money..??

gymman39

Is the so called middle class the new poor..??? I was talking to friends over the weekend and in some cases couples have less than 50 euros to spend after paying bills every week.Amazing what has happened in the last 4 years.!!!.
I always had feck all even in the good times ha ha but is having a fancy house and car worth it when it comes down to it..???

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if you own a house, you're not poor you're just choosing to spend the money you have on it instead of other ****.
do those bills your friends are complaining about include sky television, xbox live, broadband, etc etc?

SEPT 23 1989

it's a gas.

later12

No; the middle class are not the new poor.

The middle class are the middle class. We/ they should be appreciative of having the good fortune of such a position. I know that most people who are middle class have worked for everything they have, and that is all very fine; but one must also remember that the middle class are more likely generally never to have have suffered any serious misfortune of birth or of personal turmoil.

As genuine as its needs are, and as important as all individuals are equally, there are far more needy people in Ireland than its middle class.

Every time I see that pandering series "The Squeezed Middle" in the Irish Times online, I cringe for that newspaper.

BraziliaNZ

Well anyone who got caught up in buying gafs on my ma's road in artane for 600,000 euros in 2007 are thick eejits and made their own bed

Seachmall

There's a lot of people who are genuinely struggling to make ends-meat but there are also a lot of people struggling to maintain the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

Fortunately I don't know anyone who are seriously struggling (although maybe they are and I just don't know) but I have come across people who are struggling to live above their means.

No sympathy for those tbh.

gymman39

what probably didnt come across in my post was "is it worth putting up an image of been wealthy when things are that tight"
I heard one story of a couple that have 5 credit cards and two huge loans from the bank and the credit union...madness..!!!

barbiegirl

later10 wrote: »

are more likely generally never to have have suffered any serious misfortune of birth or of personal turmoil.

Not really true, no matter your back ground illness, death and personal tragedy affect you.

BraziliaNZ

Seachmall wrote: »

There's a lot of people who are genuinely struggling to make ends-meat

This should help

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/bbq-with-bobby-flay/arthur-bryants-burnt-ends-recipe/index.html

gymman39

gymman39 wrote: »

Is the so called middle class the new poor..??? I was talking to friends over the weekend and in some cases couples have less than 50 euros to spend after paying bills every week.Amazing what has happened in the last 4 years.!!!.
I always had feck all even in the good times ha ha but is having a fancy house and car worth it when it comes down to it..???

they have everything they need to cover their bills, food, house,car, and disposable income on top of all that
yeah, terribly poor
how awful
let's set up a collection

Ghandee

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well anyone who got caught up in buying gafs on my ma's road in artane for 600,000 euros in 2007 are thick eejits and made their own bed

Circumstances change though....

Back in 2007, many peoples salarys were a lot different to how they are in 2012.

What was once affordable, and with no-one being able to see into the future, they thought they were buying a family home.

For instance, a double cheeseburger from McDonalds is only €2 at the minute, I can afford €2 quite easily, but many people (not through their own fault) have been hit hard by this recession, and find themselves out of work (even possibly out of their homes) and suddenly they find themselves not even able to afford two euro!

Things are cheap when you have the money, things are expensive when you dont.

Simple really.

BraziliaNZ

Ghandee wrote: »

Circumstances change though....

Back in 2007, many peoples salarys were a lot different to how they are in 2012.

What was once affordable, and with no-one being able to see into the future, they thought they were buying a family home.

For instance, a double cheeseburger from McDonalds is only €2 at the minute, I can afford €2 quite easily, but many people (not through their own fault) have been hit hard by this recession, and find themselves out of work (even possibly out of their homes) and suddenly they find themselves not even able to afford two euro!

Things are cheap when you have the money, things are expensive when you dont.

Simple really.

But if you could buy a place in an established economical powerhouse with indigenous economies like Hamburg or Munich for half of that, why did people think these huge mortgages could be a good investment? Even someone like myself who ain't got a clue about economics thought the boom was full of sh*t and would collapse. Anyway they're screwed now, I hope it all works out for everyone.

davet82

what class are all the angry people posting here???

Ghandee

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

But if you could buy a place in an established economical powerhouse with indigenous economies like Hamburg or Munich for half of that, why did people think these huge mortgages could be a good investment? Even someone like myself who ain't got a clue about economics thought the boom was full of sh*t and would collapse. Anyway they're screwed now, I hope it all works out for everyone.

Yeah, I get yoour point.

However, people needed to live somewhere.

They were only left with two options,

1, Pay big money in a fairly decent area
2, Pay not so big money (but still overpriced) to live in a not so nice area.

