How much of Net Income should you pay towards Mortgage.

The Toffees

Myself and the wife are currently looking at houses at the moment. We have mortgage approval in principal for more than we intend to use. My question is what % of net income is the norm to spend on a mortgage.

golden lane

The Toffees wrote: »

Myself and the wife are currently looking at houses at the moment. We have mortgage approval in principal for more than we intend to use. My question is what % of net income is the norm to spend on a mortgage.

you should include in that amount....insurances household charge and any maintenance/upgrading you may have to do.....also take into consideration...the distance from your jobs etc.(fuel in on the increase)....if you intend to have a family......remember there may be a severe reduction of income in the future......

now take all your monthly outgoings from your income.....what is left is your max amount........

The Toffees

golden lane wrote: »

you should include in that amount....insurances household charge and any maintenance/upgrading you may have to do.....also take into consideration...the distance from your jobs etc.(fuel in on the increase)....if you intend to have a family......remember there may be a severe reduction of income in the future......

now take all your monthly outgoings from your income.....what is left is your max amount........

Have taken all that in to consideration and have a maximum amount that we can afford, but wondering how much below the maximum we should go with. Would 40% of net salary be too much to be paying on a mortgage?

RoverZT

The Toffees wrote: »

Have taken all that in to consideration and have a maximum amount that we can afford, but wondering how much below the maximum we should go with. Would 40% of net salary be too much to be paying on a mortgage?

Way too much.

20% would be my max target.

If you get 2500 a month.

500 month a mortgage.

If you and partner get 4000 a month.

800 month mortgage.

15 % would be ideal.

The Toffees

We have circa €6k net income and thinking of taking on a €350k mortgage. On current interest rates of 3.29% that would work out at less than 20% but factoring in for 7% it would rise to 40%. What are your opinions taking on this amount of mortgage. Should we go with lower mortgage?

RoverZT

The Toffees wrote: »

We have circa €6k net income and thinking of taking on a €350k mortgage. On current interest rates of 3.29% that would work out at less than 20% but factoring in for 7% it would rise to 40%. What are your opinions taking on this amount of mortgage. Should we go with lower mortgage?

It's a tough one alright.

You and your wife are on decent money combined, but not enough for a 350k mortgage imo.

To be going for that size of a mortgage you would want to be on well over 100k a year combined.

I don't think interest rates will hit 7%, but who knows.

200-220k would be living within your means.

ntlbell

if your wife is planning to have kids and stay home for x amount of years or you're planning to make sure you do not base the re-payments on two wages.

maxpowers

the days of getting a mortgage based on 2 salaries is long gone. Your estimate should be 3.5 to 4 times the main earner.

lkjhgmnb

I think you should buy the house for 350K , firstly there are a lot of unsanswered questions, if you are both young and this is your dream house , go for it !
Also assuming you are buying a good house in a good area , and it is at rock bottom now , it will go up in the next 5/10 years.

As you are earning net 6k / month I assume you are both skilled ? if so then you can always be assured of a good income !

I am paying under 20% and am on a tracker mortgage so have fairly good security as regards interest rate hikes.
I would not feel secure thinking my mortgage could be 40% of my net pay.
You really need to calculate your disposable income after all bills and incidental costs are taken out and then halve the rest to take into account unexpected expenses. You also need to have a pretty good savings plan built in so you can take a holiday now and again.
Do not over commit yourself.

tommyboy2222

lkjhgmnb wrote: »

I think you should buy the house for 350K , firstly there are a lot of unsanswered questions, if you are both young and this is your dream house , go for it !
Also assuming you are buying a good house in a good area , and it is at rock bottom now , it will go up in the next 5/10 years.

As you are earning net 6k / month I assume you are both skilled ? if so then you can always be assured of a good income !

1) Agree about the dream house. Make sure you could see yourselves living there the next 30 years and are not buying to "get on the ladder".

2) No guarantee it will go up.

