you mind me asking?

It wasn't because I was a young adult. But I certainly wasn't living a frivolous life. Been trying to save for 6 years now, on an average wage (real world average not median) all the while paying far more in rent then I would on a mortgage repayment.

titan18

Even if people avoided all of those, it's still near impossible to buy a house with the price of them vs salary and what people can get in a loan.

You probably need over 100k in salary in a couple to afford a house in Dublin now with the 3.5 times salary limit. At 100k with a decent deposit, you're probably looking at a house for 400k. You won't have a huge amount of choice but you'd get something.

And that's the scenario when you've a couple earning 50k each which id regard as good money for most people to be earning in their late 20s, early 30s. Some will on more and a lot will be on less than that.

hunter164

Late 20’s, nearly 100k in savings. I’ve worked since I left school and attended college at night, am in the public service.

Can’t afford to buy where I’ve grown up but people get a social house for free in the same area?

Country is backwards.

Jacksie66.

Jacksie66. wrote: »

Typical older generation mentality.
'Back in my day you could buy a house for a few thousand pounds and weren't in debt for nearly the rest of your life. Now look at the younger generation. Just becauise they have to spend close to a grand a month on rent and try and run a car is no excuse'

This country is full of bitter bastards..

He’s not that old. He’s not in Dublin though. Not that that is an excuse for economic illiteracy.

Sleeper12

fvp4 wrote:

Also. Houses were cheaper back then relative to income and people could purchase them younger.

Eh, not true at all. You must be forgetting the 10 to 20 percent interest we paid. You forget that the 80s had almost 20 percent unemployment for most of the decade. We didn't know how bad things were because they were never good. We had a decade or a decade and a half of strikes.

People bought them younger because we left school at 15 or 17 and started working. I left at 14 and was self employed with my first business at 18. I married at 23. First child and mortgage at 24. When my generation bought a house they stretched as far as they could getting a mortgage. We started with hand me downs or 2nd hand furniture. We didn't have money to put in decking or do up the house we bought. No ripping out old carpets. No credit card & no loan except for the mortgage. Houses & mortgages are cheaper now in real terms. Expectations are higher and there is a shortage of homes for sale. That's a FG legacy

The advantage starting early is I was mortgage free in my 40s.

Jizique

gmisk wrote: »

What I wrote is entirely relevant.
The below is a few years old and its probably even worse now.
https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/more-difficult-to-buy-a-home-now-than-in-the-1980s-36321280.html

Errr you can't just decide to increase interest rates or lower life expectancy randomly...


I don't have skin the game either to speak. I worked hard saved a lot and bought a house alone in my early 30s in Dublin (I couldn't have afforded the place I got if there wasn't a recession though)

I know you can’t increase rates or cull the older generation, but this would reduce prices and increase supply; it is not what we can do.
Interest rates will remain rock bottom for a decade but perhaps the govt could encourage the older generattto downsize from houses that are too big for them to smaller units in the local area; my own folks can’t manage their 4 bed house and garden but where can they go? there is a concept in Germany called “barrierefrei” which is basically without barriers so apartments with no stairs and designed for elderly living - there is nothing like that here and much of our city housing stock is occupied by the elderly

Donald Trump

What was an extravagant purchase years ago is not necessarily one now.


You can't have someone saying "the reason I was able to buy my house was that I wasn't out in the 80's with a yuppie cement block of a mobile phone .... but Johnny has one now so that is why he can't afford a house.


Food/travel/clothes were all much more expensive relatively speaking back then. As was money (i.e. loans)

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Eh, not true at all. You must be forgetting the 10 to 20 percent interest we paid. You forget that the 80s had almost 20 percent unemployment for most of the decade. We didn't know how bad things were because they were never good. We had a decade or a decade and a half of strikes.

People bought them younger because we left school at 15 or 17 and started working. I left at 14 and was self employed with my first business at 18. I married at 23. First child and mortgage at 24. When my generation bought a house they stretched as far as they could getting a mortgage. We started with hand me downs or 2nd hand furniture. We didn't have money to put in decking or do up the house we bought. No ripping out old carpets. No credit card & no loan except for the mortgage. Houses & mortgages are cheaper now in real terms. Expectations are higher and there is a shortage of homes for sale. That's a FG legacy

The advantage starting early is I was mortgage free in my 40s.

Read what I said again. I didn’t say anything about repayments.

Donald Trump

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Eh, not true at all. You must be forgetting the 10 to 20 percent interest we paid. You forget that the 80s had almost 20 percent unemployment for most of the decade. We didn't know how bad things were because they were never good. We had a decade or a decade and a half of strikes.

