Is it time for ireland to accept we are like most of Europe and be happy just renti

handlemaster

http://m.independent.ie/life/home-garden/homes/how-to-be-a-happy-renter-34451067.html

Ireland has long been a country obsessed with owning your own home. We have intergrated into Europe in everyway , property is just another step. In mainland Europe renting is seen as normal and even those who can afford to buy choose not to. Should we not just except we have changed as a country and move on into renting blis?

PhoenixParker

There are few major differences between renting in Ireland and renting in Europe. Particularly the prevalence of unfurnished rentals in Europe, tenancy rights in general, security of tenure, predictability of cost and the quality of housing stock available for rent. Ireland is starting to take strides in the direction of more European style renting, but until we get there more fully, for most people house ownership is going to remain by far and away the preference.

handlemaster

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There are few major differences between renting in Ireland and renting in Europe. Particularly the prevalence of unfurnished rentals in Europe, tenancy rights in general, security of tenure, predictability of cost and the quality of housing stock available for rent. Ireland is starting to take strides in the direction of more European style renting, but until we get there more fully, for most people house ownership is going to remain by far and away the preference.

Its more an attitude I think. I would say LL would love to rent without furnishings but the mind set in ireland is fixed on furnished demand.

astrofool

The laws in Ireland don't make it easy to be a tenant or a landlord without suffering from significant risk (overstaying tenants) or poor standard of living (cheap furnishings, lack of maintenance of properties). You can get lucky on either side of these, but to be a landlord, you basically have to be a law breaking tight arse to make any money, and to be a tenant, you have to hope you get a nice landlord and make do with what the rental gives you.

Eugene Norman

handlemaster wrote: »

Its more an attitude I think. I would say LL would love to rent without furnishings but the mind set in ireland is fixed on furnished demand.

LL might want to rent without furnishing but they won't want to rent with a 20 year lease.

In any case why should we change. It's an under populated country by European standards.

OneOfTheseDays

handlemaster wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/life/home-garden/homes/how-to-be-a-happy-renter-34451067.html

Ireland has long been a country obsessed with owning your own home.

A myth of the Celtic Tiger.

Personally I don't think renting should be seen as a long term solution, people should aim to own their own home imo.

As an aside home ownership is much higher in many other EU countries than some appear to think.

Graham

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

Personally I don't think renting should be seen as a long term solution, people should aim to own their own home imo.

Why?

astrofool

Graham wrote: »

Why?

I'd imagine most people see it as security into old age, an asset to sell, as well as a permanent roof over your head. The societal view would say that having an asset like that tied up in old people is inefficient and they should move into a care home, and that the renter should have saved the equivalent of the asset price during their rental years in order to live through their retirement anyway.

allibastor

Have a look at the rental houses for places outside of Ireland.

Many are houses that were bought for too much money, then the LL doesn't want to spend a penny on them so the interiors end up very poor.
Furnishing is usually poor then getting anything done is its own fun!

No control over costs or anything like that either, so you can rent the same house and in 2 years your rent can double, where as at least if you buy you know what you will pay.

Graham

allibastor wrote: »

Have a look at the rental houses for places outside of Ireland.

Many are houses that were bought for too much money, then the LL doesn't want to spend a penny on them so the interiors end up very poor.
Furnishing is usually poor then getting anything done is its own fun!

No control over costs or anything like that either, so you can rent the same house and in 2 years your rent can double, where as at least if you buy you know what you will pay.

Which markets are you referring to because that's not my experience or understanding of many other EU countries (apart from the UK).

Graham

astrofool wrote: »

I'd imagine most people see it as security into old age, an asset to sell, as well as a permanent roof over your head.

I can half understand that and I think that's where some of our problems lie.

astrofool wrote: »

The societal view would say that having an asset like that tied up in old people is inefficient and they should move into a care home

I don't think a care home necessarily but incentivising a move to a property of a size and type that's appropriate would probably be a good thing.

Graces7

astrofool wrote: »

I'd imagine most people see it as security into old age, an asset to sell, as well as a permanent roof over your head. The societal view would say that having an asset like that tied up in old people is inefficient and they should move into a care home, and that the renter should have saved the equivalent of the asset price during their rental years in order to live through their retirement anyway.

I was about to ask WHY too! I relinquished home ownership several years ago as I entered old age as the cost or maintenance and the problems getting repairs etc done was too much on a pension. I was never able because of long term illness to save etc and came into home ownership through a legacy. Societal view my eye! :rolleyes:;) We are free individuals. Thankfully... Now looking at the rental situation is worrying. My current landlord makes loud noises on the rare occasions i see him re selling this house or moving into it but so far it i just noise. I do an Ireland wide sweep sometimes to see where I could live on RA and it is not a good time. But then I need only one...

