Is the desire to own your own home justified !

twowheelsonly

lawred2 wrote: »

That's not a great idea. Many families had lottery type windfalls on the back of the council handing over properties far below market rates... Is it not enough to put a roof over someone's head? But you then have to enrich them too?

Those houses should all still be state owned.

Many of these houses are now 70+years old. Maintenance costs alone, not to mind obligatory upgrades, would be ridiculous at this stage. A lot of those older houses are now privately owned and hence kept in decent condition and the fact that they're privately owned helps to create a settled sense of community in an area.

In my own area (in a suburb of Cork) Council estates were mostly built in the mid 80s', from about 1983 to 1989. These houses cost between £14,000, for the smaller bungalows to £27,000 for the bigger 4 bed and a very odd 5 bed to build. Probably 80% are 3 bed which cost just under £23,000 at the time. Most people in the area would be working so rental income would be decent enough if not astronomical. If the council can rent those for 30 years and then sell them on for €150k or so then that's not a bad bit of business.

Having said all that, I do believe that all Council houses should be retained by the council for a minimum term, be it 20, 30 years or whatever. I certainly wouldn't be in favour of selling to tenants after two or three years as I've seen happen. IMO houses should be of a certain age and tenants should also be Council tenants for a set amount of time.

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The magic of capitalism has lifted Ireland from being the poorest country in Western Europe to one of the wealthiest.

Nothing imagined about it and the housing "crisis" has little to do with capitalism

It's got loads to do with it.
It's no co-incidence that most councils stopped building by direct labour between 1990 and 1995 and 5 years later house prices started to skyrocket. If Dublin City Council (or whoever) had 10,000 houses to let out tomorrow morning private landlords would be in the proverbial sh itter. Many would be forced to put their houses on the market or drop their rents substantially. The demand for Buy To Rent properties would also drop having a knock on effect on overall sales and prices.
When the Councils were the countries biggest landlords rents all round, and hence house prices, were far more reasonable.

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Da gubbermint

If you are a local authority tenant living in a local authority house included in the scheme you can apply to buy the house.....

....You will pay the market value of the house – less a discount.

Depending on income, the discounts will vary between 40% and 60%.

Unless you're disabled... The council will refuse to sell any houses that have been adapted in any way !!!

Guy:Incognito

decky1 wrote: »

have some friends in Sweden and most people there have no desire to own their own homes and things seem to go fairly smooth for them,are we scourging ourselves to own a house we can't take it with us and there's the chance that our children will sell it and have a good time with the proceeds, also when we leave it to them the government will want their share even though we've paid for it all our lives.Once again an example of our great country.

It's not about taking it with you.

Yoi can pay rent from when you move out of home , say at 20, till the day you die. Or by the time you're in your 50s you own the house and never have to pay rent again. I know which I'd prefer.

What difference would it make to you if your kids did sell it and have a good time? You'll be dead. Do you hate your kids that much you dont want to leave them any money? (Or plan on hating your future kids)

shesty

It would not be justified if we actually had a well regulated rental market with a good selection of houses available to suit all sizes of need amd did not have a cohort of landlards who are out to make a quick buck or fund a pension off renting houses.

Under the current basket case system, then really I see no problem with it.

But then as a race we really have a serious problem with property and land.We have an obsession with it as a nation that is just....weird.Historical, sure, but until we grow out of it, not much will change.

It is most definitely justified. Everyone should aspire to own their own home, can’t understand why anyone would want to rent for life or why some appear to see it as something that should be encouraged. It’s a bad bad idea is so many ways.

handlemaster

brightspark wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

so you are in agreement then. If you have to move to a retirement home your property will pay for this.

If it is applied on an equitable basis, that would mean that those who are unfortunate to need expensive treatments for cancer etc., should also have to use their property to pay for their treatment too.


Of course that would mean the sensible thing for me to do is to just remortgage the house and spend all my money in the first few years of retirement then rely on the state to provide anything I may need later. But that wouldn't be the best for the state would it?

The state needs to reward long term financial prudence, not punish it.

