Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are we really back to this sh*t again?

Options
1…78101213…16

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Cina
    Registered Users Posts: 2,387 ✭✭✭Cina


    It's crazy, but my rent in Dublin is now €900 a month, which is much crazier. When you can't control the rental market, how can you control the purchasing market? When rent is costing as much as a mortgage would, people will resort to doing everything they can to purchase again.

    It's a disgrace that the government let the rental market get to this level in Dublin in the last five to six years.


  • Options
    #273
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    and who knows, they could all be fire traps too!! but hey, sold as seen and all that.


  • Options
    #274
    Bambi985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭Bambi985


    Cina wrote: »
    It's crazy, but my rent in Dublin is now €900 a month, which is much crazier. When you can't control the rental market, how can you control the purchasing market? When rent is costing as much as a mortgage would, people will resort to doing everything they can to purchase again.

    It's a disgrace that the government let the rental market get to this level in Dublin in the last five to six years.

    i pay £800 (€941 according to latest rates) for a room in a very ordinary house in London and that's considered cheap by some standards.


  • Options
    #275
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    Cina wrote: »
    It's crazy, but my rent in Dublin is now €900 a month, which is much crazier. When you can't control the rental market, how can you control the purchasing market? When rent is costing as much as a mortgage would, people will resort to doing everything they can to purchase again.

    It's a disgrace that the government let the rental market get to this level in Dublin in the last five to six years.
    Surely there are cheaper rents available in Dublin? You do have a choice if you wanted to save or spend your income on other pursuits. The dysfunctional rental market in Dublin isn't going anywhere soon.


  • Options
    #276
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,985 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    CaptainR wrote: »
    There's more than just living in the city or living "out in the bog." Our house is a detached cottage with a big garden and all that but I can walk to a medium sized town in 15 mins or two minutes in the car.

    It doesn't have those columns or any of that, it was built in the 50's. I agree though that some of the houses around the country are gaudy to say the least.

    In the 80s it was Bungalow Blitz and more recently the McMansion...a sort of an Anglo-Irish 'great house' in concrete and pvc, but with zero class.

    Why the fcuk can't we build 'nice houses' or make use of existing buildings? We're either unable, unwilling or lack the imagination to renovate older houses or convert industrial buildings to residential use.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    kieran.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭kieran.


    Glenster wrote: »
    4500 pm net salary.

    1500-1700 mortgage.

    I guess the poor lambs would have to live on 2800pm.

    2 Kids Creche approx €1500-1800 per month not so rosie then ? € Approx 1000 / month for food bills & Life


  • Options
    #278
    Glenster
    Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    kieran. wrote: »
    2 Kids Creche approx €1500-1800 per month not so rosie then ? € Approx 1000 / month for food bills & Life

    DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD.


  • Options
    #279
    Bambi985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭Bambi985


    Glenster wrote: »
    DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD.

    Never gonna happen though. People do it all day every day, if the only other option is to remain childless and forego having a family for the sake of finances.


  • Options
    #280
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Glenster wrote: »
    DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD.

    So the middle classes can't have kids now?


  • Options
    #281
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    So the middle classes can't have kids now?
    If you can't afford kids, you're no longer middle class I'm afraid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Glenster
    Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Cina wrote: »
    It's crazy, but my rent in Dublin is now €900 a month, which is much crazier. When you can't control the rental market, how can you control the purchasing market? When rent is costing as much as a mortgage would, people will resort to doing everything they can to purchase again.

    It's a disgrace that the government let the rental market get to this level in Dublin in the last five to six years.

    If you're sharing and don't want to pay that, pay less. There's nowhere in Ireland that you couldn't find a room for €650.

    If your renting, stop moaning there's nothing unreasonable about 900 a month.

    If your issue is that you cant afford to live somewhere that you think you deserve to live in then you need to adjust your expectations to your circumstances.

    I live in the nicest place I can afford to live in, if its not good enough for me then the problem isn't with the government or society or the market, its with either my expectations or the amount of money I make.


  • Options
    #283
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Arcade_Tryer wrote: »
    If you can't afford kids, you're no longer middle class I'm afraid.