People bought them younger because we left school at 15 or 17 and started working. I left at 14 and was self employed with my first business at 18. I married at 23. First child and mortgage at 24. When my generation bought a house they stretched as far as they could getting a mortgage. We started with hand me downs or 2nd hand furniture. We didn't have money to put in decking or do up the house we bought. No ripping out old carpets. No credit card & no loan except for the mortgage. Houses & mortgages are cheaper now in real terms. Expectations are higher and there is a shortage of homes for sale. That's a FG legacy

The advantage starting early is I was mortgage free in my 40s.

Don't forget walking to school in your bare feet as well. Uphill all the way there and all the way home too.

The J Stands for Jay

Let's examine the list:

Traveling the world - less than a grand for a ticket, a couple of grand saved and work for a bit in the middle in Australia. People spend dollars a day in Asia and South America.
Spending 3-6 years in college - won't get a job to afford a mortgage if they don't.
Living in Australia for a couple of years - because they can't get a job or can't afford the crippling rents where the jobs are in Ireland
Buying new cars - who in their 20s buys new cars? Second hand cars aren't that expensive, and ate needed with the poor public transport in the areas that are affordable
Buying the latest smartphones - €15 a month extra on a phone bill for the fancy ones, or €250 to €300 for a good off brand android.
poor family planning - the older generations with their overly large 1980s families are the epitome of poor family planning
Going on expensive holidays every summer - holidays are not expensive, and it's the same behaviour as the older generations (except likely cheaper and more interesting locations)
Boozing every weekend - less alcohol consumed than previous generations.
Moving out with friends to live the life - yes, previous generations lived with their parents until they were 40.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

What was an extravagant purchase years ago is not necessarily one now.


You can't have someone saying "the reason I was able to buy my house was that I wasn't out in the 80's with a yuppie cement block of a mobile phone .... but Johnny has one now so that is why he can't afford a house.


Food/travel/clothes were all much more expensive relatively speaking back then. As was money (i.e. loans)

Yeh. Having a home phone with a rotary dial was more expensive that a top phone these days.

Jizique

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Eh, not true at all. You must be forgetting the 10 to 20 percent interest we paid. You forget that the 80s had almost 20 percent unemployment for most of the decade. We didn't know how bad things were because they were never good. We had a decade or a decade and a half of strikes.

People bought them younger because we left school at 15 or 17 and started working. I left at 14 and was self employed with my first business at 18. I married at 23. First child and mortgage at 24. When my generation bought a house they stretched as far as they could getting a mortgage. We started with hand me downs or 2nd hand furniture. We didn't have money to put in decking or do up the house we bought. No ripping out old carpets. No credit card & no loan except for the mortgage. Houses & mortgages are cheaper now in real terms. Expectations are higher and there is a shortage of homes for sale. That's a FG legacy

The advantage starting early is I was mortgage free in my 40s.

A lot of truth in that - no overseas stag and hen parties and no big weddings, no 2 day weddings, no overseas weddings; I know people who had a dozen weddings to attend a year, 12 stags, usually 3 days in Liverpool, Spain or Prague; 2 day wedding with cash gift; no living without furniture as rooms are furnished one per year

jam_mac_jam

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Eh, not true at all. You must be forgetting the 10 to 20 percent interest we paid. You forget that the 80s had almost 20 percent unemployment for most of the decade. We didn't know how bad things were because they were never good. We had a decade or a decade and a half of strikes.

People bought them younger because we left school at 15 or 17 and started working. I left at 14 and was self employed with my first business at 18. I married at 23. First child and mortgage at 24. When my generation bought a house they stretched as far as they could getting a mortgage. We started with hand me downs or 2nd hand furniture. We didn't have money to put in decking or do up the house we bought. No ripping out old carpets. No credit card & no loan except for the mortgage. Houses & mortgages are cheaper now in real terms. Expectations are higher and there is a shortage of homes for sale. That's a FG legacy

The advantage starting early is I was mortgage free in my 40s.

Plenty of people still have second hand furniture in their first homes. I know people who lived in houses badly needed to be done up and couldn't because of their mortgages. Half my furniture is second hand.

It's not the celtic tiger anymore with loads of cheap money for new decking. A lot of people have to sacrifice a lot for their first home and still do. Many people in their thirties will never buy because of high rent.

Houses are absolutely not cheaper in real terms. Wages are stagnated and houses and rent are climbing all the time.