Either way, houses were overpriced no matter where you bought, and people who reckoned the boom would bust, and held on for price drops peobably find themselves being refused for a mortgage these days anyway.

Its poxy, we all agree, but at the end of the day, we need a roof over our heads, and those that bough a house for a home (as opposed to an investment) got caught in the sh1t.

Thats my 2 cents on it (im not an economist by any means btw)

Ghandee

Ghandee wrote: »

Yeah, I get yoour point.

However, people needed to live somewhere.

They were only left with two options,

1, Pay big money in a fairly decent area
2, Pay not so big money (but still overpriced) to live in a not so nice area.

Either way, houses were overpriced no matter where you bought, and people who reckoned the boom would bust, and held on for price drops peobably find themselves being refused for a mortgage these days anyway.

Its poxy, we all agree, but at the end of the day, we need a roof over our heads, and those that bough a house for a home (as opposed to an investment) got caught in the sh1t.

Thats my 2 cents on it (im not an economist by any means btw)

and option 3, don't buy and just rent

BraziliaNZ

Ghandee wrote: »

Yeah, I get yoour point.

However, people needed to live somewhere.

They were only left with two options,

1, Pay big money in a fairly decent area
2, Pay not so big money (but still overpriced) to live in a not so nice area.

Either way, houses were overpriced no matter where you bought, and people who reckoned the boom would bust, and held on for price drops peobably find themselves being refused for a mortgage these days anyway.

Its poxy, we all agree, but at the end of the day, we need a roof over our heads, and those that bough a house for a home (as opposed to an investment) got caught in the sh1t.

Thats my 2 cents on it (im not an economist by any means btw)

I rented, no debts now. I think we need to change laws in favour of renters and we all need to get the f*ck over the obsession with owning houses or we'll always be slaves to credit.

Ghandee

bluewolf wrote: »

and option 3, don't buy and just rent

Agreed that was an oprion also, but rent in boom times was often on par with mortgage repayments?
Why pay someone elses mortgage for them, when you have zilch to show at the end of it?

but without 40 years of debt

edit: i'd call not having that amount of debt "having something to show for it"

why do you buy food in the shop when you have nothing to show for it? you're just paying their salaries, why don't you grow all your own food and butcher your own animals?
why do you pay someone else for electricity when you could set up your own generator? you're just paying their salaries and mortgages too, and after you pay the bill you have nothing to show for it

etc
etc
etc

BraziliaNZ

Ghandee wrote: »

Agreed that was an oprion also, but rent in boom times was often on par with mortgage repayments?
Why pay someone elses mortgage for them, when you have zilch to show at the end of it?

You've got a clean slate still. It has to be the most f**king annoying overused cliche that ever came out of Ireland during the money years.

"Paying someone else's mortgage"

Makes my blood boil. So what if you're paying it?

Seachmall

davet82 wrote: »

what class are all the angry people posting here???

I'm an aristocrat.



I managed to reduce my living expenses when most of my family died during a Broadway audition that went horribly, horribly wrong years ago.

davet82

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Iwe'll always be slaves to credit.

then will we not be slaves to landlords?



i know most countries in europe and in the US rent, what laws do they have to protect the tenant to make your tenancy more... secure lets say?

Doc Ruby

gymman39 wrote: »

what probably didnt come across in my post was "is it worth putting up an image of been wealthy when things are that tight"

You get a kind of weird feedback loop with that though, if you enjoyed the simple things in life, drove a beat up old banger, and lived well within your means you had a certain type looking at you sideways and chuckling over the last ten years. Now they're scrambling to keep things together and you're sitting on a big pile of money, and they still look at you sideways in your banger and begrudge. Society is great craic altogether.

BraziliaNZ

davet82 wrote: »

then will we not be slaves to landlords?



i know most countries in europe and in the US rent, what laws do they have to protect the tenant to make your tenancy more... secure lets say?

I don't know, I just know they've a lot more rights in Germany and France. I think in Berlin 80% of residents rent.

And no because you can leave a landlord with not too much hassle, a mortgage is a life sentence these days

davet82

My biggest fear in of renting would be if I died lets say who pays the rent if i am the main bread winner, does my family get kicked to the kerb? With a mortgage i'd have insurance and house would be theirs, it makes feel unsettle that any year my landlord could say i'm selling up ect

I have heard of schemes that NAMCO run and i think they sound great, I honestly think that public housing should be scrapped and replaced with these type of private social housing, there must be money to be made to for companies to get into the landlord business, Although thats going slightly off topic

later12

barbiegirl wrote: »

Not really true, no matter your back ground illness, death and personal tragedy affect you.

