At what salary in Ireland can you be considered to have a decent life?

Technocentral

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

A single person does not especially need a 3 or 4 bedroom house in the suburbs. If he/she is planning a family in the near future, then it's OK.

A single person could live comfortably in a one or two bedroom apartment or shared accommodation... just like on the Continent or USA.

Not an option for decent life if your in late 40s+, thats for students and 20 somethings, I need my own space for myself and for visits from girlfriends, privacy much more important when you get older.

Carlos Orange

Wanderer78 wrote: »

was talking to an old friend yesterday for the first time in years, his wife and himself have been trying to buy a house in dublin for some time now, both on very good wages, i assume about 150k a year between both of them. they cant get on the property ladder! dublins in trouble and this was spotted years ago

Dublin might indeed be in trouble but I bought a modest house in Dublin after taking a few years off working (lived on my savings), living on my own in a 2 bed apartment for 6 years (didn't want to share any more ,didn't save much those years) and not having a pay rise in the last 4 years (probably could have if I switched jobs). Could have had a less modest house if I didn't make those choices but life is about choices. If your friends can not get a house with 2.5 my salary (before tax steals a chunk granted) that is a choice they are making not some fixed reality.

Yourself isit

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Rubbish. The exact opposite produced the boom and bust. No real planning restrictions and no credit restrictions.

Also developers often sit on land. The land bank cost is sunk. If you can sell a 100 houses in the future for 400k it will make you far greater profit than 100 at 300k now.

Wanderer78

psinno wrote: »

Dublin might indeed be in trouble but I bought a modest house in Dublin after taking a few years off working (lived on my savings), living on my own in a 2 bed apartment for 6 years (didn't want to share any more ,didn't save much those years) and not having a pay rise in the last 4 years (probably could have if I switched jobs). Could have had a less modest house if I didn't make those choices but life is about choices. If your friends can not get a house with 2.5 my salary (before tax steals a chunk granted) that is a choice they are making not some fixed reality.

im sure they have certain criteria in their chosing a house, kids being one, location to their jobs etc etc etc, but i wasnt surprised when my friend told me the story, he told me, they just keep getting priced out of the market by people increasing bids on houses. this free market stuff is a bust

Yourself isit

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

A single person does not especially need a 3 or 4 bedroom house in the suburbs. If he/she is planning a family in the near future, then it's OK.

A single person could live comfortably in a one or two bedroom apartment or shared accommodation... just like on the Continent or USA.

The question the op asked was also about married couples with 2 kids. That needs 3 bedrooms at least

Grayson

Rainman16 wrote: »

I guess money is not directly related to quality of life. You could be on 70k a year and be a miserable ****, or you could be on 25k and live happy.

But the stress of not having it is worse. I've had to make excuses about why I can't go to the cinema with friends because I can't afford it. I have to borrow money from family to make rent every month. Getting something like a takeaway is a luxury I can't afford. I avoid dating apps and stuff like that because I simply couldn't afford to go on a date.

I've worked my ass off too. Did 70 hour weeks, got degrees and masters coming out of my ass. I'm not a scrounger (Not that you said I was, but a lot of people seem to think that anyone on the dole is one).

Even when I was working I was broke. I was on about the average wage for someone in Dublin. It was barely enough to make ends meet. after rent, student loans and bills I had about 150-200 a week. Throw in stuff like commuting and I was barely surviving.

I hate money. I hate the fact that it can have such a negative impact on my life. I'd love to be rich but honestly I'd settle for not worrying about it and being able to focus on actually living rather than figuring out how to survive month to month.

Jimbob1977

Yourself isit wrote: »

The question the op asked was also about married couples with 2 kids. That needs 3 bedrooms at least

The opening post also enquired about single people

Yourself isit

Grayson wrote: »

But the stress of not having it is worse. I've had to make excuses about why I can't go to the cinema with friends because I can't afford it. I have to borrow money from family to make rent every month. Getting something like a takeaway is a luxury I can't afford. I avoid dating apps and stuff like that because I simply couldn't afford to go on a date.

