New RTE property show tonight

FillSpectre

I was readingan article on a new show "I'm an adult get me out of here". THe idea being they help or watch people try to move out of their parents and get a place of their own. All sounds fine but the people that appear to be in the show (according to the article) are from wealthy backgrounds or at least middle class.

One of the people mentioned on it is a single mum living with her parents and get this she want a 3 bed semi so the their is room fro her child! Is it just me or does that sound like a lot of house for two people one of which should at least be working to pay for the house. We all know there is a problem with price and demand. If a single mum of one is wanting a 3 bed house maybe that is the problem not house prices.

microgirl

Well, she might also want a 3-bed so she can get someone else in to help pay the mortgage. I'm a single person on my own and ideally I'd want a 3-bed so I could have two people in to share the costs, or one and still have the boxroom spare. Not that I'd refuse a 2-bed, but ideally a 3-bed would be easier. A 1-bed apartment is out of the question from a repayment situation.

As for the show, I actually applied to be on it, but decided not to do it when it became clear that there was absolutely nothing whatsoever in it for the young buyers except that the programme would do the legwork of finding properties for you. For opening up your private life (and that of your family, more to the point) on TV, there should be some kind of recompense or return. I'm not talking anything substantial, but a grand's worth of solicitor's fees even would go a long way for some. But it was actually said to me that appearing on TV was the main incentive and that's what was exciting everyone else about it. Reality TV celebrity-itis. And none of the other participants seemed to be in desperate financial straits. It was basically for those who'd got happy in their rut and wanted someone else to do the hard work of moving them out, rather than those who desperately want to move out but simply don't have the means.

FillSpectre

Nice theory about the house but as the reson she stated was more room for her child not to rent a room out. There are two bed houses all around the country. A three bed house costs more so the renting to a person to buy so that you can rent seems like a good idea for some I guess but would you exposes your child to somebody living in your house?

Calina

on the other hand, would you choose, as a tenant, to move into a house with a child in it? I know I wouldn't. In fact, having done the lodger trick as part of "rent a room", I would never, ever again live in an owner occupied unit, and when I buy my own place, there is no way I'd want to be relying on a tenant.

Culchie

What time is it on at?

gurramok

Very good point OP, i am also an 'adult still living with parents'.
The only way anyone can get out of the family home is to afford it.

ie RTE will have to give the participants a 6 figure sum, either that or the participants are very wealthy individuals who can afford a place to buy anywhere as a single person.
A different story if the program is helping 2 people buying a single property where it can be afforded at the bottome rung of the ladder, guess the program will show who exactly they are targeting!

FillSpectre

It is on at 9:30 pm RTE 2.

I would not hold out for the show to be a people struggling or finding it tough. One of the people who the show was on the radio is living in Dun Laoghaire and wants to buy a house in the area with one of the other sisters. I get it would be nice to buy in the area you grew up but it is a luxury and should be recognised as such.

the_syco

Didn't see it, but was wondering was it like?

muletide

Not bad, the presenter seems like a nice guy. I think they picked the wrong type of people to help out they were not your typical first time buyers - rich kids whose parents had no problem stumping up alot of cash.
But looks like it could be a good show

homah_7ft

It was a bit ridiculous to be perfectly frank. It showed them ringing their father in Hong Kong for more money towards the house. Enough said?

Dirk Gently

Not really an accurate reflection on first time buyers but the younger sister was gorgeous so it gets thumbs up from me.

dingding

Would they have been liable to tax on the 500 euro they were both getting each month from their father ?

FillSpectre

I think the article in the Sunday paper gave an accurate picture of the people even though it was not critical. Not many do get so much money from their parents. I don't know any 26 years olds getting an allowance from a parents while working and living at home. :rolleyes:
I couldn't watch it all.

TheMonster

dingding wrote:

Would they have been liable to tax on the 500 euro they were both getting each month from their father ?

Would have thought so and they divulged all on telly - watch the tax man swoop. Wouldn't the deposit for the house also be taxable?

Moonbeam

The show was good but the 2 girls were in a situation far from reality to most of us.
They had their rich daddy to pay the deposit and their mum went gurantor on 100k or so so they could go well over their budgets.

will be interesting to see how they cope paying their 750 or so a month mortgage in a few months.

TheMonster

Moonbeam wrote:

.

will be interesting to see how they cope paying their 750 or so a month mortgage in a few months.

easy - "Daddy - we need some bunny for the mortgage as we can't afford it because we, so like, had to buy the latest Gucci handbag"

FillSpectre

Moonbeam wrote:

will be interesting to see how they cope paying their 750 or so a month mortgage in a few months.

Their daddy gives them €500 each a month I think they might just manage the €250 a month each but then again who knows. The worst bit is one of them was on at least 2 radio station yesterday promoting the show.

Culchie

ffs ... A good idea for a show ruined by having two kids on who can turn to mummy and daddy for the whole shooting match, even daddy's allowance just about pays their mortgage.

This from a girl on €1700 a month and her 22 year old sister.

Just to add to my cynicism ... the two of them drive off into the sunset in a '05' car giggling.

RTE really know how to make a cloud out of a silver lining.

Scruff

missed the 1st half but thought the rest of it was funny. two good looking south dublin birds doing the their sterotype no favours what so ever. Younger one had her head screwed on a bit better than her older sister who seemed to be a shopaholic.
They looked like they were going to cry when they were viewing the house in Neilstown. Dont blame em for not wanting to live there (i live about 3 miles from there so i've a fair idea) but thought the crushing reality if what they could afford was priceless. Classic comment from the older one about being able to get more money: "We're lucky that we've 3 parents".
yah, like roish!

microgirl

FillSpectre wrote:

would you exposes your child to somebody living in your house?

