The Journal- house buying propaganda

Zenify

The articles about "how I spend my money" seem to be all focused on people saving to buy a home. The latest one takes up the entire first paragraph about saving for a mortgage from the time they graduated college.

I understand The Journal has a sister business in the property world but could they be using this media to push an agenda?

The articles say : I'm smart and frugal so I can buy before 30 and "rent is dead money" etc etc. Not the normal view of people in their early 20s in my view. Obv these people exist but nearly every article has been one of these people.

Be conscious of this when you are next reading them and let me know what you think?

Ulysses Gaze

Zenify wrote: »

The articles about "how I spend my money" seem to be all focused on people saving to buy a home. The latest one takes up the entire first paragraph about saving for a mortgage from the time they graduated college.

I understand The Journal has a sister business in the property world but could they be using this media to push an agenda?

The articles say : I'm smart and frugal so I can buy before 30 and "rent is dead money" etc etc. Not the normal view of people in their early 20s in my view. Obv these people exist but nearly every article has been one of these people.

Be conscious of this when you are next reading them and let me know what you think?

Not that Gob****ery again? I would have thought people would have learned from the boom/bust cycle.

Rent is dead money as is the whopping great interest you pay on a mortgage for the first 5/6 years. You don't even touch the capital.

dotsman

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Not that Gob****ery again? I would have thought people would have learned from the boom/bust cycle.

Rent is dead money as is the whopping great interest you pay on a mortgage for the first 5/6 years. You don't even touch the capital.

Rent, for the most part, is dead money.

That never changed.

andekwarhola

It could be phrased better but it's essentially true. Even you're paying a lot of interest on the loan, you own the property when the mortgage is paid. You don't eventually own the rental property.

cruizer101

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Rent is dead money as is the whopping great interest you pay on a mortgage for the first 5/6 years. You don't even touch the capital.

Its not quite that bad these days with low interest rates. On my own at 2.6% will have payed 2.3% off by the end of the year. Sounds low but considering if you were paying purely capital over 30 years it would be only 3.3% per year its not bad. With some overpayments that can be brought up, hoping myself to pay about 3.5% of it, and thats not massive overpayments.

Back to the OP, I don't doubt much of the media has quite the interest in increasing property prices and a lot of their content reflects that.

Spleerbun

Zenify wrote: »

The articles about "how I spend my money" seem to be all focused on people saving to buy a home. The latest one takes up the entire first paragraph about saving for a mortgage from the time they graduated college.

I understand The Journal has a sister business in the property world but could they be using this media to push an agenda?

The articles say : I'm smart and frugal so I can buy before 30 and "rent is dead money" etc etc. Not the normal view of people in their early 20s in my view. Obv these people exist but nearly every article has been one of these people.

Be conscious of this when you are next reading them and let me know what you think?

I have indeed noticed that those articles are heavily geared towards promoting house ownership, but it could be more a case where it's only the people that way inclined in the first place would be bothered doing a "money diary" and sending it in to them in the first place.

GavMan

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Not that Gob****ery again? I would have thought people would have learned from the boom/bust cycle.

Rent is dead money as is the whopping great interest you pay on a mortgage for the first 5/6 years. You don't even touch the capital.

Well, someone has advanced you (typically) several hundred thousand quid in good faith. Not unreasonable that they would seek to make their profit back early.

piplip87

Yes there has been no 20 something on 25,000 who enjoys going out and getting smashed at the weekend. Nobody with kids who spends time going to the cinema, nobody with any craic at all.

Would love to see Magerat Cashes week

riffmongous

It's a sad read to see someone so obsessed about money and buying a house at such a young age. Life is for living

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Zenify wrote: »

The articles about "how I spend my money" seem to be all focused on people saving to buy a home. The latest one takes up the entire first paragraph about saving for a mortgage from the time they graduated college.

I understand The Journal has a sister business in the property world but could they be using this media to push an agenda?