Oh yes but I'm not talking about that kind of once-off personal tragedy. I'm talking about the more serious, ingrained and ongoing tragedies that afflict those who unfortunate enough to be born into the wrong socio-economic class or area. Things like a poor family history of education, children being surrounded by a culture of drugs, and crime, and disrespect for other human beings, and a sense of 'not belonging' to, or not being able to participate in this society with its middle class privileges, or feeling a sense of inadequacy in that regard.

Privilege of birth is something that has no place in a real Republic. A republic should see to it that insofar as is possible, all of its children are given equal opportunities, This is not a particularly passive role, and that is something Irish administrations (and their constitution under which they operated) have always had a problem with.

Irish governments, as governments of a republic, ought to be more concerned with, and more active in their assistance of, the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in society. Instead what we get is this constant pandering to middle class problems both in government policy and in the media, as though the dawn of the struggling middle class should be some sort of more pressing concern than the struggle that the poor have experienced since the foundation of the state.

dxhound2005

I wonder who is buying hundreds of euros worth of food every year and then throwing it away without eating it? Poor people?

http://www.stopfoodwaste.ie/index.php?id=59&menu=

Feeona

I've seen at least ten 2012 reg cars since the start of the year. The AViva stadium tickets sold out when Ireland were a dead cert to win a place int eh European Cup. I hear people talking about heading off to New York/London/Madrid for a few days.

And fair play to them.

But what it points to is that Ireland is not a country that is in serious trouble when you're talking about people getting by. I can just imagine my parents living the life I have now, and thinking they're mega rich. We went on holidays once a year, nine of us packed into a four man tent, staying in a farmer's field near Tramore. It cost absolutely nothing bar food and petrol. we thought it was great :pac:

We are not poor nowadays compared to the eighties if we can afford luxuries like Sky TV, internet, laptops, fairly new cars, trips away, nice coffee, eating out at a restaurant (even if it's early bird), meeting a friend for cake and coffee in a coffee shop etc. My own parents never did or had any of these things (or their equivalent) because 1.they just couldn't afford it and 2. no bank was crazy enough to give out a loan for luxuries

naughtysmurf

bluewolf wrote: »

and option 3, don't buy and just rent

A little harsh, in some cases the difference between inflated rents & low interest mortgages wasn't huge, I assume many people did the their sums at the time and felt that they could afford their own place, others of course didn't and the banks & building soc's were chucking money left, right & centre at anyone who wanted it, errors made all round

later12

naughtysmurf wrote: »

I assume many people did the their sums at the time and felt that they could afford their own place

I wish i had retained your faith in people.

naughtysmurf

naughtysmurf wrote: »

A little harsh, in some cases the difference between inflated rents & low interest mortgages wasn't huge, I assume many people did the their sums at the time and felt that they could afford their own place, others of course didn't and the banks & building soc's were chucking money left, right & centre at anyone who wanted it, errors made all round

there's nothing harsh about it
he said there were 2 options, but there were 3
that's it

mkdon05

Prey tell who would own all these houses that everybody should have been renting?

nobody said that everyone should have been renting

COYW

Feeona wrote: »

But what it points to is that Ireland is not a country that is in serious trouble when you're talking about people getting by.

Most people here can no longer sustain the lifestyle they became accustomed to over the boom years. This dip in lifestyle is being sold as some class of poverty. As others have said, people still have the money to go to concerts, holidays, sports events and such but they can no longer do so at the same rate that they did previously.

davet82 wrote: »

I know most countries in europe and in the US rent, what laws do they have to protect the tenant to make your tenancy more... secure lets say?

The government controls the leases. So you essentially get a long term lease from the government.

mkdon05

bluewolf wrote: »

nobody said that everyone should have been renting

Well there wouldn't have really been a third option then.

mkdon05

mkdon05 wrote: »

Well there wouldn't have really been a third option then.

do you think something is only an option if absolutely everybody in the entire country should do it?
if i ask you for options on where to do my shopping, is shopping at tesco only an option if absolutely everyone in the country must shop in tesco and ignore all the other shops?

maybe you think the original person's other suggested options, i.e. 1, Pay big money in a fairly decent area 2, Pay not so big money (but still overpriced) to live in a not so nice area. were also unrealistic unless absolutely everyone chooses one of them?

AeoNGriM

get back....I'm alright Jack, keep your hands off my stack?

mkdon05

What were people options then? Buy an overpriced house in a nice area, Buy an overpriced house in a bad area or Rent. Can we agree there were 3 options?

If renting was to be included in the options list, then someone would still have to buy that house to rent it out.

If Tesco was the only shop to buy groceries , then you only have one option, regardless of how many people go there or not. Eat or die.