Actually, potentially yes. And I know many people who have. My mam did for years, although admittedly it was student digs that she was providing (y'know, meals cooked, house rules etc), which is slightly different.

It doesn't have to be a stranger that you have in the house, it could be a friend or acquaintance. And while yes, a 2-bed might be argued to be good enough for a single mother and child (and certainly if there's no plan to have anyone else in to help with the mortgage) - an argument I would generally make too - it is understandable to want to have a spare room if people visit. That's something everyone wants. Also, just because you state your desires doesn't mean that that's the minimum you'll accept.

microgirl

gurramok wrote:

Very good point OP, i am also an 'adult still living with parents'.
The only way anyone can get out of the family home is to afford it.

ie RTE will have to give the participants a 6 figure sum, either that or the participants are very wealthy individuals who can afford a place to buy anywhere as a single person.
A different story if the program is helping 2 people buying a single property where it can be afforded at the bottome rung of the ladder, guess the program will show who exactly they are targeting!

Well, as I said myself from the details the producers gave me during my several meetings with them when I was a prospective participant, the premise of the show was giving lazy/rut-stuck/ people who keep putting things on the long finger a kick up the ass, not those who can't get out for financial reasons. The benefit to me would have been that they might finally motivate me to get my finger out to send off my applications for Shared Ownership and Affordable Housing, which I've been long-fingering for months because it's so much finicky paperwork. Someone doing that for me would be great.

But not at the expense of having to let them invade my mother's house foir 1-2 days, and question all my friends about me

FillSpectre

microgirl wrote:

Actually, potentially yes. And I know many people who have. My mam did for years, although admittedly it was student digs that she was providing (y'know, meals cooked, house rules etc), which is slightly different.

You do realise that most victims of abuse are abused by peolpe close to the family. Living in the house with anybody other than family could be a potential risk as is family also.

I don't think it is understandable to put yourself in financial risk to have niceities such as a room for guests. I don't know about you but I know people who have bought bigger houses than they need miles away from where they need to commute to work in order for these nicities (e.g. big back garden, studya, spare bedroom etc...). As I said the only information we have at the moment is a single mother with one child wants a 3 bed semi for the extra room for her child. Wait till her show is on and we might find out more. THe show last night showed some spoilt kids COMPLAINING about what they could afford (the could afford nothing it was given to them)

Lex Luthor

the show was poor but last nights eye candy was good, especially the younger one:p
Now that half teh country know where they live I bet there'll be a lot of lads scoping them out

dochasach

FillSpectre wrote:

...
I don't think it is understandable to put yourself in financial risk to have niceities such as a room for guests.

Buying any house right now puts the buyer in financial risk, but if (when) there is a downturn, a 3br will be easier to sell than a 2, a 2 easier than a 1 and of course there is the possibility of renting out the extra room. Banks in some countries won't even loan for a 1Br for just this reason.

I wouldn't criticize those who have a spare bedroom they don't need when plenty of other people have one or more extra houses they don't need. The extra houses are a much bigger risk to personal and overall Irish economy.

If the government really wants to do something about housing affordability:

• Replace stamp duty with an annual property tax so the already owning 'elite' pay their share.
• Tax the snot out of fallow property. If you aren't living in it, farming it or renting it out, you're speculating and only contributing false demand and forcing prices up. When some of the empty "investment property" goes back on the market, it will make much more available for young mothers, possibly even enough to allow for a spare bedroom or two.
• Regulate the banks so that they assume the full risk of bad loans and can't expect a government bailout if their excess lending leads to a slew of defaults. Ban 90%+ loans. (apologies to any bankers who break out in a cold sweat at this thought.) Noel Ahern, are you listening?
• Planning reform. (Yeah, like that will ever happen.)
• Anti-shill real estate bargaining laws, similar to those used in Scotland.
• Transparency and truth in advertising regulation in the real estate industry. An estate agent is a financial advisor, he/she should meet similar standards as stock advisors.
  

FillSpectre wrote:

...
I don't know about you but I know people who have bought bigger houses than they need miles away from where they need to commute to work in order for these nicities (e.g. big back garden, studya, spare bedroom etc...).

To each his/her own, different strokes and all that. With the government decentralisation and more companies allowing telecommuting, why not enjoy a house "out there" rather than a broom closet in Dublin? Who knows, one day our prosperity may lead to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd world transportation system rather than the 4th world one we have.

The only disadvantage I see is for investors, when Tokyo's real estate bubble deflated, outlyng property was hit hardest.

FillSpectre wrote:

As I said the only information we have at the moment is a single mother with one child wants a 3 bed semi for the extra room for her child.

Try keeping the kid in a 350,000 euro broom closet in a crime ridden Dublin neighborhood and you'll probably crave a home with a garden in Athlone (or Zurich). It's one of the reasons why I'd advocate renting right now, you can easily get twice as much for your money, less risk, less crime and unlike ARM mortgages, rents have been steady or falling for the past few years. Those who rent and invest the extra money in a better lifestyle, savings, pension or other investment are in good company.

FillSpectre wrote:

...Wait till her show is on and we might find out more. THe show last night showed some spoilt kids COMPLAINING about what they could afford (the could afford nothing it was given to them)

I'll agree with you on that 100%! The parents spoilt them and contribute to house price inflation. But they're only representative of 80% of Dubliners their age and 99% of D4s their age. They've seen nothing but boom times.

dochasach

FillSpectre wrote:

...
I don't think it is understandable to put yourself in financial risk to have niceities such as a room for guests.