Bob24

Graham wrote: »

Which markets are you referring to because that's not my experience or understanding of many other EU countries (apart from the UK).

Not my experience either ...

As a matter of fact a some countries will offer tax incentives to investors buying new property under the condition that it will be used as a rental property and they accept some level of rent control to give long term certainty to the tenants. So you can rent a brand new property at a decent price and with long term certainty in terms of not being evicted (at least as long as you pay the rent and don't cause issues) and having a fairly stable rent. Of course in a way the tax incentive is a disguised government subsidy to the landlord so that they accept these rules, but if it brings better/cheaper accommodation to renters it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Graces7

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

Personally I don't think renting should be seen as a long term solution, people should aim to own their own home imo.

As an aside home ownership is much higher in many other EU countries than some appear to think.

How? On low incomes etc not feasible.. for many of us long term rental is all there is. But then I am English and we have a totally different attitude.

Bongalongherb

astrofool wrote: »

I'd imagine most people see it as security into old age, an asset to sell, as well as a permanent roof over your head. The societal view would say that having an asset like that tied up in old people is inefficient and they should move into a care home, and that the renter should have saved the equivalent of the asset price during their rental years in order to live through their retirement anyway.

Who cares what the societal view is on this as they are just a bunch of strangers. If a person purchased their own home whether old or not it is no ones business as to what the owner does with their house. It is a good asset and a stable roof over the persons head and is not inefficient in any way.

Why would an elderly person want to move into a care-home when they have their own home ? it is none of any-ones business when it comes to home ownership regarding any age. Renting is dead money. It is quite efficient that you can leave your home to your family when you are gone.

allibastor

Graham wrote: »

Which markets are you referring to because that's not my experience or understanding of many other EU countries (apart from the UK).

Sorry, re-read my own message. I meant many house IN Ireland are places which would be poor, but many from places like Norway, Sweden where high rental exists the houses are better quality.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Why?

Because owning your home is something to be proud of, a place you can have the way you want it, decorated the way you want it, the security of knowing it cannot be taken off you and of course something to pass onto your kids and a place they will always know as home.

Renting is fine for a few years, though personally I cant bring myself to pay the rent for a full apartment/house even though I could afford it as I see it as a massive waste of money so despite hating it I houseshare and will continue doing it until I buy.

But in the long term how anyone is happy to hand over so much money in rent for years and years when the same or almost definitely less money would have them living in their own home that after x number of years they will own outright and that monthly repayment will then be their money to keep every month while the renter keeps paying, then things get even worse when they retire and are still paying a rent while the home owner doesn't need to worry about finding the cash to pay for rent and will have more disposable income to spend on themselves.

On top of that with monthly mortgage repayments almost always cheaper and often significantly cheaper than rent of equivalent properties owning actually gives more opportunity to save money or have more money to spend on yourself than renting.

Graces7 wrote: »

How? On low incomes etc not feasible.. for many of us long term rental is all there is. But then I am English and we have a totally different attitude.

Most people can actually afford to buy if they want it badly enough and live where they can afford to buy. A lot of people on low incomes tend to be given their own houses for almost nothing too, something that grinds the gears of a lot of hard working people.

Graham

Bob24 wrote: »

As a matter of fact a some countries will offer tax incentives to investors buying new property under the condition that it will be used as a rental property and they accept some level of rent control to give long term certainty to the tenants. So you can rent a brand new property at a decent price and with long term certainty in terms of not being evicted (at least as long as you pay the rent and don't cause issues) and having a fairly stable rent. Of course in a way the tax incentive is a disguised government subsidy to the landlord so that they accept these rules, but if it brings better/cheaper accommodation to renters it is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'd certainly be in favour of tax incentives to encourage longer-term thinking and increased development in the rental market.

It would be even better if this could be done in such a way to encourage a professional class of landlord. Something like a 'rental property fund' which would buy/develop and manage the rental properties while offering investors a relatively secure long-term financial return.

borderlinemeath

handlemaster wrote: »

Its more an attitude I think. I would say LL would love to rent without furnishings but the mind set in ireland is fixed on furnished demand.