The articles say : I'm smart and frugal so I can buy before 30 and "rent is dead money" etc etc. Not the normal view of people in their early 20s in my view. Obv these people exist but nearly every article has been one of these people.

Be conscious of this when you are next reading them and let me know what you think?

Care to detail how would TheJournal and or Daft benefit from this "propaganda"?

gandalf

Every media outlet has an agenda, the secret is to find out what it is and then to view their news through this lens. Given the Journal and Daft have the same owners it's not surprising that there is a focus on property sales, that's what pays the bills.

Once you realise this then you can make allowances for their bias.

meeeeh

I'm not against long therm renting but not the way it's done in Ireland. There is infinitely bigger security in owning a home in Ireland, especially once you have a family. Also I wouldn't want to rent if the only income is state pension and you have to rely on housing benefits. Until long therm renting becomes more prevalent in Ireland and the legislation changes renting is risky. That doesn't mean that you have to buy a house straight away but it is prudent to start saving for a deposit in your twenties. It might be sad but in my opinion it's better to save a bit in 20ies than live on a breadline in your seventies.

Ush1

riffmongous wrote: »

It's a sad read to see someone so obsessed about money and buying a house at such a young age. Life is for living

Maybe they enjoy it?

I didn't consciously save from when I left college and started working but I was always frugal and was able to buy a house in my 20s in Dublin.

Ush1

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Not that Gob****ery again? I would have thought people would have learned from the boom/bust cycle.

Rent is dead money as is the whopping great interest you pay on a mortgage for the first 5/6 years. You don't even touch the capital.

It's still the cheapest credit you will ever get.

LirW

piplip87 wrote: »

Yes there has been no 20 something on 25,000 who enjoys going out and getting smashed at the weekend. Nobody with kids who spends time going to the cinema, nobody with any craic at all.

Would love to see Magerat Cashes week

There was a guy on a pretty high salary on recently enough who stated he enjoys renting for the moment and also splashed LOADS of money on pints and take-away.

But maybe this is the reality for many young people, they often live at home because rent is too expensive (honestly not every person is made for the houseshare situation either mentally or due to other circumstances).
Parents work long hours to make ends meet, young people don't see how they'll ever get out of renting, it's grim enough as it is.

I find it depressing how many people work crazy long hours when you add the commute, are permanently exhausted and have really crappy and unadventurous diets. For real, a lot of them live off coffee shops, take aways and a repertoire of 3 dishes that they cook in rotation.
All of it in order to save a bit aside to go on a holiday or maybe have a rainy day fund.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

gandalf wrote: »

Every media outlet has an agenda, the secret is to find out what it is and then to view their news through this lens. Given the Journal and Daft have the same owners it's not surprising that there is a focus on property sales, that's what pays the bills.

Once you realise this then you can make allowances for their bias.

And what bias is that? What allowances must be made in order to counter their bias so that no one falls into this intricate trap that they have seemingly laid out? No organization is going to push their "propaganda" without an end goal in mind. They don't do things just for the ****s and giggles. What is the benefit they stand to receive?

Wabbit Ears

Magnolia Better Index wrote: »

And what bias is that? What allowances must be made in order to counter their bias so that no one falls into this intricate trap that they have seemingly laid out? No organization is going to push their "propaganda" without an end goal in mind. They don't do things just for the ****s and giggles. What is the benefit they stand to receive?

seriously? you cant work out the benefit they get in promoting house purchases and starting out your journey towards that end early and them owning the largest house buying website in the country?

Pro tip: the answer is literally in the question.

It's not compulsory to spend every single cent you earn in your twenties on having a good time. There is a middle ground here, if you have money to spare (on anything), you don't have to prioritize one particular thing 100% of the time.

It makes sense for long term security and happiness to look after your financial future if at all possible. Pensions are important, if you want to buy a house then savings are too. It's nice to fritter away your twenties on making memories, but it leads to a tough decade in your thirties when you have zero financial cushion and are looking to start from the bottom up.