3) Cannot always be assured of a good income eg Architects

killers1

I would say you do have the ability to service a mortgage of €350k whilst the income levels remain as they are. Repayments on a €350k mortgage over 30 yrs @ 6% are circa €2,100pm. This leaves you with a disposable income of €3,900pm. So long as you don't have an over extravagant lifestyle this should be more than sufficient to live on. The only caution I would advise would be in relation to future family plans, do you intend to have kids?, will one of you give up work?, would you have expensive creche fees? would you have enough disposable income left over from just one salary to pay the bills and enjoy the lifestyle you want? If the bank's have approved you for a higher figure than they are satisfied that if incomes remain the same you have the capacity to service a loan at that level allowing for a near doubling of interest rates. As for what % of your income should be spent on your mortgage I would say that the higher your income the higher the % you can afford and all banks calculators work off this assumption. If your net income was €3k per month you wouldn't spend €1,500pm on your mortgage (you wouldn't get it approved in any case) but if your net income was €10k and the stressed mortgage repayment €5k you still have €5k left over each month to live on... Even though the mortgage is 50% of income in both cases the 2 scenarios are vastly different...

ted1

If I were you I'd base it on your own salary, a lot of women don't go back to work after having a baby, of those that do a lot of it is down to having to pay the mortgage.

daltonmd

The Toffees wrote: »

We have circa €6k net income and thinking of taking on a €350k mortgage. On current interest rates of 3.29% that would work out at less than 20% but factoring in for 7% it would rise to 40%. What are your opinions taking on this amount of mortgage. Should we go with lower mortgage?

You don't appear to have added in other costs associated with purchasing?

Property Tax.
Water charges.

Any costs coming out of your net income for housing should be taken into account.

Also - how long is your rate for? 1 year? 5 years?

You could realistically be looking at 7% interest rates in 5 years and be down 2k net on top of that for the charges above.

It's said that 25% is ideal, over 30% manageable but unwise and anything over that is danger territory.

Man007

RoverZT wrote: »

To be going for that size of a mortgage you would want to be on well over 100k a year combined.

.

By my calculations they ARE on over €100k combined he said they have NET income of €6k a month thats at least €120k a year not taking Pensions into account

The_Conductor

Man007 wrote: »

By my calculations they ARE on over €100k combined he said they have NET income of €6k a month thats at least €120k a year not taking Pensions into account

Sad but true.
I've just done a back of envelope calculation- you're quite right with your figures.

Man007

smccarrick wrote: »

Man007 wrote: »

By my calculations they ARE on over €100k combined he said they have NET income of €6k a month thats at least €120k a year not taking Pensions into account

Sad but true.
I've just done a back of envelope calculation- you're quite right with your figures.

Why is it sad ??????

mari2222

The Toffees wrote: »

Myself and the wife are currently looking at houses at the moment. We have mortgage approval in principal for more than we intend to use. My question is what % of net income is the norm to spend on a mortgage.

The long-term wisdom suggest one-third of net income.

The Toffees

Thanks for all the replies so far, really appreciate everyones input.

smccarrick wrote: »

Sad but true.
I've just done a back of envelope calculation- you're quite right with your figures.

Why is it sad?

kennyb3

€120k joint though - if one of them loses their job thats only €60k. Wouldnt like to try service a €350k mortgage on €60k.

As ted1 alludes to I think too much weight is being placed on the second salary. I would at least half it (to take account of either part time basis or creche/minder fees) and then see if your still happy.

As others have also said factor in rising marginal rate, extra costs (property tax, fuel and travel to work costs), and a rise in interest rates after the next 5 years (which i note the op has done).

Man007

kennyb3 wrote: »

€120k joint though - if one of them loses their job thats only €60k. Wouldnt like to try service a €350k mortgage on €60k.

As ted1 alludes to I think too much weight is being placed on the second salary. ).

Presuming their take home salary is split 50/50

Also why is too much weight being put on the second salary it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say most women don't go back to work after having kids quite the opposite it's not the 1950,s.