Not talking about what it should or shouldn't do. This is what it is doing. If you need care in old age and you have an estate the payment is taken from that. The government in that regard encourage people to purchase property.

riclad

Council housing is only avaidable to those on a low income ,people on welfare .
if dublin city council had 5000 empty units to give out ,
this would hardly effect the rental market .
it won,t effect people who work full time .
We need about 25k more houses to be built in dublin every year to meet
demand .
i read an article last week in the sunday times , it says housing policy is flawed .
Landlords should get more tax credits .
The regulation around tenancy should be simplified .
We get a new housing minister every 2 years who each have their own
policys on housing .
There are 1000,s of empty buildings in dublin,
i presume high tax,s may be part of the reason why they are not rented out .
Most people would prefer to use their wages to pay a mortgage
rather than pay 30 per cent of their income for rent .
You cannot rent a flat in dublin and say i,ll be here in 5 years ,
rents may rise or the landlord may decide to sell up

twowheelsonly

riclad wrote: »

Council housing is only avaidable to those on a low income ,people on welfare .
if dublin city council had 5000 empty units to give out ,
this would hardly effect the rental market .
it won,t effect people who work full time .

The part I've quoted above is not true.
Plenty of people who work full time are allocated Council Housing albeit most would be in the middle to lower income bracket.

ScottCapper

ScottCapper wrote: »

Rent rent rent. Id be looking to buy my first home in 3 years and flip it straight away. Want to get into the real estate business my family is in it. Almost gaurenteed money

“Siri, show me an example of a sucker”.....

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Aryanna Few Stint wrote: »

No they don't have a "LL" nor are they at the mercy of anyone, honestly how do people imagine up this stuff.

A home owner 100% owns the house mortgage or no mortgage. It can in now way whatsoever be compared to renting.

Well, no, a house can be repossessed if the mortgage holder falls behind with payments. If the mortgage holder 100% owned the house, that wouldn’t be the case.

eviltwin

Aryanna Few Stint wrote: »

It is most definitely justified. Everyone should aspire to own their own home, can’t understand why anyone would want to rent for life or why some appear to see it as something that should be encouraged. It’s a bad bad idea is so many ways.

Completely agree. For me having my own home was about stability and having that peace of mind that I had a stable roof over my head when I was retired. It's the best investment I ever made.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, no, a house can be repossessed if the mortgage holder falls behind with payments. If the mortgage holder 100% owned the house, that wouldn’t be the case.

As I pointed out you could have your house repossessed with no mortgage on it if you use it as security against a totally non related loan. Does that mean the person doesn’t not own the house?

You own the house 100%, the fact it’s security against a mortgage does not not change that fact nor can it in anyway be compared to renting.

Eric Cartman

heebusjeebus wrote: »

That would be my primary worry of not owning your own house by the time your working life is over.

only for the HSE to claim an ever increasing chunk of it to pay for your care in those later years.

Eric Cartman

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not sure you know how a mortgage works.

30 years of renting gets you nothing.
30 years of paying mortgage typically gets you a house.

however it is very possible to rent a house in ireland for 30 years where the value of the house would mean that your rent would be the same as the 'dead' interest payments on a mortgage.

1.2 million quid house, 80% LTV
mortgage payment at 3.5% is 4490 per month

if your rent was 3000 a month you could be in there 8 years without the mortgage being better
if your rent was 2000 a month you could be in there 14 years before the mortgage was better.

Doesn't work with all properties, but there very much are cases (particularly with large rural houses) where renting is kind of like being on an interest only mortgage with no deposit and a free maintenance deal.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

only for the HSE to claim an ever increasing chunk of it to pay for your care in those later years.

Which is why good financial planning means anyone with property/cash reserves should gift it to their children in advance of needing any care thus ensuing the gov can’t touch the assets but the same care can be availed of.

The fair deal is anything but fair and I’d encourage anyone to try get their assets out of the catchment net of it.

Eric Cartman

Aryanna Few Stint wrote: »

Which is why good financial planning means anyone with property/cash reserves should gift it to their children in advance of needing any care thus ensuing the gov can’t touch the assets but the same care can be availed of.

The fair deal is anything but fair and I’d encourage anyone to try get their assets out of the catchment net of it.

best off giving everything to your kids or leaving it in a trust, buying an apartment for 150k in a not great area of dublin and letting the hse chip away at that.

I'd rather not be at the whims of a landlord when I am retired and on a pension, to be perfectly honest.

Nor would I want to be dependant on the state for accommodation, at any time.

Old diesel

Is it actually possible to have a landlord model where quality long term accomodation options at cost effective rents might be possible.

Taking on a mortgage is a gamble but the current rental set up actually makes it a gamble worth taking for your own place you want to live in. (If you can get one).

If you want people to not desire their own home then rental needs to be more attractive.

Unfortunately that's not the case

Old diesel

Old diesel wrote: »

Is it actually possible to have a landlord model where quality long term accomodation options at cost effective rents might be possible.