Buying any house right now puts the buyer in financial risk, but if (when) there is a downturn, a 3br will be easier to sell than a 2, a 2 easier than a 1 and of course there is the possibility of renting out the extra room. Banks in some countries won't even loan for a 1Br for just this reason.

I wouldn't criticize those who have a spare bedroom they don't need when plenty of other people have one or more extra houses they don't need. The extra houses are a much bigger risk to personal and overall Irish economy.

If the government really wants to do something about housing affordability:

• Replace stamp duty with an annual property tax so the already owning 'elite' pay their share.
• Tax the snot out of fallow property. If you aren't living in it, farming it or renting it out, you're speculating and only contributing false demand and forcing prices up. When some of the empty "investment property" goes back on the market, it will make much more available for young mothers, possibly even enough to allow for a spare bedroom or two.
• Regulate the banks so that they assume the full risk of bad loans and can't expect a government bailout if their excess lending leads to a slew of defaults. Ban 90%+ loans. (apologies to any bankers who break out in a cold sweat at this thought.) Noel Ahern, are you listening?
• Planning reform. (Yeah, like that will ever happen.)
• Anti-shill real estate bargaining laws, similar to those used in Scotland.
• Transparency and truth in advertising regulation in the real estate industry. An estate agent is a financial advisor, he/she should meet similar standards as stock advisors.
  

FillSpectre wrote:

...
I don't know about you but I know people who have bought bigger houses than they need miles away from where they need to commute to work in order for these nicities (e.g. big back garden, studya, spare bedroom etc...).

To each his/her own, different strokes and all that. With the government decentralisation and more companies allowing telecommuting, why not enjoy a house "out there" rather than a broom closet in Dublin? Who knows, one day our prosperity may lead to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd world transportation system rather than the 4th world one we have.

The only disadvantage I see is for investors, when Tokyo's real estate bubble deflated, outlyng property was hit hardest.

FillSpectre wrote:

As I said the only information we have at the moment is a single mother with one child wants a 3 bed semi for the extra room for her child.

Try keeping the kid in a 350,000 euro broom closet in a crime ridden Dublin neighborhood and you'll probably crave a home with a garden in Athlone (or Zurich). It's one of the reasons why I'd advocate renting right now, you can easily get twice as much for your money, less risk, less crime and unlike ARM mortgages, rents have been steady or falling for the past few years. Those who rent and invest the extra money in children, a better lifestyle, savings, pension, or other investment are are in good company.

FillSpectre wrote:

...Wait till her show is on and we might find out more. THe show last night showed some spoilt kids COMPLAINING about what they could afford (the could afford nothing it was given to them)

I'll agree with you on that 100%! The parents spoilt them and contribute to house price inflation. But they're only representative of 80% of Dubliners their age and 99% of D4s their age. They've seen nothing but boom times.

the_syco

It could be just me, but a mother and child... renting a room to an unknown stranger, just seems wrong. Unless you know them before you rent out a room to them, and even then its not always certain...

godtabh

dochasach wrote:

Try keeping the kid in a 350,000 euro broom closet in a crime ridden Dublin neighborhood and you'll probably crave a home with a garden in Athlone (or Zurich). It's one of the reasons why I'd advocate renting right now, you can easily get twice as much for your money, less risk, less crime and unlike ARM mortgages, rents have been steady or falling for the past few years. Those who rent and invest the extra money in children, a better lifestyle, savings, pension, or other investment are

If you rent you have nothing to show for at the end of the day. I would rather live at home and save to buy my own place (which I am doing now) than rent a place.

FillSpectre

dochasach wrote:

I wouldn't criticize those who have a spare bedroom they don't need when plenty of other people have one or more extra houses they don't need. The extra houses are a much bigger risk to personal and overall Irish economy.

dochasach wrote:

To each his/her own, different strokes and all that.

Your two statemnets don't match you basically don't think each to their own. It appears you find it acceptable for an individual to be greedy when it is their home but people investing in property should be punished for doing so.

dochasach wrote:

I'll agree with you on that 100%! The parents spoilt them and contribute to house price inflation. But they're only representative of 80% of Dubliners their age and 99% of D4s their age. They've seen nothing but boom times.

I find that slightly offensive. THose girls certainly don't represent 80% of Dublin population their age. I also think you can buy a nice place for €350k in a nice area. I don't know where you live but I'll take it you don't live in Dublin or have only have knowledge of a very small part of it becasue what you said is not my city.

conor_mc

the_syco wrote:

It could be just me, but a mother and child... renting a room to an unknown stranger, just seems wrong. Unless you know them before you rent out a room to them, and even then its not always certain...

Made me giggle that, coming from someone who goes by the name "the_syco"..!!!!

aniascor

dochasach wrote:

[*]Replace stamp duty with an annual property tax so the already owning 'elite' pay their share.

I would hate to see this happen - you can't control rising property taxes, and can end up losing the very house you have worked your whole life to pay for when you retire, or become ill, and suddenly can't afford property taxes. Your primary residence should never be subject to this! (BTW - I have no problem with property taxes for investment or second properties.)
And what should the property taxes be based on? The original price you paid for your house? Or what it is worth now in an inflated market?

dochasach wrote:

[*]Tax the snot out of fallow property. If you aren't living in it, farming it or renting it out, you're speculating and only contributing false demand and forcing prices up. When some of the empty "investment property" goes back on the market, it will make much more available for young mothers, possibly even enough to allow for a spare bedroom or two.

I really like this idea! - it is so obvious looking around Dublin that half of the new properties have never been lived in - I live in Smithfield, and half of the apartments in the block that Fresh supermarket is in haven't even been furnished yet, not to mind rented out. And those apartments have been ready for about 9 months.