If his wife has no intention of giving up work then why would you not factor the second salary in.

kennyb3

Man007 wrote: »

Presuming their take home salary is split 50/50

Also why is too much weight being put on the second salary it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say most women don't go back to work after having kids quite the opposite it's not the 1950,s.

If his wife has no intention of giving up work then why would you not factor the second salary in.

Good point on the 50/50.

It's not just about not going back to work. Its more about one of them possibly losing their jobs.

Back in the good old days everyone based it on two salaries - i don't believe this to be prudent.

ntlbell

Man007 wrote: »

Presuming their take home salary is split 50/50

Also why is too much weight being put on the second salary it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say most women don't go back to work after having kids quite the opposite it's not the 1950,s.

If his wife has no intention of giving up work then why would you not factor the second salary in.

A lot of the time they do have the intention to go back but once the baby comes along in a lot of circumstances this changes for a number of reasons.

attachment.

creche fee's

some go back part time.

in anycase as there's always the chance of one been out of work at different points if you purchase based on one salary and you have two you can over pay the mortgage and live the lifestyle you wish to live

rather than constant worry and strain that both HAVE to work.

If that's something you care about then by all means base it on two.

The Toffees

kennyb3 wrote: »

€120k joint though - if one of them loses their job thats only €60k. Wouldnt like to try service a €350k mortgage on €60k.

Thanks again for all the replies. Just in relation to the above, we are both qualified professionals with one of us employed in Public Sector (job security).

noxqs

15% @ Current interest rate allowing for minimum doubling - which will likely happen in the course of the mortgage to 30-35% would be reasonable.

Interest rates are at a historic low due to money market stimulation by the ECB - which is mirroring events at the Federal Reserve to some extent (Quantitative Easing aka. Money by Spreadsheet Magic). They will not stay at 3.5% - that is not to say they wont drop lower in the short term, but long term it will rise, there is little doubt about that.

I would not consider the partners salary in the stress test for multiple reasons,

-> Cost of living rises versus drop/stagnation in pay likely on the horizon
--> Energy prices are going up
--> Taxes are going up
--> Water charges
--> Maintenance costs
--> Creche costs?
--> Food prices rising
--> Interest rate increases
--> Public sector is far from as secure as people think. I believe it has to cut 7bn in spending next year and the following years. Public sector pay is above private market pay for similar jobs at the moment and this will be cut to par or below as is the european standard. The Troika will demand it.

Given that a job loss + rise in interest rates and energy prices (pushing up everything else) has the potential to be a perfect personal financial storm. I'd be careful. Not to mention houses are still dropping in value so in the short term it is likely to be in negative equity in the first decade of the mortgage due low reductions of the principle versus negative/stagnating house price. And who knows, within that time you may want to move.

Simulate various events in a spreadsheet - its very sobering - then decide yourself how far you are willing to extend yourself.

Adrift

Here's another opinion for the OP. Myself and the wife took out a mortgage for 370,000 a few years back. Combined income was 90K. No problem servicing the mortgage. She lost her job there a a year and a half ago and I'm currently servicing the mortgage alone, no major issues so far and it's working out at 33% of my salary per month. (I was the higher earner) . Sure, we've cut back on things, but our lives haven't changed that drastically, I'd say we're a lot more sensible now, still manage to get away on breaks, socialise etc, just moderated a little more now.

My point is, if it's the house you really want , which in our case it was - go for it. I view this situation I'm in as temporary, when my wife finds work again we won't know ourselves. I think some of the opinions here are too black and white, it must be encouraged to be sensible, but within reason. If it's a dream home it's worth the bit extra in my opinion.