Taking on a mortgage is a gamble but the current rental set up actually makes it a gamble worth taking for your own place you want to live in. (If you can get one).

If you want people to not desire their own home then rental needs to be more attractive.

Unfortunately that's not the case

Not really sure how you can see taking on a mortgage as a gamble, it’s a pretty solid and safe thing to do.

Old diesel

Aryanna Few Stint wrote: »

Not really sure how you can see taking on a mortgage as a gamble, it’s a pretty solid and safe thing to do.

The gamble is what happens if things go wrong - ie a job loss or an illness.

But it is still a gamble worth taking

Old diesel

Old diesel wrote: »

The gamble is what happens if things go wrong - ie a job loss or an illness.

But it is still a gamble worth taking

You can coverall these possibilities if you are willing to pay extra every month on top of the basic mortgage protection.

salonfire

Aryanna Few Stint wrote: »

Which is why good financial planning means anyone with property/cash reserves should gift it to their children in advance of needing any care thus ensuing the gov can’t touch the assets but the same care can be availed of.

The fair deal is anything but fair and I’d encourage anyone to try get their assets out of the catchment net of it.

Who should be paying for the care then? And don't say other tax payers, there's not some unlimited pot of cash to be tapped into.

It's about time people were made to pony up more from their own resources and stop looking towards the tax payer. Even if it means downsizing

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

It's about time people were made to pony up more from their own resources and stop looking towards the tax payer. Even if it means downsizing

Hump off to the states so. The Republicans there will welcome you with open arms...

salonfire

Deleted User wrote: »

Hump off to the states so. The Republicans there will welcome you with open arms...

Where's all the extra tax going to come from then?

We saw we can't make cuts in spending nor increase tax (see the backlash against carbon taxes and water charges). So where does it come from?


Leveraging people's assets is the default option.

brightspark

salonfire wrote: »

Who should be paying for the care then? And don't say other tax payers, there's not some unlimited pot of cash to be tapped into.

It's about time people were made to pony up more from their own resources and stop looking towards the tax payer. Even if it means downsizing

The people who are expected to use their assets to pay for their care are the very people who paid tax and prsi throughout their working lives (sometimes at much higher rates of tax than are currently being levied), they were tax payers!


What is also unfair is that if you get cancer etc., your medical needs are taken care off, if you are unfortunate to remain healthy apart from developing dementia then you expected to pay 80% of your income and 7.5% of your assets each year.

Or are you suggesting that those who need treatment for cancer etc sell their houses too?

salonfire

brightspark wrote: »

The people who are expected to use their assets to pay for their care are the very people who paid tax and prsi throughout their working lives (sometimes at much higher rates of tax than are currently being levied), they were tax payers!

And they got a functioning state at that time. The tax they paid was not into a saving account for later.

brightspark wrote: »

What is also unfair is that if you get cancer etc., your medical needs are taken care off, if you are unfortunate to remain healthy apart from developing dementia then you expected to pay 80% of your income and 7.5% of your assets each year.

Or are you suggesting that those who need treatment for cancer etc sell their houses too?

Cancer treatment does not be as pro-longed or as labour intensive as dementia related illness. Someone with dementia could require one-on-one care 24 hours a day.

It's a simple math question.

What should be cut or what should be increased to pay for the aging population if assets are to be excluded?

brightspark

salonfire wrote: »

And they got a functioning state at that time. The tax they paid was not into a saving account for later.




Cancer treatment does not be as pro-longed or as labour intensive as dementia related illness. Someone with dementia could require one-on-one care 24 hours a day.

It's a simple math question.

What should be cut or what should be increased to pay for the aging population if assets are to be excluded?

Average length of stay in a nursing home (before death) used to be four years, since fair deal this is now less than two years. Not sure if you have ever been in a nursing home but the care certainly isn't one on one 24 hours per day.
Possibly due to earlier diagnosis but cancer patients are living longer with treatment, treatment that often involves teams of medical staff working together, expensive procedures, scans and drugs.
Not sure it is as simple maths as you think it is.


Cut benefits for those who don't work, even if it means introducing "workfare", housing standards should be reduced for social housing (I spent a few years living in "bed sits" until my wages increased, I also shared houses with "strangers" until I had sufficient savings to get a mortgage).

Cut costs in the public sector, make personnel responsible for their actions just like in the private sector.

Increase income taxes (or at least allow inflation to do it), the taxes paid during your working life should pay for pension/healthcare etc.

Increase inheritance taxes (that way no matter how you eventually die a proportion of your assets return to the state)

It's not fair that if you get dementia your assets are used by the state, but if you are "lucky" enough to die from other conditions then your assets are untouched.