Donald Trump

Jizique wrote: »

A lot of truth in that - no overseas stag and hen parties and no big weddings, no 2 day weddings, no overseas weddings; I know people who had a dozen weddings to attend a year, 12 stags, usually 3 days in Liverpool, Spain or Prague; 2 day wedding with cash gift; no living without furniture as rooms are furnished one per year

Your overseas stag to Prague is probably, relatively speaking, as cheap as a weekend down to Galway was back in the day.

notAMember

Jizique wrote: »

A lot of truth in that - no overseas stag and hen parties and no big weddings, no 2 day weddings, no overseas weddings; I know people who had a dozen weddings to attend a year, 12 stags, usually 3 days in Liverpool, Spain or Prague; 2 day wedding with cash gift; no living without furniture as rooms are furnished one per year

Yup.

And add that we had a smaller population, due to massive unemployment shedloads were leaving the country. We are lucky now that we have almost full employment, but housing has definitely not kept up. (Plus those cuckoo funds and the like). Fewer homes for more people = more expensive.

Also add in that dual incomes and that extra buying power is a relatively new thing. In 60’s, 70’s 80’s couples were almost entirely single earners. More income = more ability to bid up.


I bought back in the early 00’s in a really crappy area, I’m talking heroin dealer neighbours with the Garda around a lot, a tiny terraced 2 bed house. I moved in the late 00’s to a better area , near family, and again in the 10’s to a 3 bed house in a better area again. None of those times has it been any fun getting a mortgage. But hey, that’s what we could afford at the time so we got on with it.

Cilldara_2000

Jacksie66. wrote: »

Typical older generation mentality.
'Back in my day you could buy a house for a few thousand pounds and weren't in debt for nearly the rest of your life. Now look at the younger generation. Just because they have to spend close to a grand a month on rent and try and run a car is no excuse'

This country is full of bitter bastards..

+1

Same generation kept voting FFG into power too. I'm alright Jack and fcuk everyone else.

As others have noted in the thread, 2010 was not the first year ever that young people decided to travel etc.

Sleeper12

fvp4 wrote:

Read what I said again. I didn’t say anything about repayments.

And you are still wrong. Buying a new house today for example compared to someone buying a new house in the 70s or 80s gets you a totally different house. It is insulated to the highest standards, heat pump, solar water or pv, double or triple glazing. Houses in the 70s or 80s might not have come with basic central heating. Absolutely no insulation, not even the attic. It could cost over 100k to bring a 70s or 80s home up to today's standard. Today you buy it all up front. We bought & had to spend 1000s each year slowly getting double glazing, central heating etc. It's easy to look back with Rose coloured glasses & say how easy we had it compared to today but that's only if you refuse to step back to look at the bigger picture.

BTW this isn't a new discussion. I had it with my parents. I thought how easy they had it compared to me. But the reality was they had no furniture. Sat on wooden crates at first, no tv, washing machine etc. Absolutely no heating except for an open fire in one room. They had a fridge and a kettle. Washed everything by hand Inc Terry baby nappies.

Comparing wages & house prices over the decades doesn't give you any real idea how things are better or worse for the current generation. It gives a very distorted view.

The opening post was tongue in cheek I believe but there is a reasonable amount of truth to it too

Sleeper12

Donald Trump wrote:

Don't forget walking to school in your bare feet as well. Uphill all the way there and all the way home too.

Reminds me of the monty python scetch where the stories get wilder & wilder. My dad used to beat us till we fell asleep etc.

Cilldara_2000

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Reminds me of the monty python scetch where the stories get wilder & wilder. My dad used to beat us till we fell asleep etc.

Luxury!

Homelander

Sleeper12 wrote: »

And you are still wrong. Buying a new house today for example compared to someone buying a new house in the 70s or 80s gets you a totally different house. It is insulated to the highest standards, heat pump, solar water or pv, double or triple glazing. Houses in the 70s or 80s might not have come with basic central heating. Absolutely no insulation, not even the attic. It could cost over 100k to bring a 70s or 80s home up to today's standard. Today you buy it all up front. We bought & had to spend 1000s each year slowly getting double glazing, central heating etc. It's easy to look back with Rose coloured glasses & say how easy we had it compared to today but that's only if you refuse to step back to look at the bigger picture.

What planet do you live on? Where I live, I can't even afford a run-down, ****-hole of a one bed apartment due to the insane prices that have skyrocketed over the past 5 years.

Pretending that the issue is actually somehow young people wanting quasi-mansions with the best fit-outs is disturbingly out of touch and frankly quite disingenuious and insulting.