Man007

Adrift wrote: »

Here's another opinion for the OP. Myself and the wife took out a mortgage for 370,000 a few years back. Combined income was 90K. No problem servicing the mortgage. She lost her job there a a year and a half ago and I'm currently servicing the mortgage alone, no major issues so far and it's working out at 33% of my salary per month. (I was the higher earner) . Sure, we've cut back on things, but our lives haven't changed that drastically, I'd say we're a lot more sensible now, still manage to get away on breaks, socialise etc, just moderated a little more now.

My point is, if it's the house you really want , which in our case it was - go for it. I view this situation I'm in as temporary, when my wife finds work again we won't know ourselves. I think some of the opinions here are too black and white, it must be encouraged to be sensible, but within reason. If it's a dream home it's worth the bit extra in my opinion.

Exactly you are living proof that if you want something you can make it work whatever the circumstances within reason of course.

A lot of people want an easy life as in very comfortable mortgage mediocre house I'm of the opinion that you should always try to push yourself to get the best and what you want yes your mortgage may be higher but you have the house you want and the encouragement to do better and get that better job or promotion etc instead of settling for comfortable.

ntlbell

Man007 wrote: »

Exactly you are living proof that if you want something you can make it work whatever the circumstances within reason of course.

A lot of people want an easy life as in very comfortable mortgage mediocre house I'm of the opinion that you should always try to push yourself to get the best and what you want yes your mortgage may be higher but you have the house you want and the encouragement to do better and get that better job or promotion etc instead of settling for comfortable.

If it's an easy life or not why do you care? what's a mediocre home?

It's not the bricks and mortar that make a home and there's a lot more to a home than having it planted in a foxrock cul de sac.

You could buy a "medicore" 4 bedroom house in the arse of tyrrelstown for nearly 800k

Is this good enough for you?

It's not "settling" if you're happy. it's not settleing when you can't sleep a wink at night because you can't afford your mortage anymore.

2006 is long gone.

meanwhile in the real world...

maxpowers

ntlbell wrote: »

If it's an easy life or not why do you care? what's a mediocre home?

It's not the bricks and mortar that make a home and there's a lot more to a home than having it planted in a foxrock cul de sac.

You could buy a "medicore" 4 bedroom house in the arse of tyrrelstown for nearly 800k

Is this good enough for you?

It's not "settling" if you're happy. it's not settleing when you can't sleep a wink at night because you can't afford your mortage anymore.

2006 is long gone.

meanwhile in the real world...

god bless us all if it ever costs 800k for a bog standard gaff in Tyrellstown!:D

ntlbell

maxpowers wrote: »

god bless us all if it ever costs 800k for a bog standard gaff in Tyrellstown!:D

It did I know a guy still crying into his breakfast every morning

Has a lovely kitchen tho :pac:

maxpowers

ntlbell wrote: »

It did I know a guy still crying into his breakfast every morning

Has a lovely kitchen tho :pac:

poor fella - it makes me shudder just thinking about it. god knows how he must feel

Man007

ntlbell wrote: »

Man007 wrote: »

Exactly you are living proof that if you want something you can make it work whatever the circumstances within reason of course.

A lot of people want an easy life as in very comfortable mortgage mediocre house I'm of the opinion that you should always try to push yourself to get the best and what you want yes your mortgage may be higher but you have the house you want and the encouragement to do better and get that better job or promotion etc instead of settling for comfortable.

If it's an easy life or not why do you care? what's a mediocre home?

It's not the bricks and mortar that make a home and there's a lot more to a home than having it planted in a foxrock cul de sac.

You could buy a "medicore" 4 bedroom house in the arse of tyrrelstown for nearly 800k

Is this good enough for you?

It's not "settling" if you're happy. it's not settleing when you can't sleep a wink at night because you can't afford your mortage anymore.

2006 is long gone.

meanwhile in the real world...