    Then we don't have much of a middle class left. Apparently. Maybe we should, you know, lower costs. Like housing.


  • Options
    #284
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Glenster wrote: »
    If you're sharing and don't want to pay that, pay less. There's nowhere in Ireland that you couldn't find a room for €650.

    If your renting, stop moaning there's nothing unreasonable about 900 a month.

    If your issue is that you cant afford to live somewhere that you think you deserve to live in then you need to adjust your expectations to your circumstances.

    I live in the nicest place I can afford to live in, if its not good enough for me then the problem isn't with the government or society or the market, its with either my expectations or the amount of money I make.

    Or the government is responsible for over heating the market, not facilitating building and using nama to soak up excess properties during the bust.

    But let's blame you.


  • Options
    #285
    PMBC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭PMBC


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Plenty of other nations have kids, pets, real lives, but don't share the Irish and British obsession with owning property.

    If it was organised properly, we could create a proper rental system like many European countries have, where you have the security that you won't be turfed out to get in someone paying more rent.

    We used to have a Swedish visitor come here, and he was renting the same place for 20+ years. He never had any inclination to buy a house. He didn't need to.

    Is there anyone 'on' here or 'out there' who can tell us how the system works in, say, Sweden and Germany? And how Ireland can get to that position? If there is a better model Ireland should be pursuing that!


  • Options
    #286
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    PMBC wrote: »
    Is there anyone 'on' here or 'out there' who can tell us how the system works in, say, Sweden and Germany? And how Ireland can get to that position? If there is a better model Ireland should be pursuing that!

    It's just not true. Total myth that we have high ownership rates comparatively.


  • Options
    #287
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    "What are you willing to pay?" I said 'Y' he said right well then 'Y' is the market value because you're prepared to pay it.

    He was right.
    PMBC wrote: »
    Is there anyone 'on' here or 'out there' who can tell us how the system works in, say, Sweden and Germany? And how Ireland can get to that position? If there is a better model Ireland should be pursuing that!

    It makes no difference whether people rent long term or buy. Somebody has to own the house - if there are not enough houses, prices go up, if there are too many prices go down. Whoever actually owns that house doesn't make any real difference.


  • Options
    #288
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    He was right.

    Its that form of valuation (value!= price) that led to the boom ideology. The banks were valuing houses at whatever price they fetched.


  • Options
    #289
    youcancallmeal
    Registered Users Posts: 8,002 ✭✭✭youcancallmeal


    PMBC wrote: »
    Is there anyone 'on' here or 'out there' who can tell us how the system works in, say, Sweden and Germany? And how Ireland can get to that position? If there is a better model Ireland should be pursuing that!

    The problem is that here in Ireland most landlords are 'one off' or maybe 2-3 properties whereas in central Europe and Scandinavia landlords are proper companies that would rent large numbers of properties. The way Ireland is going the government seems to be trying to move us to this model by making it increasingly difficult for the average joe soap to buy and maintain more than one property. It is perceived that there is a lot more security renting from a company whose sole business is to rent and maintain multiple properties.


  • Options
    #290
    Theboinkmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,983 ✭✭✭Theboinkmaster


    CaptainR wrote: »
    How can people pay 650,000 for a house? If you were to pay back 500 a week that's 26 years, and that's before you include interest.

    How much do these people earn?!

    A lot more than you obviously.


  • Options
    #291
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Its that form of valuation (value!= price) that led to the boom ideology. The banks were valuing houses at whatever price they fetched.

    Why would you value it at anything else?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Why would you value it at anything else?

    That's boom time talk. I mean if price is value why the fcuk does that job even exist?

    As I said value isn't price.

    See here.
    .
    https://www.thebalance.com/the-difference-between-a-stock-s-value-and-price-3140860

    The valuers job is to ensure that the bank is protected and the buyer is not spending crazy money. So if a bidding war pushed a house to 100k more than the neighbouring house the valuer should say no. Or if the house is in disrepair. Lots of reasons.


  • Options
    #293
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    It's not boom time or bust time talk.