Bit of both where it's possible. Life is for living but you're still living once you go over thirty and a bit of planning will make the rest of your life much more comfortable, assuming you can afford to squirrel away anything. If you find yourself with a decent disposable income that vanishes with nothing to show for it month after month for an entire decade, you're being foolish with your money.

BrokenArrows

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Not that Gob****ery again? I would have thought people would have learned from the boom/bust cycle.

Rent is dead money as is the whopping great interest you pay on a mortgage for the first 5/6 years. You don't even touch the capital.

There is nothing wrong with renting for your whole life but you have to make sure you know how you're going to pay the rent when you're 70+.

So a 20 year old today paying 1k a month will be paying close to 3k a month in 50 years time for the same accommodation.

In that 50 years they will have paid over 1 million in rent.

The home owner who took out a mortgage for a 300k house will have paid off 600k but then owns the house.

The economics are clear.

EDIT: Even with the huge scare word "negative equity" they are still better off repaying the mortgage over 20/30 years even if the house is worth a fraction of what they paid for it or even zero. They still have somewhere to live at the end of the day. After 50 years of paying rent you own nothing and will be kicked out on your ass as soon as you stop paying rent.

scamalert

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

seriously? you cant work out the benefit they get in promoting house purchases and starting out your journey towards that end early and them owning the largest house buying website in the country?

Pro tip: the answer is literally in the question.

issue isnt promoting buying houses that crap has been done well enough in 2008, people still buy well overpriced houses every day.


problem is that main jobs are centered towards Dublin and few other towns, leaving many trapped in position where they should buy, then theres issue with job stability can one be sure they will be working for 30yrs+ and keep up with payments.


Infrastructure is done $hite contributing to long commutes just to make ends meet, outside cities.


Many places to buy for decent price but f all work in them areas and no stability, thats real issues that people have to work around and think.

handlemaster

GavMan wrote: »

Well, someone has advanced you (typically) several hundred thousand quid in good faith. Not unreasonable that they would seek to make their profit back early.

Not if you live in strokestown

jiltloop

Ush1 wrote: »

It's still the cheapest credit you will ever get.

It's a lower rate than a shorter term loan but it's still the most expensive credit you will ever get not the cheapest.

Example, borrow €1000 @ 10% and you'll end up paying back (very) roughly €1200 over a 2-5 year term.

Borrow €300,000 @ 3% and you'll probably end up paying back around €600,000.

So the effective interest rate on the credit of the 2nd example is more like 100%. Therefore saying it's the cheapest credit you will ever get is clearly BS.

Ush1

jiltloop wrote: »

It's a lower rate than a shorter term loan but it's still the most expensive credit you will ever get not the cheapest.

Example, borrow €1000 @ 10% and you'll end up paying back (very) roughly €1200 over a 2-5 year term.

Borrow €300,000 @ 3% and you'll probably end up paying back around €600,000.

So the effective interest rate on the credit of the 2nd example is more like 100%. Therefore saying it's the cheapest credit you will ever get is clearly BS.

Cheapest credit is in terms of the APR. You can get a mortgage for 5 years or 40 years. It will also depend on your deposit. You can also overpay a mortgage during the term.

Grayson

LirW wrote: »

There was a guy on a pretty high salary on recently enough who stated he enjoys renting for the moment and also splashed LOADS of money on pints and take-away.

But maybe this is the reality for many young people, they often live at home because rent is too expensive (honestly not every person is made for the houseshare situation either mentally or due to other circumstances).
Parents work long hours to make ends meet, young people don't see how they'll ever get out of renting, it's grim enough as it is.

I find it depressing how many people work crazy long hours when you add the commute, are permanently exhausted and have really crappy and unadventurous diets. For real, a lot of them live off coffee shops, take aways and a repertoire of 3 dishes that they cook in rotation.
All of it in order to save a bit aside to go on a holiday or maybe have a rainy day fund.