Lex Luthor

dochasach wrote:

[*]Replace stamp duty with an annual property tax so the already owning 'elite' pay their share..

so I get penalized for buying a house before the boom? Is that what you're saying?

So if any of the elite out there that you are referring to get a property tax pushed on them, do you think the government will refund them the SD they paid..???

Youy know if you buy a new house, you don't have to pay SD if your a FTB....

:rolleyes:

mad m

Lex Luthor wrote:

Youy know if you buy a new house, you don't have to pay SD if your a FTB....

:rolleyes:

Even if its over 125sq meter?

dochasach

kearnsr wrote:

If you rent you have nothing to show for at the end of the day.

In a normal housing market, mortgage debters (a.k.a. "eventual buyers") usually come out ahead of renters, eventually. But as you've probably noticed, we aren't in a normal housing market. Unless you are certain that you will be able to keep your job and live in the house you purchased for the entire loan term and that the value will steadily rise over that time, there is absolutely no guarantee that a buyer will have more "to show" than the renter. He could get stuck in a negative equity situation where he owes more than the house is worth. In this case, the renter is clearly ahead.

According to daft.ie, mortgage payments on a typical house are 2.5 times more expensive than rent on the same property. If the renter blows the extra money on booze then you're right, the buyer comes out ahead. But what's to keep him from investing the extra in an ordinary 5% savings account? But wait, houses have had double digit price increases for the past few years. Yes, and this is why I think estate agents should be required to place a warning on every property ad, in a similar font to the cigarette warnings:

WARNING: If you sell before the end of the term, the amount you owe may exceed the market value of the property. You will be required vacate the house AND pay the differential.

When you buy stock, you get a warning that "Past performance does not guarantee future results." and when you buy short options you get the chilling warning that "your losses may be unlimited." Why don't we see this kind of warning on property?

I'll have to admit that I was a "rent=dead money" believer until I ran through some numbers and figured out that it just doesn't work when house markets go as ape Sh1t3 insane as this one has. This person explains it much better than I can: http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=173020&postcount=223

kearnsr wrote:

I would rather live at home and save to buy my own place (which I am doing now) than rent a place.

Not everyone has that option. It also seems strange and a bit unfair that income tax on adults who live with their parents is at the same rate as those who are out on their own, having to fend for themselves.

MrSinn

I hate this programme,its just more of the crap that comes from the "housing and property obsessed media in ireland"
If they stopped talking and writing about it for 5 mins then this whole pain in the hole issue might not be at the forefront of every irish persons life,what a sad state most of us in this country live in
Tonight on that crap show was this big twat that was looking at bog standard cardboard 3 up 2 down house,when asked what he thought of the living room he said he thought their was too much going on in it:D :mad:
Someday,maybe,RTE will make an original programme

dochasach

FillSpectre wrote:

Your two statemnets don't match you basically don't think each to their own. It appears you find it acceptable for an individual to be greedy when it is their home but people investing in property should be punished for doing so.

No, I just think that if a single mother is being accused of greed and hedonism because she would like an extra bedroom, we should also pay some attention to the punter who has several extra entire houses he doesn't need.

And investors shouldn't be punished, but they also shouldn't expect to live freely off the celtic tiger windfall just because they were lucky enough to financially able to buy property prior to 1999.

FillSpectre wrote:

I find that slightly offensive. THose girls certainly don't represent 80% of Dublin population their age. I also think you can buy a nice place for €350k in a nice area. I don't know where you live but I'll take it you don't live in Dublin or have only have knowledge of a very small part of it becasue what you said is not my city.

Don't mean to offend, It's just an opinion. I can't be the only one who has encountered so many with such an enormous sense of entitlement. From 1000 euro communions, to new cars, live at home until they can convince the parents to buy them a home, chat on the mobile all day at school and work, sneer at customers when asked to do their job, drink heavily at least 4 times a week, buy the latest fashions and top brand labels, don't ever buy anything used.

But I'd like to think you're right.

Interesting comment about what 350k gets, there do seem to be more decent properties in that price range than I remember seeing a few months ago. That's still well above what I'd pay. I'll emmigrate before gambling 10X average salary on a very average house.

It's weird that RTE has so many property show clones, especially when RTE is tax subsidised. How much RTE revenue comes from mortgage and real estate ads?

dochasach

aniascor wrote:

I would hate to see this happen - you can't control rising property taxes, and can end up losing the very house you have worked your whole life to pay for when you retire, or become ill, and suddenly can't afford property taxes. Your primary residence should never be subject to this! (BTW - I have no problem with property taxes for investment or second properties.)
And what should the property taxes be based on? The original price you paid for your house? Or what it is worth now in an inflated market?

Good points, good questions. I was thinking about this after I wrote it. The existing system is only sustainable if the government salts away the stamp duty windfall for a rainy day. But of course they wont. Annual property taxes can provide more of a dependable income, but you're correct that they can (and have) forced retirees to remortgage homes just to pay taxes. That's not fair either. So I like your idea of an annual property tax on 2nd and other investment properties.

aniascor wrote:

I really like this idea! - it is so obvious looking around Dublin that half of the new properties have never been lived in - I live in Smithfield, and half of the apartments in the block that Fresh supermarket is in haven't even been furnished yet, not to mind rented out. And those apartments have been ready for about 9 months.

