Is housing really that bad or is it just another hyped up 'crisis'?

Rent typically does not cover mortgage costs. Even if a landlord is losing cash, they are gaining equity. So rent might cover half or 2/3s of their mortgage, and they pay the rest. But at the end of the day they are gaining equity in an asset. So renting at lower price than mortgage is totally viable.

I would call the housing crisis the biggest issue the country faces. There is simply no stock, nothing to rent, government house building targets aren't met. Thus no matter if you have money or not there is nothing to rent.

And due to the spiraling costs of building, we aren't going to get an avalance of houses coming onto the market any time soon.

Down my way, one of my friends built a house two years ago for €300k. Same house today costs about €450 to build. I know this because my colleague is building the same house right now (same plans, different county).

It's like the egg and hen question, one thing not happening if the other doesn't and the other won't happen, if this doesn't happen.

I'd say, it would take a similar crisis like the financial crisis of 2008 to solve this issue and it would be solved faster than just by building more houses and apartments.

The current crisis is certainly not "hyped up" as suggested.

Nowhere in the western world have I seen such long queues just to view one property.

Especially young people are better of emigrating again.

What is "hyped up" is that idiotic "Ireland is a rich country now". It certainly isn't.

Viable for who? Great for the tenant, not so great for the landlord.

Why are you expecting a landlord to provide a service at below cost? Yes, the house might be gaining equity but that's not a guarantee. How many people lost out in the 2008 crash? And what's wrong with gaining equity. Sure isn't the landlord the one who invested their money and are taking on all of the risk?

You don't expect a shop to sell you goods at below cost to them yet you expect a landlord to provide their service at below cost.

I see nothing wrong with a landlord seeking to cover their mortgage through the rent.

Taking his example.

A Landlord has a mortgage on a property that costs 1,000 a month to service.

He rents it for 700.

He is 300 short.

Then depending on his circumstances he may have to 50% on that.

So now he is 650 down. Certain things he can write off, but not everything so he could actually cost him more.

He would be better off putting his deposit and savings into a long term bond account.

But, but, but, but aren't landlords all rolling in it, sitting back and watching the cash come in?

Have they left the property yet? Gonna have a google

You are describing a dumb F*

Anyone with sense knows .. you never borrow money to invest.

Most of gen z cant afford to buy a house ,or an apartment, in a city .nurses and teachers are leaving ireland because house prices ,rents are too high compared with other eu countrys .We need doctors,nurses gardai to provide essential services .taxs on landlords are high compared with other countrys .many older landlords are giving up and selling the house ,apartments they own.

its a bad sign when a trained nurse or garda cant afford to buy a one bed house.trained nurses are leaving ireland to move to countrys where

they can afford to buy a house. theres a shortage of gardai all over the country ,young people are choosing jobs with higher wages .every economy needs a good market eg where theres a range of rental housing avaidable for workers on low wages or young students .not everyone can afford to pay1500 euro to rent a house.Landlords provide a vital essential service ,many landlords only make a small profit after paying expenses ,mortage and taxs .

Exactly - some posters seem to think that if a landlord is not getting a free house out of the arrangement that theyre doing charity

If your mortgage interest is covered, even if you are still out of pocket each month for part of the repayments, you are still earning as you pay down your loan and increase equity. If you stop thinking about it as a house and start thinking like an investment, it makes perfect sense.

You buy a house worth 300k. Lifetime mortgage costs bring it to 400k. If rents cover 50% of the mortgage repayment each month, and landlord pays the other half. At the end of the mortgage he will have gotten a 300k asset for only 200k of his own money put in. Sell the asset and you've made a cool 100k profit

Obviously the reality is landlording is more expensive, more costs associated, tax, refurbs, insurances etc. So the RoI is much lower. But you do not need to come close to having your mortgage covered by rent.

So, burst your hole and take a pile of risk for a theoretical €4000 per year but you've to wait 25 years for it. Nah, I don't think so.

Here's the thing you don't seem to be understanding. Landlords are under no obligation to charge cheaper rent than their mortgage costs yet you think they should be doing that. Great for renters if that was the case but it doesn't make much business sense for the landlord to do that. They are under no obligation to dip into their own pockets and subsidise someone else's accommodation in the hope that they'll make some money in 25 years.

Mortgage costs from perspective of a recurring monthly expense or monthly cash flow, are the mortgage payments.

Looking at the entire loan then cost refers to cost of loan i.e. the interest.