Reading those articles I felt sad for the people who commute hours from outside dublin, just so they can save for a house outside dublin. They hate their commutes but there's no work near home, they can't afford to rent or buy closer.

I fully understand the desire to buy here. It's simply not tenable to rent in Ireland long term. If you want any sort of security it's the only way to go.

jiltloop

Ush1 wrote: »

Cheapest credit is in terms of the APR. You can get a mortgage for 5 years or 40 years. It will also depend on your deposit. You can also overpay a mortgage during the term.

Which isn't realistic for the vast majority of people getting mortgages so it's basically a moot point.

RFOLEY1990

of course Rent is dead money, especially when the rental laws aren't as favourable to the tenant over here,

out with nothing more than a few month's notice.

people are forced to rent because it's next to impossible for them to raise a deposit and pay rent at the same time

not everyone has the option to continue living with parents into their late 20s/30s

even if you can prove you're capable of paying a mortgage you still can't get a mortgage (not that I agree with 100% mortgages)

forcing people out of the capital where majority work to then have to be away from their kids for 12/14 hours a day

why not do have affordable accommodation for workers in the city and move the people who don't work out?

Ush1

jiltloop wrote: »

Which isn't realistic for the vast majority of people getting mortgages so it's basically a moot point.

It's apt for people to bare in mind when talking about fear of mortgages. This thread is about what's realistic for people and what's clear is many people have unrealistic expectations of the lifestyle they're entitled to.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

seriously? you cant work out the benefit they get in promoting house purchases and starting out your journey towards that end early and them owning the largest house buying website in the country?

Pro tip: the answer is literally in the question.

Holy crap, I never thought I'd see the day when flat earthers and anti-vaxxers make more sense!



That argument is the weakest argument I have come across in a long time.

The Journal can write articles about buying a house every single day till they go bankrupt and Daft will not see any statistically significant rise in revenue as you so strongly (and incorrectly) believe. Do you think Daft gets commission from house sales and rentals?!?

Pro tip: take the tinfoil hat off.

Gimme A Pound

If rent is dead money does that mean payment for any service is dead money?

Rent is currently too expensive for sure but I've never understood the dead money thing. It's a service - you've got to pay for it until you can afford an alternative.

Kayla Gigantic Pillowcase

Kayla Gigantic Pillowcase wrote: »

If rent is dead money does that mean payment for any service is dead money?

I think it's more a case that the alternative to paying rent is a mortgage that gives you ownership of an appreciating asset, and paying for other services isn't comparable since there isn't really an alternative.

If you pay an electrician or a gas fitter, it's because there's no alternative to their expertise but there is an alternative to rent if you can get a mortgage.

I know what you're saying though, a roof over your head shouldn't be considered dead money since it's a vital requirement.

NIMAN

Rent isn't dead money.

You are paying money for a service, you are getting a service.

That's like saying gym membership is dead money, or car insurance is dead money.

Toots

Spleerbun wrote: »

I have indeed noticed that those articles are heavily geared towards promoting house ownership, but it could be more a case where it's only the people that way inclined in the first place would be bothered doing a "money diary" and sending it in to them in the first place.

I'd say it's that. Also the volatile nature of the rental market probably has a lot of people trying to save for a mortgage, who might previously have been happy to continue renting.

awec

riffmongous wrote: »

It's a sad read to see someone so obsessed about money and buying a house at such a young age. Life is for living

Not really sure this means much.

The earlier you start paying a mortgage the earlier you finish paying it. People taking out mortgages in their mid-20s will be mortgage free in their mid-50s. People who wait until their mid-30s will probably be paying a mortgage right up to state retirement age.

Unfortunately this is going to be reality for a large number of the current generation. Those who don't buy at all will fare even worse, as they're going to hit retirement with only pension income and have to somehow pay rent out of it.