Obviously I hit a nerve not sure why in answering your statements

1)Why do I care I the answer is I don't I'm having a discussion on a subject someone has asked advice on people are suggesting a person on €120k should get a €200k mortgage the op can easily afford more you don't have to settle for less than you want because you don't push yourself that's my point


2)No it's not bricks and mortar that makes a home it's location and size not sure what you will get in Dublin for €200k like some people are suggesting

3)Secondly who's talking about an €800k house in tyrellstown the op is suggesting €350 and people keep trying to turn him off it

ntlbell

Man007 wrote: »

Obviously I hit a nerve not sure why in answering your statements

No nerve hit with me, I've no debt.

Man007 wrote: »

1)Why do I care I the answer is I don't I'm having a discussion on a subject someone has asked advice on people are suggesting a person on €120k should get a €200k mortgage the op can easily afford more you don't have to settle for less than you want because you don't push yourself that's my point

But why does paying less mean settling for less when the market is currently in free fall? paying more != always = getting more

Man007 wrote: »

2)No it's not bricks and mortar that makes a home it's location and size not sure what you will get in Dublin for €200k like some people are suggesting

It's the people who live in it, you can get a fabulous 3 bedroom house in a lovely fairly recently built estate in clonsilla for example. but I'm not watching the whole of dublin so I don't know what else is out there right now but as it's a falling market one can wait awhile.

Man007 wrote: »

3)Secondly who's talking about an €800k house in tyrellstown the op is suggesting €350 and people keep trying to turn him off it

your point was spent more, my point is you could have said the same thing and wasted 800k on a **** box in tyyrelstown. spending 800kl doesn't guarantee anything and nor does 350k you don't have to go out and spend the full limit a bank is willing to take a risk on. you don't have to settle for anything. people are not turning him off, there's always options and people are putting those options out there.

Are you selling a house? are you an EA? is there a specific reason you want him to spend 150k where he may not need to?

kennyb3

ntlbell wrote: »

Are you selling a house? are you an EA? is there a specific reason you want him to spend 150k where he may not need to?

No he just bought a house for €350k plus so is trying to encourage others to do so so he feels a bit better

Man007

ntlbell wrote: »

But why does paying less mean settling for less when the market is currently in free fall? paying more != always = getting more

Apart from some exceptions basic economics dictates that paying more gets you more eg Superquinn is more expensive than Aldi an Ipad is more expensive than a Motorolla Tab etc

People seem to have this idea that anything over €250k is not value a house for €350k or even €500k can still be value if it is bigger or has desirable features or in a great location fair enough €800k in Tryelstown or whatever you quoted is not value but that was in the boom

ntlbell wrote: »

It's the people who live in it, you can get a fabulous 3 bedroom house in a lovely fairly recently built estate in clonsilla for example. but I'm not watching the whole of dublin so I don't know what else is out there right now but as it's a falling market one can wait awhile.

Its the people who live in it fair enough but its also the lifestyle it gives you eg bad neighbours anti social behaviour feeling uncomfortable going the shops by yourself and there are places like that so its not just the people who live in it.

You've just proved my point you pay for size and location you've just quoted a small house in a not so desirable location for €200k

ntlbell wrote: »

your point was spent more.

My point is not spend more for the sake of spending but if you see a house you like and its going to cost you more but still within your means then by all means go for it.

Man007

kennyb3 wrote: »

No he just bought a house for €350k plus so is trying to encourage others to do so so he feels a bit better

How do you know how much I bought my house for I was on here previosly saying how much I got approved for.

I don't need to make myself feel better I'm delighted with what I got and will never need to move in my lifetime I don't need people to agree with my decisions to be happy.

Why would I buy a house if I wasn't happy with the decision why would I give a rats what anyone else went out and bought

The_Conductor

Ok guys, lets chill- please be civil towards one another.

ntlbell

Man007 wrote: »

Apart from some exceptions basic economics dictates that paying more gets you more eg Superquinn is more expensive than Aldi an Ipad is more expensive than a Motorolla Tab etc

But the food in aldi is of superior quallity in most cases?

Ipad's lock you into specific OS's etc. you're not getting more. But if having an apple badge is important to oneself then maybe you do or walking around with a superquinn bag is. but that's a different story.