It's not just the tenant mindset. The RSA states that the rental must have a fitted kitchen, appliances etc. Which is nothing like rentals in Europe where you rent an empty shell, some without even a light fitting. I'm sure there's plenty of families that would love the security of a longer tenancy and fit their own kitchen and fixtures. The "one size fits all" model doesn't suit every type of renter and this needs to be changed before the mindset ever does.

McGrath5

Renting in Ireland is still a wild west situation.

I feel much more secure and have not regretted the day I bought my own home.

astrofool

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Who cares what the societal view is on this as they are just a bunch of strangers. If a person purchased their own home whether old or not it is no ones business as to what the owner does with their house. It is a good asset and a stable roof over the persons head and is not inefficient in any way.

Why would an elderly person want to move into a care-home when they have their own home ? it is none of any-ones business when it comes to home ownership regarding any age. Renting is dead money. It is quite efficient that you can leave your home to your family when you are gone.

I'm not taking sides, only answering the "why?"

Hypothetically - Why should the state pay a pension to someone with such a large asset on their books? They could give extra to those with little assets, what good is a 5 bedroom house occupied by 2 people, when a young family could be living there?

Lux23

I would be happy to rent if I got a long lease, wouldn't bother me in slightest if I could get all my own furniture and decorate it myself.

Speedwell

Why would I want to buy a home until I am a citizen? (Which, with any luck, I will be in a couple of years.) A "long lease" in the part of the US I come from is anything over a year, and my last landlord was pushing me to take a six-month lease, which I refused to do three times. Every Part 4 tenancy in Ireland would be considered an appallingly long lease there.

Also, I told my landlord I didn't want his nasty used bedding, worn-through pans, broken bookcases, kitchen chairs that the dog chewed on, and filthy sofa. Ordered my own and told him to come pick up his stuff.

Asmooh

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There are few major differences between renting in Ireland and renting in Europe. Particularly the prevalence of unfurnished rentals in Europe, tenancy rights in general, security of tenure, predictability of cost and the quality of housing stock available for rent. Ireland is starting to take strides in the direction of more European style renting, but until we get there more fully, for most people house ownership is going to remain by far and away the preference.

Which is really bad in Ireland, and why would you rent a furnished house? I would like my own stuff.

I paid 400 euros for a 2 bedroom appartement in Holland, 2 balconies and a big basement.. and I get 120 euro back from tax and quality of the appartement is way better than anything I've seen in Ireland


If they use the same prices also...

allibastor wrote: »

Have a look at the rental houses for places outside of Ireland.

Many are houses that were bought for too much money, then the LL doesn't want to spend a penny on them so the interiors end up very poor.
Furnishing is usually poor then getting anything done is its own fun!

No control over costs or anything like that either, so you can rent the same house and in 2 years your rent can double, where as at least if you buy you know what you will pay.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woningcorporatie

Cunning Stunt

Are we not already moving more towards renting? If I look on daft I am amazed at how little rental properties there are available at the moment -theyre all gone. There used to be any amount of them.

Graham

astrofool wrote: »

I'm not taking sides, only answering the "why?"

Hypothetically - Why should the state pay a pension to someone with such a large asset on their books? They could give extra to those with little assets, what good is a 5 bedroom house occupied by 2 people, when a young family could be living there?

That's a tough balancing act. On the one hand, you don't want to punish pensioners that have worked hard all their lives, on the other hand you do want to incentivise the moving on of under-occupied family homes.

Bongalongherb

astrofool wrote: »

I'm not taking sides, only answering the "why?"

Hypothetically - Why should the state pay a pension to someone with such a large asset on their books? They could give extra to those with little assets, what good is a 5 bedroom house occupied by 2 people, when a young family could be living there?

Because it is their own home/house of which they paid hard cash for. It doesn't matter if the house has 12 or 20 bedrooms it is the owners property and is none of any one else's business. Home owners that receive the pension worked hard throughout their lives paying high taxes, so it is only fair that they receive something back from their generosity of paying them in the first place.

Folk can't even enjoy their own home nowadays without either being told to go to a care-home or just sell the home because it is too big for them. There's many a big dirty nose from society sticking in their window these days. Folk can't be just left alone to enjoy their home and security these days.

Graham

McGrath5 wrote: »

I feel much more secure and have not regretted the day I bought my own home.

There are also plenty of home-owners who rue the day they signed on the dotted line and will be digging their way out of negative equity for years to come.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

Hypothetically - Why should the state pay a pension to someone with such a large asset on their books? They could give extra to those with little assets,

The people with the assets are more likely to have paid more tax during their working lives so I would argue they are more entitled to the state pension compared to someone who has contributed less

astrofool wrote: »

what good is a 5 bedroom house occupied by 2 people, when a young family could be living there?