Gimme A Pound

Candie wrote: »

I think it's more a case that the alternative to paying rent is a mortgage that gives you ownership of an appreciating asset, and paying for other services isn't comparable since there isn't really an alternative.

If you pay an electrician or a gas fitter, it's because there's no alternative to their expertise but there is an alternative to rent if you can get a mortgage.

Fo' sho', but people trot the line out as if that alternative is just there, indicating a lack of understanding of the difficulty involved in securing a mortgage, and then securing a property. Until the person or people's purchase has gone through, rent is not dead money.

Kayla Gigantic Pillowcase

Kayla Gigantic Pillowcase wrote: »

Fo' sho', but people trot the line out as if that alternative is just there, indicating a lack of understanding of the difficulty involved in securing a mortgage, and then securing a property. Until the person or people's purchase has gone through, rent is not dead money.

Oh of course. I guess it's the life long renting strategy that people feel most like that about. It's hard to see the advantage in paying rent that would cover a mortage over decades, but a roof over one's head is never dead money and a lot of people have no alternatives.

Gimme A Pound

Candie wrote: »

Oh of course. I guess it's the life long renting strategy that people feel most like that about. It's hard to see the advantage in paying rent that would cover a mortage over decades

Absolutely - I don't view renting permanently as desirable if it can be avoided. And I'm glad I was lucky enough to secure a mortgage.

I would genuinely hate being in rented accommodation in my later years. The insecurity would drive me mad.

BrokenArrows

Candie wrote: »

I would genuinely hate being in rented accommodation in my later years. The insecurity would drive me mad.

Ya it would be a disaster.

Being told at 85 that your landlord wants to sell and then having to move. Disaster.

cruizer101

NIMAN wrote: »

Rent isn't dead money.

You are paying money for a service, you are getting a service.

That's like saying gym membership is dead money, or car insurance is dead money.

A lot of people would say gym membership is in some ways dead money in that the money spent on membership would cover the cost of equipment. There is more to it than that obviously (available space, classes for motivation, etc)
On Car insurance there is no alternative (technically you can self insure if you have a large enough reserve but its unrealistic for 99% of people).

I do kind of agree with you that its not as "dead money" as many make it out to be. But I still think (especially in todays rental climate) if you can buy you are far better off. The security of having your own house when you retire is worth a lot.
It is partially down to the Irish attitude to renting and so the legislation around it but that is not likely to change anytime soon.

BrokenArrows

Of course gym is dead money.

The concept of "dead money" is that once you paid for it use the service there is no further returns.

Its used in the house market so indicate that once you have paid for the house you continue to get returns without further investment.
Returns being "a place to live".

Ray Palmer

Candie wrote: »

Kayla Gigantic Pillowcase wrote: »

If rent is dead money does that mean payment for any service is dead money?

I think it's more a case that the alternative to paying rent is a mortgage that gives you ownership of an appreciating asset, and paying for other services isn't comparable since there isn't really an alternative.

If you pay an electrician or a gas fitter, it's because there's no alternative to their expertise but there is an alternative to rent if you can get a mortgage.

I know what you're saying though, a roof over your head shouldn't be considered dead money since it's a vital requirement.

Except the reality is people can't afford to buy the property they are renting ever. If they buy they have to buy a property a lot cheaper than they are renting. People buy more space than they rent for their future too.
You are paying for a service you can't afford to buy. When you buy your decision is based on a lot more factors than renting. They aren't simply comparable due to these reasons.

dotsman

Kayla Gigantic Pillowcase wrote: »

If rent is dead money does that mean payment for any service is dead money?

Rent is currently too expensive for sure but I've never understood the dead money thing. It's a service - you've got to pay for it until you can afford an alternative.

NIMAN wrote: »

Rent isn't dead money.

You are paying money for a service, you are getting a service.

That's like saying gym membership is dead money, or car insurance is dead money.