Man007 wrote: »

People seem to have this idea that anything over €250k is not value a house for €350k or even €500k can still be value if it is bigger or has desirable features or in a great location fair enough €800k in Tryelstown or whatever you quoted is not value but that was in the boom

People's whole perception of house prices is blurred because of the boom and this should exactly be the reason that the OP hold off and wait till things are more properly alligned. 350k might sound reasonable now for a house that was 800k but in reality the house may only be really worth aprox 90k or less.

Man007 wrote: »

Its the people who live in it fair enough but its also the lifestyle it gives you eg bad neighbours anti social behaviour feeling uncomfortable going the shops by yourself and there are places like that so its not just the people who live in it.

Why does spending less mean leaving in anti-social areas? house prices in knocklyon were pretty simmilar to Tallaght but as far as neighbours and what not goes it's like living in two different worlds.

But spending more to live in a "nicer" area doesn't guarantee you anything a neighbour hood can change in less than a decade as the next generation grow up from very good to bad and visa versa. spending 150k extra isn't going to guarantee this i'm afraid.

Man007 wrote: »

You've just proved my point you pay for size and location you've just quoted a small house in a not so desirable location for €200k

Since when is clonsilla not desirable? and how does one single house in an area prove a point? What area is so much better than clonsilla that is worth an extra 150k? I'm starting to think there might be some delusions of grandeur here

Man007 wrote: »

My point is not spend more for the sake of spending but if you see a house you like and its going to cost you more but still within your means then by all means go for it.

But what you consider within your means and what's really within your means e.g. taking into considerations items mentioned in this thread may not be living within your means.

It's only seems to be on property where anyone would advise someone to spend more than they have to. it seems bizarre to me.

The Toffees

Thanks for all the replies. Have read through them all with interest.

ntlbell wrote: »

People's whole perception of house prices is blurred because of the boom and this should exactly be the reason that the OP hold off and wait till things are more properly alligned. 350k might sound reasonable now for a house that was 800k but in reality the house may only be really worth aprox 90k or less.

As much as some people were in cloud cookoo when paying €800k for a house in Tyrellstown whoever thinks that 3/4 bed semi detached houses in decent areas of south county dublin will fall nearly 90% from peak have to be in cloud cookoo too!

ntlbell

The Toffees wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. Have read through them all with interest.




As much as some people were in cloud cookoo when paying €800k for a house in Tyrellstown whoever thinks that 3/4 bed semi detached houses in decent areas of south county dublin will fall nearly 90% from peak have to be in cloud cookoo too!

i don't think anyone suggested a 90% drop in south dublin?

I didn't even suggest the house in tyrellstown will drop 90% I was suggesting what I think is a reasonable price for a host there.

if the avg ind wage is down to around 30-35k based on 3x salary you're looking at 90-105k.

This doesn't mean that's what's going to happen.

I don't know what's considered a "decent" area in south dublin apart from the big boys foxrock/blacrock/dalkey/kiliney. are you talking dundrum? rathfarnham? terenure? rathgar?

There's few places that are in reach.

We're two highly paid profesionals, but I know should I lose my job tomorrow. I shouldn't have a problem getting another job the problem is wages have dropped a huge amount demand for all jobs is gone through the roof and you just won't command the wages unless one is in a very specialised field. for most people this isn't the case.

when one is in the public sector and has job seciruty, I don't even know what's secure in there anymore with the talk of all the cuts?

All some people are saying is, don't be wreckless have a think about it.

You'll tend to find over the last few years on this forum people going go on buy a house are selling a house are an EA or have just landed themselves in a huge amount of debt to get the party back.

You have another group that want to see prices drop rock bottom.

Read all the advise see have a good think about it as said before you can't cover every eventuallity but you have a really great opportinuity not to land your familiy in a shed load a debt and live a comfortable life.

there's no rush.

Man007

ntlbell wrote: »

But the food in aldi is of superior quallity in most cases?