Plenty of good, they could have family visiting regularly or even not regularly but still need the space when they do come, they could be making use of the rooms for storage, they could have a snooker table and bar in their house who knows and who cares its their house that they bought and paid for and have most likely spend years getting into the home they want why on earth should they move from it. Let the young families find somewhere else.

They also most likely want to leave it to their own children so selling it just is not on the cards for so many reasons. As mentioned many times a home is much more than a roof and a few bedrooms, its basically part of the family.

astrofool

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

They also most likely want to leave it to their own children so selling it just is not on the cards for so many reasons. As mentioned many times a home is much more than a roof and a few bedrooms, its basically part of the family.

I'd probably be of the same belief, but playing devil's advocate, just remember, come voting time, that those on the left will want all those assets back off you into old age

There should however be tax incentives for people to downsize once they retire, whether they take up the incentive is up to them. My grandmother stayed in unsuitable accommodation until her end, but was happier being at "home", while our next door neighbour realised her house was too big to maintain for one person and downsized (and got herself a nest egg for retirement in the process).

Graham

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

They also most likely want to leave it to their own children so selling it just is not on the cards for so many reasons. As mentioned many times a home is much more than a roof and a few bedrooms, its basically part of the family.

I can't think of a single person I know who has inherited the old family home and moved into it. I can think of plenty who have sold the old family home when the last of their parents passed on.

Maybe there should be some tax incentives to encourage the sale of 'family homes' long before the death of the occupants.

MrMorooka

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

But in the long term how anyone is happy to hand over so much money in rent for years and years when the same or almost definitely less money would have them living in their own home that after x number of years they will own outright and that monthly repayment will then be their money to keep every month while the renter keeps paying,

I call bull. There is no way I could afford to buy a house in the area in which I'm living now via renting. Especically with the new mortgage rules(which I do support). 3.5x my income would not get me anywhere I would actually want to live, so I will continue happily renting in the medium term.

Owning a home also goes along with traditional paths like getting married(beause how else can you afford the mortgage?) and having kids(to leave the house to). That's not a path that everyone is following. I know I don't expect to ever have kids, so the argument of leaving something to them doesn't sway me at all.

allibastor

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

Are we not already moving more towards renting? If I look on daft I am amazed at how little rental properties there are available at the moment -theyre all gone. There used to be any amount of them.

We are, but it is due to large companies bringing more and more people into the country more than anything. Many big multi nationals now have full teams of accommodation officers who sole job is to try and find a house/apartment/room for staff coming over.

Asmooh

the problem is that the irish corporations should move somewhere else.. like build a biggg office in co. sligo or so and one somewhere in kerry.. will sove so much issues.. and I guess it will be cheaper for them also

allibastor

Asmooh wrote: »

the problem is that the irish corporations should move somewhere else.. like build a biggg office in co. sligo or so and one somewhere in kerry.. will sove so much issues.. and I guess it will be cheaper for them also

Wont happen unfortunately, but unless someone starts to build houses for the masses of people coming in the rental market will just keep getting worse!!!

To be fair, it is the transport links which kill here. I know plenty of people who work in London but live like an hour commute away and are happy with it.

Asmooh

allibastor wrote: »

Wont happen unfortunately, but unless someone starts to build houses for the masses of people coming in the rental market will just keep getting worse!!!

To be fair, it is the transport links which kill here. I know plenty of people who work in London but live like an hour commute away and are happy with it.

I dont mind living more far away...

Leave to work: 6.20
Arrive at work: 7.45


And im still fine with it, I woulnd mind to leave half a hour earlier if I could live bigger and/or cheaper

Bob24

Asmooh wrote: »

the problem is that the irish corporations should move somewhere else.. like build a biggg office in co. sligo or so and one somewhere in kerry.. will sove so much issues.. and I guess it will be cheaper for them also

A capital city and its large pool of professionals will always attract large employers who need specific professional qualifications. If you move a large corporation from Dublin to Sligo, you will have trouble hiring the right people for highly qualified jobs.

To be fair I think Ireland is not doing too bad already with companies like Apple or Amazon in Cork or Dell in Limerick. These companies would usually tend to settle for larger cities.

borderlinemeath

Graham wrote: »

I can't think of a single person I know who has inherited the old family home and moved into it. I can think of plenty who have sold the old family home when the last of their parents passed on.