TheMilkyPirate

I will always rent, The only way i will ever buy a house is if i win a shedload of money and can outright afford one. I love renting when my year lease is up if i fancy a change i can move onto a different house no hassle no problem, If i like the house 8 times outta ten the landlord has no problem extending your lease. No big debts hanging over me like a giant cloud of doom. Bollox to that.

mkdon05

mkdon05 wrote: »

What were people options then? Buy an overpriced house in a nice area, Buy an overpriced house in a bad area or Rent. Can we agree there were 3 options?

That's what I originally said...

Mance Rayder

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well anyone who got caught up in buying gafs on my ma's road in artane for 600,000 euros in 2007 are thick eejits and made their own bed

Yeah thats madness in fairness. Anyone with sense would of known they were over priced by about 450k.

mkdon05

bluewolf wrote: »

That's what I originally said...

I know that but its the bit I said after what you quoted that is important.

ronjo

mkdon05 wrote: »

I know that but its the bit I said after what you quoted that is important.

Will you just let it go.
Of course people had the option to rent and you are just looking for a petty argument by saying that its not a fair option to include.

Doc Ruby

I think people in Ireland at least should have the option to buy a house if they want to, its a fairly underpopulated and underdeveloped country, urbanisation is way below European norms.

mkdon05

ronjo wrote: »

Will you just let it go.
Of course people had the option to rent and you are just looking for a petty argument by saying that its not a fair option to include.

I give up, you're missing the point altogether. Is it really not a valid point or do you just not want to accept it because it doesn't fit in with your ' look at me, I didn't buy a house, I rented because I'm clever' when in fact you didn't have the means to buy a house and just got lucky.

later12

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Yeah thats madness in fairness. Anyone with sense would of known they were over priced by about 450k.

There is no such thing as a true and known intrinsic value in an asset. All "intrinsic values" in finance are based on perception and are sensitive to market factors and economic performance. To be a little more blunt, an object is worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay.

There is no rule that €450,000 is the highest that anyone should pay for a home on a specific road, beyond which anything extra is unreasonable. That's just an arbitrary and impractical rule that has no basis in finance or economics, or more importantly common sense at all.

ronjo

mkdon05 wrote: »

I give up, you're missing the point altogether. Is it really not a valid point or do you just not want to accept it because it doesn't fit in with your ' look at me, I didn't buy a house, I rented because I'm clever' when in fact you didn't have the means to buy a house and just got lucky.

Could I have
1, Paid big money in a fairly decent area? YES
2, Paid not so big money (but still overpriced) to live in a not so nice area? YES
3, Rented? YES

Did I do any of the above? NO

Glad to hear you are giving up though.

Feeona

I dislike the implication usually thrown about that most people bought a house during the boom out of sheer greed and/or stupidity. The possible fact that maybe people wanted stability for themselves and their family rarely seems to be mentioned. Stability you could not rely on in rented accommodation in Ireland. Of course we have families living in over priced houses/flats because they bought during the boom. I don't think it's fair to point and gloat 'Ha they should have rented'. These are real families, with real parents who probably travel three hours a day to and from work, get home and try and do a bit of homework with their kids, have a bit to eat and straight to bed. They can't move closer to work because they can't sell their houses. They can't leave their jobs due to financial commitments. They bought at the time thinking 'We'll get jobs closer to home/we'll move closer to work when the kids are a bit older' etc.

'They should have rented' is not a solution, and smacks of unbearable smugness.

mkdon05

ronjo wrote: »

Could I have
1, Paid big money in a fairly decent area? YES
2, Paid not so big money (but still overpriced) to live in a not so nice area? YES
3, Rented? YES

Did I do any of the above? NO

Glad to hear you are giving up though.

Well I'm glad to hear Mammy and Daddy could house you. Not the case for everyone!

Feeona

Feeona wrote: »

'They should have rented' is not a solution, and smacks of unbearable smugness.

I hope this is not addressed to me

The original person said there were ONLY two options. There were not. That's the end of the discussion frankly. What people "should" have done has not come into it once. I don't care what people did or did not do or should or should not have done. What I care about is people coming on here complaining that everyone in the country had to buy and couldn't do anything else

Doc Ruby

later10 wrote: »

There is no rule that €450,000 is the highest that anyone should pay for a home on a specific road, beyond which anything extra is unreasonable. That's just an arbitrary and impractical rule that has no basis in finance or economics, or more importantly common sense at all.

You can make a very solid case based on rental returns for the area though, which does make financial sense.

Feeona

bluewolf wrote: »

I hope this is not addressed to me

It's not addressed to you.

It's addressed to the countless threads pointing and laughing at those who find themselves in an unfortunate position nowadays. It's quite easy to spot the demographic of AH with threads like that!