Ipad's lock you into specific OS's etc. you're not getting more. But if having an apple badge is important to oneself then maybe you do or walking around with a superquinn bag is. but that's a different story.

.

So you're going to pick me up on that they were the first 2 examples that came to mind can be applied to anything a 1 carat diamond vs 2 bottom line is more sought after things command a higher price

ntlbell wrote: »

house prices in knocklyon were pretty simmilar to Tallaght but as far as neighbours and what not goes it's like living in two different worlds.
.

When were houses in Knocklyon the same as Tallaght there has always been a big differential in house prices in the 2 areas have you just made this up

ntlbell wrote: »

But spending more to live in a "nicer" area doesn't guarantee you anything
.

I take your point but it certainly increases your chances of a quiet life if you put an identical house in finglas and foxrock which is going to cost more and rightly so the cost of bricks and mortar has nothing to do with the value of a house surely you can understand that the same applies to all markets not just housing a product is worth what the buyer perceives it to be or how sought after it is

ntlbell wrote: »

Since when is clonsilla not desirable? and how does one single house in an area prove a point? What area is so much better than clonsilla that is worth an extra 150k? I'm starting to think there might be some delusions of grandeur here
.

Really you think Clonsilla is one of the best places in Dublin to live I've nothing against the area but you could definitely list at least 10 places people would be willing to pay extra money for without even thinking

Delusions of Grandeur definitely not I'm as working class as can be but I'm willing to point out what others are afraid to and I'm not directing that at you by the way I've lived in nice and bad so I am talking from experience

ntlbell

Man007 wrote: »

So you're going to pick me up on that they were the first 2 examples that came to mind can be applied to anything a 1 carat diamond vs 2 bottom line is more sought after things command a higher price

Well they were the only examples you gave so there the only things I had to work with.

Man007 wrote: »

When were houses in Knocklyon the same as Tallaght there has always been a big differential in house prices in the 2 areas have you just made this up

I can't give you an exact date but there was a number of occasions I checked and houses in the beverly area in knocklyon for example was commanding I think 370k.

A number of houses in the homelawns area roughly at the same time were commanding the same. I don't know what eithier command now.

Also Tallaght is a huge area you can't put up the price of a house in jobstown for example against a house in Old Bawn, in fact there was a time when Old Bawn was commanding higher prices than knocklyon.

I'm not sure why you would accuse me of making it up, I have nothing to gain from this point.

Man007 wrote: »

I take your point but it certainly increases your chances of a quiet life if you put an identical house in finglas and foxrock which is going to cost more and rightly so the cost of bricks and mortar has nothing to do with the value of a house surely you can understand that the same applies to all markets not just housing a product is worth what the buyer perceives it to be or how sought after it is

Well mere mortals can't tend to afford the prices in foxrock. I imagine a huge % of middle class profesionals can't so putting foxrock up against finglas is rather silly in this case.

Generally yes something is worth what they're willing to pay. the problem is now is affordability, job losses huge over hang of houses. banks not lending etc there is far more factors at play rather than just someone will way.

Man007 wrote: »

Really you think Clonsilla is one of the best places in Dublin to live I've nothing against the area but you could definitely list at least 10 places people would be willing to pay extra money for without even thinking

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I think it's a beautiful quiet area yes with schools good public transport train/lots of bus routes. shopping center's etc. Is there a specific problem you have with this area?

Man007 wrote: »

Delusions of Grandeur definitely not I'm as working class as can be but I'm willing to point out what others are afraid to and I'm not directing that at you by the way I've lived in nice and bad so I am talking from experience

As have I lived on what would be regarded both sides of the tracks. There is some horrific places in what are regarded as "nice areas" parts of rathfarnham, in dun laoghire there's parts i wouldn;t bring up a dog.

There is ****e everywhere and 150k won't change it. 1.5 mil might give you a chance.