Gym membership and car insurance are not good examples. Unless your gym offered you guaranteed life membership that cost the equivalent of 12-15 annual fees that can be subsequently sold on to anyone at a later date, likely at a higher price than what you paid.

To really compare renting/buying property, you need to look at the next closest thing - a car. Do you rent your car?

If you need a car for a few weeks/months (say, you are on holidays, or temporarily relocated though work etc), you rent it. If you need it longer term, you buy it.

Its the same with property. If you only intend on living in a particular city for a few months/years, then, yes rent. It is simply not worth the hassle, cost and risk of buying a property just to try and sell it on a year or two later. But if you are likely to live in that city for 5+ years, then you are far, far better off buying (on average - obviously some exceptions!). And every monthly rent payment you make is simply being wasted (i.e dead money).

Another way to look at it is to simply see your monthly rent as a hugely expensive fee for having the flexibility of easily relocating (but also accepting the risk of being forced to move on).

Another way to look at it is like this. There are 2 options:

1. If you are going to rent for the rest of your life, you are going to pay several multiples of what you would pay for a mortgage, the most expensive of these payments being when you are retired, with a huge amount of risk of being kicked out/made homeless, and nothing to show for it when you die.
2. If the above is not desirable (would be crazy to choose that option), then you are going to likely rent for a number of years, pay a mortgage for a number of years, and then live rent/mortgage free for the remaining years. You are also left with a huge asset that can be sold to help pay for nursing home (or before-you-die-bucket-list-adventure:D) etc or passed on to children.

Obviously, option 2 is the obvious best choice. So, next, you look at the figures. Say you live for 60 years after you move out of your parents place. Imagine a timeline of those 60 years (from left to right). One example would be to rent for 10 years, pay a mortgage for 30 years and then enjoy free living for the remaining 20 years. However, if you rent for 20 years, then pay mortgage for 30 years, you only get 10 years of free living. If you do the opposite and go straight in to a mortgage for 30 years, you get 30 years of free living! Basically, every monthly rent payment to the left of starting that mortgage is a waste (financially).

The only reason the average young person doesn't go straight in to a mortgage is:

1. they are likely to move around in the first few years as they establish their careers
2. they cannot afford to take on a mortgage (deposit and salary) on day 1 of leaving home.

But the sooner they can get past those two points and buy a home, the huge amount of money they will save over their lives. The difference between buying in your late 20's compared to your late 30's could easily cost you hundreds of thousands of euro over the course of your life.

of course it is propaganda. Does anyone remember the glossy property supplements to the Sunday papers back during the Great Delusion?

The Sunday Times, Independent etc were probably handed a blank cheque by the estate agents so they could print what they wanted.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Deleted User wrote: »

of course it is propaganda. Does anyone remember the glossy property supplements to the Sunday papers back during the Great Delusion?

The Sunday Times, Independent etc were probably handed a blank cheque by the estate agents so they could print what they wanted.

Yes because estate agents don't sell any properties in a downturn. :pac:

Cookie_Monster

Zenify wrote: »

Be conscious of this when you are next reading them and let me know what you think?

lol

kippy

Property transactions are good for many areas of the economy so there are so many vested interests out there putting their own spin on things however I am not sure about this particular conspiracy theory. Daft make money out of ads for sales as well as rentals. Doesn't really matter to them whether people are selling or renting, they make money on adds for both services.

The reality is, in most circumstances buying is a better option than renting. Buying however is a difficult thing to do.

kippy

Kelsey Mango Leakage wrote: »

Yes because estate agents don't sell any properties in a downturn. :pac:

Tbf, estate agents went bust left right and centre during the downturn and property sales plummeted meaning there were far less advertorials and advertisements in media etc.

Gimme A Pound

dotsman wrote: »

Gym membership and car insurance are not good examples. Unless your gym offered you guaranteed life membership that cost the equivalent of 12-15 annual fees that can be subsequently sold on to anyone at a later date, likely at a higher price than what you paid.