Most likely due to the high rate of inheritance tax. The majority of people can't afford to pay revenue what's owed without selling the asset. Probably completely against what the parents wanted.

Maybe there should be some tax incentives to encourage the sale of 'family homes' long before the death of the occupants.

This would be the ideal situation. But for most elderly people moving can be a hugely traumatic experience. Moving from the neighbourhood that has essentially become their support system, moving away from their community, church, friends, local clubs. They simply don't want to do it.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

I can't think of a single person I know who has inherited the old family home and moved into it. I can think of plenty who have sold the old family home when the last of their parents passed on.

Maybe there should be some tax incentives to encourage the sale of 'family homes' long before the death of the occupants.

Even if it gets sold off after they pass on having incentives to sell it before they do is just putting unwanted and unneeded pressure on them to sell. If they leave it to their children and then they sell it that's their decision but the children still benefit which is the point. You also ignored that fact that while you might have 2 people living in a 5 bedroomed house a lot of the time but come Christmas or other holidays the house could be full with people home visiting etc.

Maybe because I'm from a rural area its different but houses tend to stay in the family from my experience with one child taking on the family home. Of course the norm was for the child who took on the family home to never move out and when they got married their husband/wife would move in with them and their parents. With peoples rush to move out nowadays this is not happening so much.

I know one thing for sure, my home house will never be sold on my watch but there is a very high chance it will be lived in anyway as a second home at the least.

MrMorooka wrote: »

I call bull. There is no way I could afford to buy a house in the area in which I'm living now via renting. Especically with the new mortgage rules(which I do support). 3.5x my income would not get me anywhere I would actually want to live, so I will continue happily renting in the medium term.

I did say in my post that people may need to move to an area they can afford.

MrMorooka wrote: »

Owning a home also goes along with traditional paths like getting married(beause how else can you afford the mortgage?) and having kids(to leave the house to). That's not a path that everyone is following. I know I don't expect to ever have kids, so the argument of leaving something to them doesn't sway me at all.

Its the path that most people go down though, the vast majority I would say.

Asmooh

Bob24 wrote: »

A capital city and its large pool of professionals will always attract large employers who need specific professional qualifications. If you move a large corporation from Dublin to Sligo, you will have trouble hiring the right people for highly qualified jobs.

To be fair I think Ireland is not doing too bad already with companies like Apple or Amazon in Cork or Dell in Limerick. These companies would usually tend to settle for larger cities.

interesting :P maybe I should find a job there :P

Graham

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

Even if it gets sold off after they pass on having incentives to sell it before they do is just putting unwanted and unneeded pressure on them to sell.

No, it's an incentive there's no requirement to take advantage of it.

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

You also ignored that fact that while you might have 2 people living in a 5 bedroomed house a lot of the time but come Christmas or other holidays the house could be full with people home visiting etc.

Yup, I ignored it completely because I think the occasional visitor shouldn't really be one of the primary considerations in national housing policy or strategy.

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

I know one thing for sure, my home house will never be sold on my watch but there is a very high chance it will be lived in anyway as a second home at the least.

There's one I missed, thank you. Second homes should be subject to heavier tax but maybe just in areas where there is a shortage of housing for locals.

astrofool

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

Maybe because I'm from a rural area its different but houses tend to stay in the family from my experience with one child taking on the family home. Of course the norm was for the child who took on the family home to never move out and when they got married their husband/wife would move in with them and their parents. With peoples rush to move out nowadays this is not happening so much.

I did say in my post that people may need to move to an area they can afford.

Its the path that most people go down though, the vast majority I would say.

It is very different for rural areas, it's not like the demand is there anyway to fill up the large houses, and children will often build on their own site nearby anyway. However, those same support networks for old people are less likely to be there for rural homes, and leave them vulnerable to crime and ability to access public services, so it's probably a good idea to give them an option. On the Christmas thing, we have a neighbour down the road with the opposite problem, she wants to sell and move on, but the children force her to keep it so they have somewhere to stay at Christmas time (and their own inheritance I guess), children are stingy as hell making matters worse, so she has to keep it all going on a widows pension.

Graham

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

I did say in my post that people may need to move to an area they can afford.

Off to Cavan for everyone then, great idea apart from the whole no jobs thing.

PhoenixParker

There's also a two career problem that makes it very difficult to attract people to work outside Dublin (or other major cities).
Qualified professionals tend to be in relationships/married to other qualified professionals who also want to be able to find a well paying & interesting job. It's one thing to try to find two such jobs within a reasonable commute in Dublin but outside Dublin it becomes much more difficult.