I've worked my ass off too. Did 70 hour weeks, got degrees and masters coming out of my ass. I'm not a scrounger (Not that you said I was, but a lot of people seem to think that anyone on the dole is one).

Even when I was working I was broke. I was on about the average wage for someone in Dublin. It was barely enough to make ends meet. after rent, student loans and bills I had about 150-200 a week. Throw in stuff like commuting and I was barely surviving.

I hate money. I hate the fact that it can have such a negative impact on my life. I'd love to be rich but honestly I'd settle for not worrying about it and being able to focus on actually living rather than figuring out how to survive month to month.

Modern capitalism.

Some guy in the guardian recently said that if you ignore technological achievements the young person in 60's in London was better off than the equivalent in modern day London.

The main differentiator was rental costs and student loans. Food is cheaper now (all relative to salary/wages) and entertainment is cheaper including eating out, commuting costs are the same - it's the fixed costs of rent and the student loans (and higher income tax) that make the modern poorer.

Carlos Orange

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im sure they have certain criteria in their chosing a house, kids being one, location to their jobs etc etc etc, but i wasnt surprised when my friend told me the story, he told me, they just keep getting priced out of the market by people increasing bids on houses. this free market stuff is a bust

Everyone has criteria when they start looking and they adjust though the process or at least mine did. I think everyone starts out wanting a bit more than they can afford so you cut some corners along the way and work out what you really want.

Wanderer78

psinno wrote: »

Everyone has criteria when they start looking and they adjust though the process or at least mine did. I think everyone starts out wanting a bit more than they can afford so you cut some corners along the way and work out what you really want.

completely agree but it looks like people who seem to me to be on very good wages, are continually being priced out of the market. theres something fundamentally wrong with the housing market, particularly in the dublin region. i know somebody who almost became homeless due to this dysfunctionality, only for a friend stepped in, they would have been homeless.

ted1

TimeToShine wrote: »

OK. I'll start with the big one.

Buying a house is a WANT, not a god given right as some people seem to think. Buying a nice semi detached house in a town or city that's worth more than triple your salary/15 times its annual rental income a year is a luxury that only a small minority should be able to afford.

Buying a house is cheaper than renting one

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ted1

mariaalice wrote: »

But why do they need to live in south county Dublin unless that question is addressed its like discussing all the other points except the main one.

I live in south Dublin because it's where I grew up, my family and friends live here. That's why many people live there.

Capt'n Midnight

lawred2 wrote: »

Bin charges? What?

my bad, it used to be a thing.

The point is that people on low incomes not only have lower disposable income for things like heath insurance and pensions , but they also have to earn more to buy the same cover because

ANXIOUS

Graces7 wrote: »

Some small comments if i may,, We on welfare and pensions do not get free rent, and we get the lowest end of the market; not complaining by the way. Three generations ago it'd/ve been the workhouse

Also we do not get free dental treatment beyond a very small ration. I think there were some threads on that a while ago? (I am OK: I have my NHS plastic gnashers I got over three decades ago..)

I actually sold a small( inheritance) old cottage;I realised I could not afford the maintenance, or to replace appliances etc. It is a decision I have not regretted financially and I sold just before the crash

It is not the rental fluctuations that worry but the basic uncertainty of renting. My current landlord ( for another few days) wants to sell. I have a one year lease on the new place and no idea which way the owner will jump after that.

Do you accept that you have a responsibility first and foremost to provide for yourself?

Dial Hard

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The point is that people on low incomes not only have lower disposable income for things like heath insurance and pensions , but they also have to earn more to buy the same cover because

Because what???

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Yourself isit

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He wasn't just talking about the present. But you knew that.

PhilipsR

It's all relative to be fair. Depends on area, age, family situation etc.