Yes I've seen similar. Take a look at night sometime and you'll see how many properties are supposedly "earning" their owners value by just sitting there empty and dark. I wonder if that many individual investors have chosen to let property sit empty or if there is some sort of cartel in operation, trying to keep supply down whilst also taking advantage of the last year of builder tax breaks. Since we have absolutely no transparency or accountability in the property industry, it wouldn't surprise me. If they can't prove owner or renter occupancy for at least 50% out of the two years following planning approval, apply a high windfall profits tax on the assessed appreciation over that period, payable immediately.

Just say no to ponzi schemes!

dochasach

Lex Luthor wrote:

so I get penalized for buying a house before the boom? Is that what you're saying?

It's not a penalty, its paying a fair share. Those who bought before the boom have more than enough advantages over the post 1999 peasant class. Unless they don't intend to use any of the roads, rails or other infrastructure paid for by the boom, they should have to pay their share, and the tiny stamp duty paid before the boom is not enough to pay for a lifetime of government services.

So if any of the elite out there that you are referring to get a property tax pushed on them, do you think the government will refund them the SD they paid..???

Youy know if you buy a new house, you don't have to pay SD if your a FTB....

:rolleyes:

Elite might not have been the right word, maybe "owning class?" Ireland is developing an enormous wealth disparity based more on luck, prior wealth, market timing and the age of the investor than it is on earned income and hard work.

Of course you would want to take paid SD into consideration when calculating annual property taxes, and I like a previous posters idea of making annual taxes only apply for secondary and investment homes. The only thing I'm certain of is that the government has become dependent on the stamp duty collected during a property boom, and nowhere on earth was there ever a property boom of this magnitude which lasted more than a few years.

dochasach

kearnsr wrote:

If you rent you have nothing to show for at the end of the day.

In a normal housing market, mortgage debters (a.k.a. "eventual buyers") usually come out of renters, eventually. But as you've probably noticed, we aren't in a normal housing market. But unless you are certain that you will be able to keep your job and live in the house you purchased for the entire loan term and that the value will steadily rise over that time, there is absolutely no guarantee that a buyer will have more "to show" than the renter.

According to daft.ie, mortgage payments on a typical house are 2.5 times more expensive than rent on the same property. Now if the renter blows the extra money on booze you're right, the buyer comes out ahead. But what's to keep him from investing the extra in an ordinary 5% savings account? But wait, houses have had double digit price increases for the past few years. Yes, and this is why I think estate agents should be required to place a warning on every property ad, in a similar font to the cigarette warnings:

WARNING: If you decide to sell before the end of the term, the amount you owe may exceed the market value of the property. You will be required vacate the house AND pay the differential.

When you buy stock, you get a warning that "Past performance does not guarantee future results." and when you buy short options you get the chilling warning that "your losses may be unlimited." Why don't we see this kind of warning on property?

I'll have to admit that I was a "rent=dead money" believer until I ran through some numbers and figured out that it just doesn't work when house markets go as ape Sh1t3 insane as this one has. This person explains it much better than I can: http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=173020&postcount=223

Actually, his numbers are a bit conservative since they were based back when interest rates were 3.5%. Try running the 400000 amortization total outlay vs (rent + investment return) with the interest rate at 4.5% and your buying outlay will be something like 750000. Try again with the rate at <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/04/business/ecb.php&quot;&gt;5%&lt;/a&gt; and the buyer's outlay for 25 years in a 400000 house is 770000 (not including maintainence costs and stamp duty.)

kearnsr wrote:

I would rather live at home and save to buy my own place (which I am doing now) than rent a place.

Not everyone has that option. It also seems strange and a bit unfair that income tax on adults who live with their parents is at the same rate as those who are out on their own, having to fend for themselves.

Lex Luthor

dochasach wrote:

It's not a penalty, its paying a fair share. Those who bought before the boom have more than enough advantages over the post 1999 peasant class.

and what about all those people like our parents who bought in the 70's when interest rates were high and they scraped every penny to pay the bills.....would you expect them now to pay a property tax just when they have probably just about finished paying off their mortgage even though they are sitiing on a nice nest egg that you will probably inheret?

There are people my age out there that have yet to buy a house so to penalize some of us that took a risk when we were young is ridiculous.

I could barely afford to pay my mortgage 10yrs ago when I bought. Also had to borrow the £2k deposit. Its the same now only things have gone up but so have salaries.

FillSpectre

dochasach wrote:

No, I just think that if a single mother is being accused of greed and hedonism because she would like an extra bedroom, we should also pay some attention to the punter who has several extra entire houses he doesn't need.

Actually you miss the point she doesn't need a house let alone a 3 bed one.The demand for such 3 bed housese by those who want them for their family structure. A 3 bed house is for an old average family the people who bought such houses didn't have extra rooms and bought for their need and budget. People are now pushing their budgets to buy things they don't need.
Your two statements contradict each other based on what you think is right and not about fairness or strokes for folkes.

dochasach wrote:

And investors shouldn't be punished, but they also shouldn't expect to live freely off the celtic tiger windfall just because they were lucky enough to financially able to buy property prior to 1999.

Explain how investors are ridding free on the celtic tiger? Landlords do pay taxes and provide a needed service. In fact one you use inorder to save money. Investors weren't just lucky they saw a trend and did something about it. What about all the landlords proving services for periods longer than 7 years ago say 20?

dochasach wrote:

Don't mean to offend, It's just an opinion.

Your opinion is offensive and based on inacurrate information. How long have you lived in Dublin and how many different parts of it? You sound like you have isolated contact if that is the opinion you have come up with.

dochasach wrote:

Interesting comment about what 350k gets, there do seem to be more decent properties in that price range than I remember seeing a few months ago. That's still well above what I'd pay. I'll emmigrate before gambling 10X average salary on a very average house.