    The house doesn't have any sort of intrinsic value - it's worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it at any given time. Tomorrow that may be higher or lower than it is today.
    If a bidding war means the owner can get 100k more than the house next door - then it's now worth a 100 grand more than the house next door, that's plainly obvious.


  • Options
    #294
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,305 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Glenster wrote: »
    DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD.

    that's the spirit... sure who needs pensions anyway


  • Options
    #295
    Galway_Old_Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 249 ✭✭Galway_Old_Man


    I really wish I'd picked up a few of the bargains going back in 2010/2011. Foolish me, I thought the Gov would use NAMA, and some sort of national building fund (a stimulus package of sorts), to provide a decent national housing supply.

    I don't know what I was smoking.


  • Options
    #296
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,363 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    It's not boom time or bust time talk.

    The house doesn't have any sort of intrinsic value - it's worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it at any given time. Tomorrow that may be higher or lower than it is today.
    If a bidding war means the owner can get 100k more than the house next door - then it's now worth a 100 grand more than the house next door, that's plainly obvious.

    You can apply that logic to anything. It's circular reasoning.


  • Options
    #297
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Galway_Old_Man wrote: »
    I really wish I'd picked up a few of the bargains going back in 2010/2011. Foolish me, I thought the Gov would use NAMA, and some sort of national building fund (a stimulus package of sorts), to provide a decent national housing supply.

    I don't know what I was smoking.

    The government being the canny old investors that the are, own 99% of a bank which they would like to sell but no one wants to buy. No amount of valuers pixie dust it appears makes much difference!

    House prices going up has the effect of making that bank a more attractive proposition. People are borrowing more, and therefore paying back more and the toxic ones that aren't paying are getting more and more feasible, profitable even to reposses.

    As to what you were smoking - sounds like meth to me:D


  • Options
    #298
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    It's not boom time or bust time talk.

    The house doesn't have any sort of intrinsic value - it's worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it at any given time. Tomorrow that may be higher or lower than it is today.
    If a bidding war means the owner can get 100k more than the house next door - then it's now worth a 100 grand more than the house next door, that's plainly obvious.

    That's total rubbish. It really is. I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain value vs price to you but if the valuer is going to agree that the banks should give a mortgage for any property then he has no reason to have a job in the first place


  • Options
    #299
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    xckjoo wrote: »
    You can apply that logic to anything. It's circular reasoning.

    It's not circular reasoning at all. The only true measure of a things value is what it sells for - everything else is just opinion. Some opinions are more realistic than others, some are bat shít crazy - but there's no arguing with a sale price.

    I remember looking for a house a few years back and coming across 2 houses 3 or 4 doors apart with one asking for double what the other was. Somebodies valuation was wildly wrong, I don't know whose, but I can guarantee you the sale price could settle that argument without any need for interpretation.


  • Options
    #300
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    It's not circular reasoning at all. The only true measure of a things value is what it sells for - everything else is just opinion. Some opinions are more realistic than others, some are bat shít crazy - but there's no arguing with a sale price.

    Your logic is circular because you assume value is price and therefore are is effect arguing that price is price.

    But value isn't price. Thats why there are analysts who will call a stock over valued or under valued rather than say "that's the price". There are entire industries working this out.
    I remember looking for a house a few years back and coming across 2 houses 3 or 4 doors apart with one asking for double what the other was. Somebodies valuation was wildly wrong, I don't know whose, but I can guarantee you the sale price could settle that argument without any need for interpretation.

    Probably priced not to sell or a residual of the boom. But the valuer should not accept that price - he's supposed to protect the bank (and buyer) from that kind of thing. Otherwise the house is in negative equity immediately.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    That's total rubbish. It really is. I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain value vs price to you but if the valuer is going to agree that the banks should give a mortgage for any property then he has no reason to have a job in the first place

    So why is it house prices go up and down, if they have some sort of intrinsic value?
    What decides this value?

    When the valuer says "this house is worth X amount" what he means is "the average house buyer would be both willing & able to pay X amount"
    It has nothing to do with actual physical "value"


Advertisement