Yourself isit

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He was concentrating on a median waged graduate of 25. The equivalent worker could have got that wage with an O level in the 1960s. University is a new cost.

Secondly, income taxes in the UK in the 60s were extremely high, up to marginal rates of 95%. When the Beatles sang in "Taxman" about "one for me and nineteen for you," that's a historically accurate reflection of the tax rates at the time.

There were bands of course. Many more progressive bands than now. Median earners paid less because the top paid more. I am looking for validation on his figures but Tax wasn't my main argument though.

The notion that people were better off in the '60s is stuff and nonsense, really.

It would need evidence rather than opinions. I notice you ignored rent.

Basically his argument was that you got a lot more discretionary spending from the median wage in 1960's London compared to 2016 London as a percentage of the total. As in

1960s rent and tax (significantly) < 2016s rent and tax and student debt.

Does the remainder have more purchasing power in 2016? For some things yes - I mentioned food. For most things, no.

And the 1960's guy could save and get an mortgage. Gayson can't.

Grayson

Technocentral wrote: »

Wonder if it was always relatively thus, for instance in 1970 would you need to be on an execs salary to buy a house in Beaumount or whatever?

In the 70's my granddad died. He left my mother £400. With it she bought a house and still had a hundred pounds to renovate the kitchen and bathroom.

In the mid 90's my landlord sold the house I was living in. He'd bought the house a few years beforehand. In those three years the price jumped by nearly 20%. So he decided to sell. He said he'd be stupid to not sell because that market can't last. He sold a house for 42k that he'd bought for 35k. The house went on sale last year for 350k. In 20 years the price increased by about 1000%. Think of it this way, if that kept happening the semi detached house would cost 3.5 million in 20 years (not that it will, but just to put it into perspective).

I will never own my own house/apt. I'll always be in rented accommodation and I'll never have security.

Yourself isit

Grayson wrote: »

In the 70's my granddad died. He left my mother £400. With it she bought a house and still had a hundred pounds to renovate the kitchen and bathroom.

In the mid 90's my landlord sold the house I was living in. He'd bought the house a few years beforehand. In those three years the price jumped by nearly 20%. So he decided to sell. He said he'd be stupid to not sell because that market can't last. He sold a house for 42k that he'd bought for 35k. The house went on sale last year for 350k. In 20 years the price increased by about 1000%. Think of it this way, if that kept happening the semi detached house would cost 3.5 million in 20 years (not that it will, but just to put it into perspective).

I will never own my own house/apt. I'll always be in rented accommodation and I'll never have security.

And since we used to have 80% house ownership this means you are worse off than the past worker on similar income.

76544567

Grayson wrote: »

In the 70's my granddad died. He left my mother £400. With it she bought a house and still had a hundred pounds to renovate the kitchen and bathroom.

In the mid 90's my landlord sold the house I was living in. He'd bought the house a few years beforehand. In those three years the price jumped by nearly 20%. So he decided to sell. He said he'd be stupid to not sell because that market can't last. He sold a house for 42k that he'd bought for 35k. The house went on sale last year for 350k. In 20 years the price increased by about 1000%. Think of it this way, if that kept happening the semi detached house would cost 3.5 million in 20 years (not that it will, but just to put it into perspective).

I will never own my own house/apt. I'll always be in rented accommodation and I'll never have security.

I had a landlord selling a house I lived in in the early 90s too.
It was no 12 Leinster road. I remember it was for sale for £120k.
Wish id bought it
Oh, but I was on the dole and the only job I could get was sweeping the car park in the Swan Center for an hour every 2 Days.

As someone said before. Its all relative. to both time and circumstances.

I could buy that house nowadays for probably a smaller multiple of my income than 120K was then.

ygolometsipe

I used to live in Galway, currently am in London. I was better off in Galway,
the rent was much lower. Still its a cool city.