You said it couldn't be done? Have you any experience of ever owning or buying a property. It appears you protest too much about how prices are. A lot of posting to make sure your point is heard. I posted up a thread already about prices and my friends property is up about 80% in 2.5 years. So for the great crash to happen and effect him the market would have to crash about 60% before he would lose money. Now you are of the Waitandsee tribe that wants a crash so you were proved right and hope to buy a house at rock bottom prices. The point is even in the UK the people who did that didn't make out like bandits as they spent too long waiting. How long are you renting now? What is the value of the property you might have been able to buy then? how much is it worth now? and what % would the whole market need to crash so that you could afford it now? Don'et foreget that is just to get back to the point a few years ago and you aged and paid rent the whole time.
I don't sign up for the rent is dead money line as it is a service like any other. People don't see car deprciation as dead money which I think is more true

dochasach wrote:

It's weird that RTE has so many property show clones, especially when RTE is tax subsidised. How much RTE revenue comes from mortgage and real estate ads?

I don't think it is that strange RTE do property shows as so do Channel 4 and BBC along with the decoration shows which are often also about how to add value. You can hold off on the conspiracy theory big businnes control all view too. I only know teenagers to talk about conspiracies so much.

dochasach

FillSpectre wrote:

Actually you miss the point she doesn't need a house let alone a 3 bed one...

And he (of the wealth class) doesn't need an extra empty house.

FillSpectre wrote:

Explain how investors are ridding free on the celtic tiger? Landlords do pay taxes and provide a needed service...

I have no problem with landlords, but what of those who sit on empty property? There is a trend starting of keeping property empty and not bothering with renters because bare brick appreciation is expected to cover outlay.

FillSpectre wrote:

Investors weren't just lucky they saw a trend and did something about it.

And those who were 12 years old in 1999, were they foolish to not take their communion money and buy an apartment? I see a trend too.

FilleSpectre wrote:

What about all the landlords proving services for periods longer than 7 years ago say 20?

They will be O.K. If property prices fall, if rents continue to fall, they can still rent at a profit. No problem.

Your opinion is offensive and based on inacurrate information. How long have you lived in Dublin and how many different parts of it? You sound like you have isolated contact if that is the opinion you have come up with.

I hope you're right.

You said it couldn't be done? Have you any experience of ever owning or buying a property.

I don't remember saying "It couldn't be done." If so, the correct phrase should have been, "It shouldn't be done." And yes, I owned for about 10 years abroad, sold within 18 months of a peak and got out.

It appears you protest too much about how prices are. A lot of posting to make sure your point is heard.

My protests aren't so much about the price of property, the ratio of property prices to income and property prices to rent is the highest in the world and it's higher than it has ever been here. It's just not sustainable. I'm one of the 3% of people in Ireland who don't believe the "property will always rise" hype. I hope I'm not overwhelming the other 97% with my opinion. Why is it so controversial to say "property values might not go up?" Why is it so controversial to say, "Interest rates might go up?"

I posted up a thread already about prices and my friends property is up about 80% in 2.5 years. So for the great crash to happen and effect him the market would have to crash about 60% before he would lose money.

Real estate crashes don't happen like that. He'd just notice that he can't sell it. So he'll drop the price. And it won't sell. He'll paint it and try to rent it out for a few months. And it won't rent and it won't sell. His house is only up 80% on paper until he has a buyer willing to pay who has signed the contract. And if he looks carefully at his amortization schedule, he'll find that he probably has very little equity.

Now you are of the Waitandsee tribe that wants a crash so you were proved right and hope to buy a house at rock bottom prices.

No I don't wish for a crash. If I believed property could rise forever in relation to wages and rents, I'd also buy as much property as possible at the current inflated prices. But it won't. I don't think buying on the way down is necessarily a good idea either so don't worry about me "bargain hunting" when property is only 20% overvalued.

The point is even in the UK the people who did that didn't make out like bandits as they spent too long waiting. How long are you renting now? What is the value of the property you might have been able to buy then?

If I'd known I'd be here maybe buying might have been an O.K. investment, but I'm here on the whim of Ireland's ever-chaning immigration law and to be honest, I still would have been much better off renting and investing the differential in oil. Hindsight is great but past performance does not guarantee future results.

People don't see car deprciation as dead money which I think is more true

Very true.

I don't think it is that strange RTE do property shows as so do Channel 4 and BBC along with the decoration shows which are often also about how to add value. You can hold off on the conspiracy theory big businnes control all view too. I only know teenagers to talk about conspiracies so much.

Hey it was just a joke. No I don't really confuse RTE's lack of "reality show" imagination with conspiracies, they're just catering to the 97% who believe the property hype. But if I were them, I'd try to get a few quid in ad revenue from the property companies and mortgage banks.

dochasach

Lex Luthor wrote:

and what about all those people like our parents who bought in the 70's when interest rates were high and they scraped every penny to pay the bills.....would you expect them now to pay a property tax just when they have probably just about finished paying off their mortgage even though they are sitiing on a nice nest egg that you will probably inheret?

Retirees in a lot of other countries do just that, but if you want to phase annual property tax in slowly, start with 2nd homes and investment property which isn't being rented out. BTW, not all of us can count on an inherited nest egg property.

There are people my age out there that have yet to buy a house so to penalize some of us that took a risk when we were young is ridiculous.

It's not a penalty it's a tax. People your age who took a risk and invested in a non housing related business have to pay a tax on their profits too.

I could barely afford to pay my mortgage 10yrs ago when I bought. Also had to borrow the £2k deposit. Its the same now only things have gone up but so have salaries.