To really compare renting/buying property, you need to look at the next closest thing - a car. Do you rent your car?

If you need a car for a few weeks/months (say, you are on holidays, or temporarily relocated though work etc), you rent it. If you need it longer term, you buy it.

Its the same with property. If you only intend on living in a particular city for a few months/years, then, yes rent. It is simply not worth the hassle, cost and risk of buying a property just to try and sell it on a year or two later. But if you are likely to live in that city for 5+ years, then you are far, far better off buying (on average - obviously some exceptions!). And every monthly rent payment you make is simply being wasted (i.e dead money).

Another way to look at it is to simply see your monthly rent as a hugely expensive fee for having the flexibility of easily relocating (but also accepting the risk of being forced to move on).

Another way to look at it is like this. There are 2 options:

1. If you are going to rent for the rest of your life, you are going to pay several multiples of what you would pay for a mortgage, the most expensive of these payments being when you are retired, with a huge amount of risk of being kicked out/made homeless, and nothing to show for it when you die.
2. If the above is not desirable (would be crazy to choose that option), then you are going to likely rent for a number of years, pay a mortgage for a number of years, and then live rent/mortgage free for the remaining years. You are also left with a huge asset that can be sold to help pay for nursing home (or before-you-die-bucket-list-adventure:D) etc or passed on to children.

Obviously, option 2 is the obvious best choice. So, next, you look at the figures. Say you live for 60 years after you move out of your parents place. Imagine a timeline of those 60 years (from left to right). One example would be to rent for 10 years, pay a mortgage for 30 years and then enjoy free living for the remaining 20 years. However, if you rent for 20 years, then pay mortgage for 30 years, you only get 10 years of free living. If you do the opposite and go straight in to a mortgage for 30 years, you get 30 years of free living! Basically, every monthly rent payment to the left of starting that mortgage is a waste (financially).

The only reason the average young person doesn't go straight in to a mortgage is:

1. they are likely to move around in the first few years as they establish their careers
2. they cannot afford to take on a mortgage (deposit and salary) on day 1 of leaving home.

But the sooner they can get past those two points and buy a home, the huge amount of money they will save over their lives. The difference between buying in your late 20's compared to your late 30's could easily cost you hundreds of thousands of euro over the course of your life.

I don't think anyone is disputing the above though. I think most people's ambition in this country is to buy a place of their own. I'd say those in their 30s/early 40s here who are a-ok with renting still, are extremely few and far between.

But the point is, now, more than ever, securing a mortgage is pretty difficult. Impossible for some. And that's before the lottery they face when they go property-hunting. In that sense, until they get the paperwork confirming that the property is theirs, renting is essential - they have no other option but renting (apart from moving into their folks' place but that's not always an option - or a desire). When it's an essential, it's definitely not dead money.

The only scenario where I'd view rent as dead money is if the person has the resources to secure a mortgage but doesn't bother. However that's an unlikely situation.

Chorcai

The problem is every Mick n Mary are a ****ing landlord, who provide ZERO services and rely on "redecorating" to get the current tenants out to get new one in only to up the rent for the same sad **** hole of a place. Irish landlords are the worst.

handlemaster

Chorcai wrote: »

The problem is every Mick n Mary are a ****ing landlord, who provide ZERO services and rely on "redecorating" to get the current tenants out to get new one in only to up the rent for the same sad **** hole of a place. Irish landlords are the worst.

So housing isnt a service ? What is it then ?

whisky_galore

Chorcai wrote: »

The problem is every Mick n Mary are a ****ing landlord, who provide ZERO services and rely on "redecorating" to get the current tenants out to get new one in only to up the rent for the same sad **** hole of a place. Irish landlords are the worst.

The whole set up is geared towards temporary, not long term or lifetime accommodation. Like students or the cast of Friends you can rent for a while and then you're expected to 'grow up' and buy a house.