I was reading this earlier.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/01/07/pain-by-numbers/

"...chief executive of Ires Reit David Ehrlich showing Mr Kehoe a two-bedroom apartment next to the Facebook offices in Dublin which is renting for €2,800 a month, in a block which has 99 per cent occupancy"

"Within the space of four to five years, he, David and his fund Ires, have gone from having zero apartments to close to 3,000 of them.”

One fund "owns" 3K properties in Dublin. - there is zero chance I can compete with that even if I earned 150K a year.

The modern world sucks balls.

CalamariFritti

Its depends on so many factor and everyone finds themselves in different circumstances, so I would describe it more in terms of disposable income. I would say when everything is paid for and food is on the table and all that and you have a grand over for the month just for yourself to do whatever you want to do with it, spend it, save it, whatever, then you're doing pretty ok.

Grayson

ygolometsipe wrote: »

I used to live in Galway, currently am in London. I was better off in Galway,
the rent was much lower. Still its a cool city.

I was reading this earlier.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/01/07/pain-by-numbers/

"...chief executive of Ires Reit David Ehrlich showing Mr Kehoe a two-bedroom apartment next to the Facebook offices in Dublin which is renting for €2,800 a month, in a block which has 99 per cent occupancy"

"Within the space of four to five years, he, David and his fund Ires, have gone from having zero apartments to close to 3,000 of them.”

One fund "owns" 3K properties in Dublin. - there is zero chance I can compete with that even if I earned 150K a year.

The modern world sucks balls.

The same happened in London and other major cities. They buy up huge amounts of property. Sometimes whole blocks. NAMA was a god send for them. All those properties NAMA was straddled with were sold off in bulk. That's why we never say a massive amount of property flooding the market.

Yourself isit

ygolometsipe wrote: »

I used to live in Galway, currently am in London. I was better off in Galway,
the rent was much lower. Still its a cool city.

I was reading this earlier.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/01/07/pain-by-numbers/

"...chief executive of Ires Reit David Ehrlich showing Mr Kehoe a two-bedroom apartment next to the Facebook offices in Dublin which is renting for €2,800 a month, in a block which has 99 per cent occupancy"

"Within the space of four to five years, he, David and his fund Ires, have gone from having zero apartments to close to 3,000 of them.”

One fund "owns" 3K properties in Dublin. - there is zero chance I can compete with that even if I earned 150K a year.

The modern world sucks balls.

Those Facebook workers are probably not even keeping pace with rent increases. People should read (classical Economist) Riccardo on the iron law of rent.

suicide_circus

100 BILLION DOLARS

ygolometsipe

Grayson wrote: »

The same happened in London and other major cities. They buy up huge amounts of property. Sometimes whole blocks. NAMA was a god send for them. All those properties NAMA was straddled with were sold off in bulk. That's why we never say a massive amount of property flooding the market.

You are right, london is pretty bad, you might like this
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry
its a map of all property in the UK and who owns it.

Its a pity the entire world economy seems to run on property investment where most
people only want a house so they can get on with living.

Berserker

Technocentral wrote: »

Jesus thats scary, so how much gross would a single person in Dublin need to be on to buy a modest house?

Depends on the part of Dublin, if you were earning about €85K you could get an ex-council house.

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

A single person could live comfortably in a one or two bedroom apartment or shared accommodation... just like on the Continent or USA.

Apartments are a riskier purchase. They are harder to sell, for starters. Banks weren't willing to lend for apartment purchases during the recession, in large parts of the country. I know someone, a single person, who wanted to buy a two bed in the midlands for €90K during the recession and they were refused because it was an apartment. Person had a full time permanent job, enough money to cover the deposit and then some and was a FTB. The build quality and facilities tend to be very poor in apartment blocks too. Girl I work with paid €600K for a two bed in Grand Canal Dock during the boom and the building itself looks terrible now; baldly needs to be painted, the common garden is a mess and there is no play area for kids.