StillWaters

ntlbell wrote: »

There is ****e everywhere and 150k won't change it. 1.5 mil might give you a chance.

I don't think this is true. €150k is a huge amount of money now in a credit starved economy. The difference between a 200k home and a 350k home is enormous. (I'm talking about real prices, not silly aking prices).

The whole 3 x wages thing still works, its just 3 X average wage will buy somewhere up and coming, or in a new burb, and 3 X professional wage buys somewhere more established, central and leafy.

The_Conductor

Regarding price falls in South County Dublin- we're currently at a little over 60% for houses, and over 80% for apartments (and there are hundreds of vacant apartments- look at Bernard McNamaras development in D4 alone as an example).

Prices in Dublin (and South Dublin in particular) increased far more and by a far higher percentage, during the boom, than elsewhere. They have also had the inverse- a far higher and steeper fall thus far, than elsewhere.

CSO commentaries on March suggest the stabilisation in prices is now a minor upward trend in South Dublin (apartments aside) countered by continuing falls, albeit not at as fast a speed, elsewhere.

Property prices outside the Pale have as yet not lost anything approaching the same percentages as Dublin prices- and also tend to be significantly larger- which will make next year's property tax a particularly contentious issue. Remember the previous property tax in the 70s was seen as a Dublin tax- as the houses were bigger there, and worth more. The inverse is now the case, after the developments of the last 2 decades. There will be civil war if its seen as unfairly imposed on larger homes faoin tuath, rather than shoeboxes in South Dublin co.co. etc.

Interesting times ahead.

kennyb3

smccarrick wrote: »

CSO commentaries on March suggest the stabilisation in prices is now a minor upward trend in South Dublin (apartments aside) countered by continuing falls, albeit not at as fast a speed, elsewhere.

I know you're only mentioning the commentaries from the CSO, but i think its important people recognise that one swallow doesnt make a summer. The level of transactions is so low that its only natural that the statistics will be skewed from time to time. This increase comes after the greatest monthly fall. The year on year fall was still huge. I think when we've seen 3/4 more months of the same can we even suggest that prices are stabilising.

ntlbell

StillWaters wrote: »

I don't think this is true. €150k is a huge amount of money now in a credit starved economy. The difference between a 200k home and a 350k home is enormous. (I'm talking about real prices, not silly aking prices).

The whole 3 x wages thing still works, its just 3 X average wage will buy somewhere up and coming, or in a new burb, and 3 X professional wage buys somewhere more established, central and leafy.

I'm referring to avoiding riff Raff.

Take stilorgan for example. Bray, shankill, loughlinstown, dumdrum dun laogihire.

There's parts of dun laoghire that make parts of tallaght look like foxrock

The 150k makes no guarantee for a quiet life.

oflahero

kennyb3 wrote: »

I know you're only mentioning the commentaries from the CSO, but i think its important people recognise that one swallow doesnt make a summer.

+1. The CSO figures are based on numbers for a quarter that only make up 14% of transactions considered to constitute a normal, functioning market!

irishguy

The Toffees wrote: »

Myself and the wife are currently looking at houses at the moment. We have mortgage approval in principal for more than we intend to use. My question is what % of net income is the norm to spend on a mortgage.

It really depends on your lifestyle. Do you go on lots of expensive holidays , nights out, expensive cars etc. I would work out a detailed budget, allocate money for everything and see what you have left then. Also if you could buy somewhere with good public transport/within walking distance of work, it's worth paying more for a house if you can walk to work/get the luas with the money you would save in driving costs.

Have a look at here http://www.drcalculator.com/mortgage/ie/ and stress test yourself to 5/10% interest rates (not saying that is going to happen but it's worth knowing).

We are in similar position as yourselves and paying 30% of our joint income (while saving another 30% of our net income). Spend sensibly, budget and still have money for a couple of holidays a year and nights out etc (don't have any kids).

I would also think buying a house in the south Dublin area at the moment is a good idea if your looking at staying for 7/10 years.