It's not the same now, the ratio between property prices and salary is the highest it has ever been and I think it's ahead of most of the world (with the possible exception of South Africa.) And the ratio of house prices to rent yield is rapidly approaching ridiculous: http://www.davydirect.ie/other/pubarticles/econcr20060329.pdf

zappb

speaking of salarys - what is the average salary in Dublin? 30'000€? More?

godtabh

zappb wrote:

speaking of salarys - what is the average salary in Dublin? 30'000€? More?

I think the average industrial wage is €27,000.

Fine Gael website regarding house prices

(Note: Just an example of average insutrial wage & buying a house. Not my poltical view point!)

FillSpectre

dochasach wrote:

And he (of the wealth class) doesn't need an extra empty house.

I have not seen these magical empty places you are talking about. If people have money to buy what they want that is their option horses for courses. If people are buying things they can't afford and don't need I see that as a bigger problem and something driving the type of development in the country.

dochasach wrote:

I have no problem with landlords, but what of those who sit on empty property?

I don't know of any and certainly don't think they are having a massive effect what limited view makes you believe this? A few empty appartments that have recently been completed not having people in them

dochasach wrote:

And those who were 12 years old in 1999, were they foolish to not take their communion money and buy an apartment? I see a trend too.

Maybe they should realise they don't get to buy a 3 bed house they don't need on one salary. THey should realise that unlike their parents they are unlikely to buy just one property in their lif and stay there like the generation before. Change happens get over it. Ireland does have the highest home ownsership in the world the next is Italy wich has a decreasing population for years. I can go look fo the link but I couldn't be bothered considering you just throw figures about

dochasach wrote:

I hope you're right.

So avoid the question again. How long have you lived here to give such magic insight? So far you have made wild generalisations and statemnets that have no support in any of my life.

dochasach wrote:

I don't remember saying "It couldn't be done." If so, the correct phrase should have been, "It shouldn't be done." And yes, I owned for about 10 years abroad, sold within 18 months of a peak and got out.

So your knowledge of housing is not even of this country. Ans unlike oil shares you need a plce to live and it is acost you have no matter what.

dochasach wrote:

My protests aren't so much about the price of property, the ratio of property prices to income and property prices to rent is the highest in the world and it's higher than it has ever been here. It's just not sustainable. I'm one of the 3% of people in Ireland who don't believe the "property will always rise" hype. I hope I'm not overwhelming the other 97% with my opinion. Why is it so controversial to say "property values might not go up?" Why is it so controversial to say, "Interest rates might go up?"

Then protest about that instead of saying bring in a a property tax on people who pay additional taxes on the property on purcahse and tax on income. You may think it is not sustainable but you aren't giving any reasons and this thread is about a TV show that is the topic. It is not controversial to say rate will go up and prices will go down . You are just making yourself out to be somebody going against the trend. You aren't and you aren't discussing the correct topic or even discuss the one made up by you.

dochasach wrote:

No I don't wish for a crash. If I believed property could rise forever in relation to wages and rents, I'd also buy as much property as possible at the current inflated prices. But it won't. I don't think buying on the way down is necessarily a good idea either so don't worry about me "bargain hunting" when property is only 20% overvalued.

WHo said anything about the prices going up forever? You are making up arguements to argue with yourself. THe Waitandsee tribe are too cauious to do anything. Your throw away figures are really quite poor for making your point. You most likely call it a bubble yet can't say where the bubble started but claimed it was bubble last year and about to pop and the same the year before. YOu suggest you sold at the peak is laughable, as the prices keep rising the peak has not been reached here

dochasach wrote:

Hey it was just a joke. No I don't really confuse RTE's lack of "reality show" imagination with conspiracies, they're just catering to the 97% who believe the property hype. But if I were them, I'd try to get a few quid in ad revenue from the property companies and mortgage banks.

Please explain your percentage figure. It appears to be completely made up.

zappb

let's not get personal guys - no need to derail a good thread by trolling each other.

Thanks for that Fine Gael article Kearnsr - it's amazing the article is 3 years old at this stage - and house prices have had double digit growth in those 3 years. I'm sure the average industrial wage has gone up from 27'000€ as well - say to perhaps 31,000, but the average house price has gone up by a whopping 100,000k!!! In 3 mesely years.

I'm going to do a few searches on the Japanese Crash - see what went wrong there - maybe it will lead to some clues as to how we are doing.It seems to be a global bubble though - house prices are rising all over the world.

dochasach

FillSpectre wrote:

I have not seen these magical empty places you are talking about. If people have money to buy what they want that is their option horses for courses. If people are buying things they can't afford and don't need I see that as a bigger problem and something driving the type of development in the country.

Are you sure you live in Ireland?

...Maybe they should realise they don't get to buy a 3 bed house they don't need on one salary. THey should realise that unlike their parents they are unlikely to buy just one property in their lif and stay there like the generation before. Change happens get over it.

Allowing for change is exactly why the R word ("Rent") should be an option to consider for any adult who wants to get out of his/her parents home.

So your knowledge of housing is not even of this country.

Supply and demand, manias, panics and ponzi schemes work the same everywhere.

Ans unlike oil shares you need a plce to live and it is acost you have no matter what.

Why did I know you were going to say that. Yes, but if oil rose faster than houses over that period (which it did), the profit made on oil would buy you a better house than you could've otherwise. And since you were renting in the interim, you've lived in a house that was 2.5X better than the "owner" during that period too. But arguing about hindsight with oil is as silly as using hindsight to argue that everyone should have bought a house 15 years ago. Why didn't you buy one 20 years ago?

...Your throw away figures are really quite poor for making your point.