Bob24

Asmooh wrote: »

interesting :P maybe I should find a job there :P

If you have the right qualifications I actually think it is a good idea as long as you are OK with living in a smaller city and don't have anything holding in Dublin (many people would have a property, a spouse with a job here, or children at a school the like and whom the don't want to move). There might be less competition from other professionals and therefore more opportunities there.

Graces7

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

Because owning your home is something to be proud of, a place you can have the way you want it, decorated the way you want it, the security of knowing it cannot be taken off you and of course something to pass onto your kids and a place they will always know as home.

Renting is fine for a few years, though personally I cant bring myself to pay the rent for a full apartment/house even though I could afford it as I see it as a massive waste of money so despite hating it I houseshare and will continue doing it until I buy.

But in the long term how anyone is happy to hand over so much money in rent for years and years when the same or almost definitely less money would have them living in their own home that after x number of years they will own outright and that monthly repayment will then be their money to keep every month while the renter keeps paying, then things get even worse when they retire and are still paying a rent while the home owner doesn't need to worry about finding the cash to pay for rent and will have more disposable income to spend on themselves.

On top of that with monthly mortgage repayments almost always cheaper and often significantly cheaper than rent of equivalent properties owning actually gives more opportunity to save money or have more money to spend on yourself than renting.



Most people can actually afford to buy if they want it badly enough and live where they can afford to buy. A lot of people on low incomes tend to be given their own houses for almost nothing too, something that grinds the gears of a lot of hard working people.

So idealistic and young of course. As someone on long term disability a smany are and now on a basic UK pension, there is no way I could ever have bought a house. The small poor one I had was via a legacy and there was no way I could afford the maintenance. If the gales damage the roof here, the landlord fixes it. When the fridge or washing machine dies, he replaces it. So I radically disagree with your ideas! Tried owning a home for over 20 years...renting is fine thank you! But then I am old and you are young...

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

So idealistic and young of course. As someone on long term disability a smany are and now on a basic UK pension, there is no way I could ever have bought a house. The small poor one I had was via a legacy and there was no way I could afford the maintenance. If the gales damage the roof here, the landlord fixes it. When the fridge or washing machine dies, he replaces it. So I radically disagree with your ideas! Tried owning a home for over 20 years...renting is fine thank you! But then I am old and you are young...

I think I'm correct in saying you get rent allowance though, of course this makes a big difference as its money you would not be getting if you owned your home. Most will not get rent allowance however (and rightly so I might add) so in most situations you are much better off to own your home. If you keep on top of maintenance you will be unlucky to have a big expense and the fact you are not paying rent allows you to save up money (this is making the likely assumption you have paid off your mortgage which most do before retiring).

MrMorooka

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

I did say in my post that people may need to move to an area they can afford.

But I can afford to live in this area- I just can't afford to buy. I don't see what the problem is. Why should I move from a great vibrant city centre area to a suburb outside the M50 where I have to drive everywhere/deal with lack of services, just for a bigger house/pointless garden?

Like I say, I will rent for as long as it is practical to do so. Hopefully in 10/15/20 years I might have a good enough income that I can afford to buy an apartment in a good location, and I will be happy with that I think for a long time. But I am perfectly happy to rent, and refuse to feel bad about it.

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

Its the path that most people go down though, the vast majority I would say.

I would argue that marriage rates are going down, divorces are up, smaller families, people having children later etc etc. The world is changing, and the simplistic model of 'live with parents, rent for ~5 years in a crappy flat, get married, buy semi-d' is increasingly not fitting people.

Lilah Blue Meteorite

Lilah Blue Meteorite wrote: »

Very good point, our criminal rates of inheritance tax definitely has a big role to play in people selling on their family homes.

Do you really think they are 'criminal'?

Personally I think we should reward hard work and initiative rather than have a society where success and wealth depends on how rich mammy and daddy were.

People should be encouraged to spend while alive and leave anything left to charity. Either way the current exemptions seem fair to me.

Asmooh

Bob24 wrote: »

If you have the right qualifications

If they have jobs that require Dutch

I actually think it is a good idea as long as you are OK with living in a smaller city and don't have anything holding in Dublin (many people would have a property, a spouse with a job here, or children at a school the like and whom the don't want to move).

I would love to live in the middle of absolutely nowhere, I dont have anything in Dublin except my job.

I lived in Högsjö before, loved it!

There might be less competition from other professionals and therefore more opportunities there.

Dutch jobs (the one I am always looking out for) are less competitive anyway