The issue is that a huge part of an entire generation can't afford ANY sort of a home. Not that they can't afford their dream home that comes with all mod-cons and the best of everything off the bat.

That nonsense, along with the "sure if they didn't drink as much or travel as much they could afford a home" line seeks to shift the blame for a catastropically dysfunctional market onto the shoulders of those worst affected by it.

Wesser

Of course they can get mortgage approval!
Just not for enough....

Sleeper12

Homelander wrote:

Pretending that the issue is actually somehow young people wanting quasi-mansions with the best fit-outs is disturbingly out of touch and frankly quite disingenuious and insulting.

I'm not pretending anything.

There were people in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90, 0s etc that couldn't afford a run down dog box. It's not a new thing. Some people never get to buy their own home. Is a sad fact of life but it isn't a new thing for this generation.

Cilldara_2000

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not pretending anything.

There were people in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90, 0s etc that couldn't afford a run down dog box. It's not a new thing. Some people never get to buy their own home. Is a sad fact of life but it isn't a new thing for this generation.

79.3% of heads of households were homeowners in 1991. Every census since it has fallen, in 2016 it was 67.6%.

Padre_Pio

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not pretending anything.

There were people in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90, 0s etc that couldn't afford a run down dog box. It's not a new thing. Some people never get to buy their own home. Is a sad fact of life but it isn't a new thing for this generation.

People died of TB and whooping cough back then too.
Comparing people from decades ago to this generation is useless.

It's in the best interest of the government to keep prices high, as every homeowner (90% of voters probably) is seeing their nest egg increase in value.
This is nothing new. House prices have been crazy swings for 20 years at this stage.

titan18

Donald Trump wrote: »

What was an extravagant purchase years ago is not necessarily one now.


You can't have someone saying "the reason I was able to buy my house was that I wasn't out in the 80's with a yuppie cement block of a mobile phone .... but Johnny has one now so that is why he can't afford a house.


Food/travel/clothes were all much more expensive relatively speaking back then. As was money (i.e. loans)

Tbf, my parents bought the house I grew up in in the early 90s for 40k or so. This was a newly built house in a good area and that was the price back then. Same houses now in Cork (newly built etc) are a good 350k or so if you can get one.

Considering neither of my parents would have had great jobs (one worked on a light shop and another was self employed), neither were on great wages but I'm guessing wages werent 5k a year.

House prices now are far higher in proportion to people's income.

This isn't even a political thing for me as I'd be right wing and against large government and public spending, but the situation is gone far too sh1t for that to matter.

Jinglejangle69

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not pretending anything.

There were people in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90, 0s etc that couldn't afford a run down dog box. It's not a new thing. Some people never get to buy their own home. Is a sad fact of life but it isn't a new thing for this generation.

But everyone of this generation is entitled to buy a home whether they can afford it or not.

Central Bank lending rules are there to stop what happened during the celtic tiger years.

Seems people want a return to those days.

Short memories.

Homelander

I'm not pretending anything.

There were people in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90, 0s etc that couldn't afford a run down dog box. It's not a new thing. Some people never get to buy their own home. Is a sad fact of life but it isn't a new thing for this generation.

No-one ever said it was, but it's gotten significantly worse since then objectively.

As people have said, the previous generation could generally buy a house on a modest single income. Regardless of high interest rates, or quality of housing, the simple fact was that people could far easier secure the finance to buy some sort of a home.

Yeah, of course people bought cheaper homes in many cases and did them up over years - many years in some cases. But the fundemental thing is that they had the means to buy some sort of a home, regardless of how much they spent, or how much work would be required going forward.

Today, it is far more difficult. It's a simple fact. Housing supply is far too low, and homes are out of reach of a huge proportion of this generation. In many areas, people willing to buy an absolute bottom-of-the-barrell home and do it up still cannot afford to do so.

There's no point trying to argue that nothing's changed, or that people's expectations are the problem. That's basically a blatant denial of reality, akin to arguing that the health system is working as intended.

Donald Trump

I'd doubt that you had the same proportion of amateur landlords back then.

During the boom, every second person was trying to buy a house so that they could rent it out to some sucker (in their eyes) who'd pay for it for them. Some are trying to exit the market the last few years alright, but there is that aspect too.

How many people in their 20's in the 1980's were being outbid by someone a bit older than them in a comfortable position who just wanted to buy the house over their heads so that they could rent it to them!

titan18

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

But everyone of this generation is entitled to buy a home whether they can afford it or not.

Central Bank lending rules are there to stop what happened during the celtic tiger years.

Seems people want a return to those days.