Old diesel

brightspark wrote: »

Average length of stay in a nursing home (before death) used to be four years, since fair deal this is now less than two years. Not sure if you have ever been in a nursing home but the care certainly isn't one on one 24 hours per day.
Possibly due to earlier diagnosis but cancer patients are living longer with treatment, treatment that often involves teams of medical staff working together, expensive procedures, scans and drugs.
Not sure it is as simple maths as you think it is.


Cut benefits for those who don't work, even if it means introducing "workfare", housing standards should be reduced for social housing (I spent a few years living in "bed sits" until my wages increased, I also shared houses with "strangers" until I had sufficient savings to get a mortgage).

Cut costs in the public sector, make personnel responsible for their actions just like in the private sector.

Increase income taxes (or at least allow inflation to do it), the taxes paid during your working life should pay for pension/healthcare etc.

Increase inheritance taxes (that way no matter how you eventually die a proportion of your assets return to the state)

It's not fair that if you get dementia your assets are used by the state, but if you are "lucky" enough to die from other conditions then your assets are untouched.

I'm not sure I'd like the ambulance crew that comes out to my house at 3 am because I'm critically ill - to be on a cost cutting "be accountable for the costs of their actions regime".

Ditto the detective trying to catch gangs.

Ditto the guy doing the lung transplant.

But if we take the ambulance example - what would it cost if we had "private sector" ambulances.

I'd say if we applied the private sector norms - say plumbers and garages - to ambulances - we might quickly see whatever the HSE pays Paramedics and Advanced Paramedics as a bargain.

What will happen with private sector is that you might get the crew pay down - but the invoice cost for labour and call out could make the "highly paid" HSE ambulance crew crew look very low cost.

The risk of entrepreneurship, the risk of running the ambulance fleet - it all quickly adds up to a need for what looks like an insane invoice bill.

The reality is that stuff costs money to deliver.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

Who should be paying for the care then? And don't say other tax payers, there's not some unlimited pot of cash to be tapped into.

It's about time people were made to pony up more from their own resources and stop looking towards the tax payer. Even if it means downsizing

People who worked hard, paid mountains of tax all their life, provided for themselves and their family and then they are expected to pay again while those who have little or nothing (thus obviously did not contribute much/at all) get another free ride at the expense of those who have had had to pay out all their lives and accumulated a little pit by the end of their lives.

Feck that, a persons money and assets should all be going to their family to improve their lives not into the bottomless bit funding others.

Anyone with an ounce of cop on should be tax planning to ensure gift/inheritance taxes are avoided or minimized along with ensure the fair deal doesn’t get a cent.

Old diesel wrote: »

But if we take the ambulance example - what would it cost if we had "private sector" ambulances.
.

We do, a significant number of ambulances in use are on contract to the hse from private operators.

brightspark

Old diesel wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd like the ambulance crew that comes out to my house at 3 am because I'm critically ill - to be on a cost cutting "be accountable for the costs of their actions regime".

Ditto the detective trying to catch gangs.

Ditto the guy doing the lung transplant.

But if we take the ambulance example - what would it cost if we had "private sector" ambulances.

I'd say if we applied the private sector norms - say plumbers and garages - to ambulances - we might quickly see whatever the HSE pays Paramedics and Advanced Paramedics as a bargain.

What will happen with private sector is that you might get the crew pay down - but the invoice cost for labour and call out could make the "highly paid" HSE ambulance crew crew look very low cost.

The risk of entrepreneurship, the risk of running the ambulance fleet - it all quickly adds up to a need for what looks like an insane invoice bill.

The reality is that stuff costs money to deliver.

The losses in the public sector aren't caused by the front line staff, the losses are caused by the multiple layers of bureaucracy, lack of cost control (the children's hospital!), overpaid consultants (business ones not medical ones) who are paid by inept managers who obviously don't have the necessary skills or why else would they be hiring consultants.
The public sector has multiple unused buildings, yet they pay rent for offices, storage etc

The "guy" doing the lung transplant is already accountable, more than any of us I would think. The only issue I would have had with some is that they were treating private patients while also claiming to be working for the public health sector.

The "detective", the problem isn't with the Gardai (aside from a few scandals), it's with the legal profession who have set up a revolving door prison system for their own benefit.

handlemaster

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/rents-are-driven-up-as-shift-from-home-ownership-risks-pension-timebomb-38341150.html

Is I was saying the government want people to own their own place. It works out cheaper on public funds