I could dig up pages of figures, I actually convinced someone just as skeptical as you a few months back, but as you said, this is a thread about RTE's program and my initial point is that rather than taking some of my (and other's) recommendations to alleviate the problem, the government and media seem to be doing everything to keep the hype going.

I'm glad we agree that it won't go on forever. Take a look at the price vs income ratio in this AIB report:
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10005503.shtml

You most likely call it a bubble yet can't say where the bubble started but claimed it was bubble last year and about to pop and the same the year before.

You must be confusing me with someone else, I wasn't posting here 2 years back. BTW, just because it hasn't popped doesn't mean it's a bubble.

YOu suggest you sold at the peak is laughable, as the prices keep rising the peak has not been reached here

As I said, the property was overseas and if you check out the news, there are many parts of the world where property prices have peaked and are falling. Parts of the U.S. Austrailia, Netherlands, the U.K.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/03/news/economy/realestateguide_fortune/
And the human side of the meltdown hinted at by the fortune article:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/04/shoot-messenger.html
Japan is finally nearing the bottom after 15 years of property deflation, despite central bank rates near 0%.

Please explain your percentage figure. It appears to be completely made up.

O.K.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10005489.shtml
Notably fewer consumers expect house prices to fall or stagnate: Only 3 per cent of consumers expect prices falling in the next year. 14 per cent see price falling in the next five years

Nermal

dochasach wrote:

Actually, his numbers are a bit conservative since they were based back when interest rates were 3.5%. Try running the 400000 amortization total outlay vs (rent + investment return) with the interest rate at 4.5% and your buying outlay will be something like 750000. Try again with the rate at <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/04/business/ecb.php&quot;&gt;5%&lt;/a&gt; and the buyer's outlay for 25 years in a 400000 house is 770000 (not including maintainence costs and stamp duty.)

his calculations do not take into consideration inflation, running at roughly 3% in this country. This reduces the real interest rate paid on the loan (making it cheaper) and the interest rate paid on the renter's investment (making it worth less). Try it again, only this time use the real interest rate, 1-1.5%, and tell me who wins.

dochasach

Nermal wrote:

his calculations do not take into consideration inflation, running at roughly 3% in this country. This reduces the real interest rate paid on the loan (making it cheaper) and the interest rate paid on the renter's investment (making it worth less). Try it again, only this time use the real interest rate, 1-1.5%, and tell me who wins.

But this (core) inflation should also be subtracted from the housing gain. You should also consider that buying a house right now is a higher risk than a savings account. It's more comparable to a stock or even an option (since you can lose more than you've put in). For risks on that level you should expect a higher return. But yes, over 25 years most of us are better off buying. I wonder how many buyers are really sure they'll be able to stay in the same house and make payments for even 10 years if necessary?

There are a number of online rent vs buy calculators, but along with the assumptions in these tools, you have to make your own guesses as to future inflation, ARM adjustments, etc and in most cases they are designed for the U.S. so you have to subtract certain taxes, add others and the max loan is 30 years, usually fixed rate...

Here's a link to a spreadsheet which is a fairly detailed calculator, click on the "Justify Buy" tab and play around:
http://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/Res/RDV?p=pdf&$sessionid$=6zOnlnEmxv6TSIlBSINU5CN&key=dpc74ypkpv&n=122667.XLS

This organization ran some numbers specific to Dublin it looks like it really doesn't make sense to be a landlord right now:

http://www.davydirect.ie/other/pubarticles/econcr20060329.pdf

iguana

dochasach wrote:

Allowing for change is exactly why the R word ("Rent") should be an option to consider for any adult who wants to get out of his/her parents home.

In my experience a couple of years paying rent has made it easier for me to ensure that the first house I bought is one large enough to suit me right through my life.

Obviously if I'd stayed at home and saved every single cent I would have spent on rent I would have been in a better position to buy. But most people living in their parents house don't do that. Everyone I know who gave that reason for continuing to live at home chose to buy a starter home when they went to buy, as even though they could afford something bigger they didn't want to take the hit to their disposable income.

Whereas my partner and I have been paying either Dublin/London rent for years and the mortgage payment on a decent family home is not that much more than the rent we're used to paying. So it seemed a bit of a no-brainer to buy a house that has the potential to last us our whole lives and we still have the same disposable income.

Obviously, if in the future we decide to return to Ireland we will have to move. But other than that I may never have to move again.

I can see why anyone would aim to buy their last house first. No hassle of moving in the future, no additional stamp-duty and solicitors fees, no house-hunting and and house selling - and relying on a sale to make the purchase possible, no fear of being gazumped or gazundered.:cool:

And we get to use this time that we are childless to work hard and pay off a chunk of the mortgage. So that when we do have children our payments are reduced and I don't have to work, or can work part-time from home. Instead of being like so many others who have children and then realise they need a bigger place and have to take on much bigger mortgage repayments.

And in the ten weeks between going sale agreed and exchanging contracts, my house has risen in value by more than we have paid in rent in the last 3 and a half years.:D

lomb

the reality is simple buying a house is nearly free, although it does lead to a negative cashflow. renting is still dead money imho even at current yields.

if interest rates are 4.5 % and real inflation/house price inflation when it settles is 3% it will cost just 1.5% per annum as a cost to use the property annually so 1.5% of say 350000 is 5 grand a year which is peanuts frankly considering average industrial is 30+ a year.

in 25 years u will owe nearly nothing and so the cost will be zero a year. houses are a great way to save money longterm as u are forced to pay the mortgage nearly...

also u cant put a price on owning your own place, studies show that home owners are much happier than renters, perhaps as they feel settled and have their lives set for life as it were.

crash or no crash prices will be 2-3 times current levels in 20 years, anyone on a fence would do well to bear that in mind.