Short memories.

No, not really. I'd strongly agree with those lending rules (the situation would be worse without them imo), but we need to get house prices down rather than throwing unsustainable credit at the problem.

SnuggyBear

I agree with this to be honest. People not willing to put in the work saving for a house or trying to buy a house in an area they can't afford. You can't have it all.

Jinglejangle69

titan18 wrote: »

No, not really. I'd strongly agree with those lending rules (the situation would be worse without them imo), but we need to get house prices down rather than throwing unsustainable credit at the problem.

House prices are at the price they are as people are buying them at that price.

The only way they come down is if people can't afford them.

Peter Flynt

Government policy has been to award tax breaks to vulture funds who are buying up entire estates and thus forcing Irish people out of the market as a result.

So, yes, government (i.e. FF/FG/GP) are entirely responsible.

This is a criminal betrayal of the Irish people.

titan18

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

House prices are at the price they are as people are buying them at that price.

The only way they come down is if people can't afford them.

When you've investment funds and councils with tax money buying the houses, that argument doesn't really apply.

Jinglejangle69

titan18 wrote: »

When you've investment funds and councils with tax money buying the houses, that argument doesn't really apply.

Yeah agree somewhat.

Councils renting houses at high rents to give to people who pay 50 euro a week isn't sustainable.

Starting to hit home now I think.

Donald Trump

SnuggyBear wrote: »

I agree with this to be honest. People not willing to put in the work saving for a house or trying to buy a house in an area they can't afford. You can't have it all.

Depends on how fast the target is moving. House prices increased by 20k over the last year according to daft. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/house-prices-jump-by-20-000-amid-covid-supply-shock-1.4524301

Sleeper12

Padre_Pio wrote:

It's in the best interest of the government to keep prices high, as every homeowner (90% of voters probably) is seeing their nest egg increase in value. This is nothing new. House prices have been crazy swings for 20 years at this stage.

Of course the government are responsible for high prices though still lower than the late 0s. They ignored warnings of home shortages & homelessness from 2012. When they were eventually acted several years later they panicked & brought in the flawed fast track planning that is actually taking longer than regular planning. A large number of fast tracked planning has been overturned in the courts. Only last week the development beside St Anne's was not just overturned in the court but the judgment raised serious concerns about rezoning the land & decided that it hasn't been rezoned for homes at all, let alone over 600 homes. The same government set the scene that encourages foreign pension funds to buy entire appartment complex off the plans and keep them for rental only. This has been going on for a number of years but recently the same has happened to new housing estates. Rental only.

Padre_Pio

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This has been going on for a number of years but recently the same has happened to new housing estates. Rental only.

True. The govt at the time stimulated the market in 2012 to get people out of neg equity. It worked, only it was never reviewed and now it's a major problem.

Anyone see today's FAH sketch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-xEOvfNTRc

Sleeper12

Cilldara_2000 wrote:

79.3% of heads of households were homeowners in 1991. Every census since it has fallen, in 2016 it was 67.6%.

1991 we were starting our Celtic Tiger believe it or not. Not a fair comparison. Compare years from the 80s and you will see different results especially when you factor in the Irish that had to leave the country

Donald Trump

Sleeper12 wrote: »

1991 we were starting our Celtic Tiger believe it or not. Not a fair comparison. Compare years from the 80s and you will see different results especially when you factor in the Irish that had to leave the country

For the people who got the jobs in the 80's, it was like shooting fish in a barrel though. Having decent income when most others didn't made things much easier.

Donald Trump

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Luxury!

Cilldara_2000

Sleeper12 wrote: »

1991 we were starting our Celtic Tiger believe it or not. Not a fair comparison. Compare years from the 80s and you will see different results especially when you factor in the Irish that had to leave the country

1971 was 70.8% and 1981 was 74.4%. You have to go back to 1961 for a lower figure than we had in 2016.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp1hii/cp1hii/tr/

Bear in mind this was a response to your post:

There were people in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90, 0s etc that couldn't afford a run down dog box. It's not a new thing. Some people never get to buy their own home. Is a sad fact of life but it isn't a new thing for this generation.

The upshot is that for most of these decades, proportionately more people own their own home than do now. And the trend has being going the wrong way for the last 30 years. This is unacceptable IMO in what is supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world, as is the general principle of having people paying over a king's ransom to some foreign pension fund instead of being able to save/invest for their own retirement. What are these people supposed to do at age 65 (or 68 or 70 or 75 as it might by the time they get there) after 40+ years of paying ~€20k a year to some vulture fund?